- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Global cooling - let's put this dog to sleep
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:14 pm to eng08
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:14 pm to eng08
quote:
You know if they wrote grant studies to research warming it got funded? Not so much for cooling.
That's just an insanely ignorant comment. Back it up with a nice set of facts. Show us all where research was systematically denied because someone wrote 'cooling' instead of 'warming' on their grant request.
0
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:22 pm to dante
quote:
We have documented climate change over 1000's of years of data and all of it was due to naturally occurring events not related to man.......yet, man is now responsible for the events occurring today? I don't think so.
The changes measured since the Industrial Revolution do not follow historical variations. The natural fluctuations in our climate do not explain what we are experiencing now. You need to drop the word 'so' from your last sentence.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
I'm no scientist, but aren't hypotheses being compared w/ empirical data a part of "science"? If all of these scientists know what's going on, then why are they so spectacularly wrong....all on one side of the fence?
Furthermore, they look to be getting worse at their "science" as the political rhetoric increases.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:25 pm to stuntman
quote:
I'm no scientist, but aren't hypotheses being compared w/ empirical data a part of "science"?
Only data since the year 2000 apparently.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
Climate change is real. We had an ice age and came out of it.
No humans contributed to the warming. What happened?
No humans contributed to the warming. What happened?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
Shouldn't they be MORE accurate since 2000? IOW, you believe science has gotten better since then, right?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:27 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Because the number and quality of weather stations have been changed. The exact time of day and other conditions are captured automatically now and databased. We have no idea if the weather station covering Los Angeles in 1875 was taking readings from a thermometer in direct sunlight, or near an man made heatsource, and the list goes on - if we're lucky, we might get a notation of the time, perhaps cloud cover and that's it.
??? How does that do anything to explain how putting a number in a computer makes it better?
quote:
The locations have changed and, to keep it in L.A., it does make a difference as to whether (pardon the pun) you take the temperature reading in Santa Monica, Pasadena or Palo Verdes.
There is more than one temperature reading taken in that area. Come on man.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:28 pm to SpidermanTUba
Shouldn't they be getting better and not worse? And, are you asserting that's an insignificant timeframe? Why, if so?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:28 pm to gatorrocks
quote:
Climate change is real. We had an ice age and came out of it.
No humans contributed to the warming. What happened?
LINK /
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:30 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Shouldn't they be getting better and not worse?
Monotonically? No.
quote:
And, are you asserting that's an insignificant timeframe? Why, if so?
No. I'm asserting it isn't the only time frame.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
Cool. So it might have been natural CO2? But they have no clue where it came from?
So these natural CO2 levels were so prevalent, they thawed the earth. Without humans....
Hmmmm.....
So these natural CO2 levels were so prevalent, they thawed the earth. Without humans....
Hmmmm.....
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:37 pm to gatorrocks
quote:
Cool. So it might have been natural CO2? But they have no clue where it came from?
So these natural CO2 levels were so prevalent, they thawed the earth. Without humans....
Hmmmm.....
Yes. But you don't have to worry about man made CO2. The Earth knows the difference. It will only warm in response to naturally produced CO2.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:37 pm to SpidermanTUba
Survey of 68 scientific studies. 
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:38 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Survey of 68 scientific studies.
How many did you survey?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
Spidey, thanks for taking the time to answer my first question. Now, can you address these issues:
TIA.
quote:
If all of these scientists know what's going on, then why are they so spectacularly wrong....all on one side of the fence?
quote:
Furthermore, they look to be getting worse at their "science" as the political rhetoric increases.
TIA.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:41 pm to SpidermanTUba
How do we know the CO2 levels are any different than the end of the last ice age?
I mean how do we REALLY know?
I mean how do we REALLY know?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:42 pm to stuntman
quote:
Spidey, thanks for taking the time to answer my first question. Now, can you address these issues:
quote:
If all of these scientists know what's going on, then why are they so spectacularly wrong....all on one side of the fence?
quote:
Furthermore, they look to be getting worse at their "science" as the political rhetoric increases.
TIA.
I'm waiting for the issues.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:44 pm to gatorrocks
quote:
How do we know the CO2 levels are any different than the end of the last ice age?
Tiny gas bubbles trapped in ice.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:45 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Tiny gas bubbles trapped in ice.
Yeah, nothing can happen to 20,000 year old air bubbles right? I mean, even if they are that old.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:46 pm to SpidermanTUba
Global warming "scientists" being WAY off in their "science" isn't an issue?
The "science" getting WORSE as time goes on isn't an issue?
So, if these scientists know exactly what they are talking about, how can their hypotheses be so incredibly wrong...all on the side of alarmism?
Please don't try to deflect again.
The "science" getting WORSE as time goes on isn't an issue?
So, if these scientists know exactly what they are talking about, how can their hypotheses be so incredibly wrong...all on the side of alarmism?
Please don't try to deflect again.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News