Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

+5
Wordslinger
no stress
2seaoat
boards of FL
Markle
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Guest


Guest

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsOOQfTfd5FI2t-B--stOogKQADvfnLZkbojtXYQGiqaO7Udymvw

I don't need Fox news to tell me when poor scientific procedure is being utilized to support a hypothesis.

So when can I have that couple trillion dollar grant to support mine?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnNAGLAc_w

 Smile 

Guest


Guest

Sooo... now I've list recent findings about the ocean carbon sink, volcano emissions, desert carbon sink, and solar cycles. Previously I've linked discrepancies in ocean currents, wind patterns, atmospheric particulate dynamics, data collection variations based on upkeep and urban build up around them, the effects of pavement, deforestation, high rise steel structures and city heat storage... and several others I'm sure.

Try to imagine a reliable model based on this many variables, unknowns, and constantly new and evolving findings.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Forget all that commie propaganda.  Everything you ever wanna know about global warming is on this page...

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+global+warming+a+hoax+rush+limbaugh&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStpIqO051uluhbn9TjztE9FjV_Qm6Zx5SL-Acd3B_8rHwNVwEZMQ

Come on! It's only a couple trillion dollars. The national debt will still be under $20 trillion after it's approved...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It's only money... and we can print more.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKNiR1KcG14

 Very Happy 

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Now here is a man who's not afraid to tell it it like it is.  Glenn Beck will fire anybody in his company who buys fluorescent light bulbs or does anything because of global warming.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2013/08/27/glenn-beck-vows-to-fire-employees-for-buying-fluorescent-bulbs-recyclables/

“If you’re doing anything in this company because of global warming, you’re fired…Global warming is a pile of crap…a load of socialist, communist crap.”

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Sooo... now I've list recent findings about the ocean carbon sink, volcano emissions, desert carbon sink, and solar cycles. Previously I've linked discrepancies in ocean currents, wind patterns, atmospheric particulate dynamics, data collection variations based on upkeep and urban build up around them, the effects of pavement, deforestation, high rise steel structures and city heat storage... and several others I'm sure.

Try to imagine a reliable model based on this many variables, unknowns, and constantly new and evolving findings.

You've done a good job of presenting accurate data trying to 'teach' these people about how the climate is controlled. I doubt they understand much of it. They prefer to let someone else think for them, the agenda has worked on them.

Kudo's to your patience level.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

crow wrote: They prefer to let someone else think for them  

Actually that's the thing I don't wanna do.  But to do any of my own thinking,  it's mandatory that I have to have real information to go by.  
Politicized Science is not the same thing as Political Science.  Politicized Science is no science of any kind.  It's just propaganda and spin and political bias and crappy media and a means to manipulate weak minds. And both sides are guilty of it.
And in the absence of real information,  I have to remain agnostic.  It wouldn't even make sense for me to take sides.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

But none of that means squat. I wasn't being sarcastic in the earlier post when I said that even if this thing is real and manmade, there is no will to stop it. So why worry about it. Either it's bullshit and we'll all live happily ever after. OR it's real and we aint gonna prevent it from happening.
Even if you believe it's real, you're all too soft to make the sacrifices in your lifestyle and so am I.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
crow wrote: They prefer to let someone else think for them  

Actually that's the thing I don't wanna do.  But to do any of my own thinking,  it's mandatory that I have to have real information to go by.  
Politicized Science is not the same thing as Political Science.  Politicized Science is no science of any kind.  It's just propaganda and spin and political bias and crappy media and a means to manipulate weak minds.  And both sides are guilty of it.
And in the absence of real information,  I have to remain agnostic.  It wouldn't even make sense for me to take sides.

well then, the easiest thing to do is to start by studying ice ages.

http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

The above link is not political in any way. pay special attention to the "today" line on those graphs, and ask yourself a question. Where did man come in at, then find that answer. When you do, I bet you will have a few more questions. This one publication gives a lot of information in a very short presentation.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Thanks for that link.  I'll study on it after dinner and would like to discuss it with you.  I'm smelling a rat with what that graph is supposed to be showing us.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Thanks for that link.  I'll study on it after dinner and would like to discuss it with you.  I'm smelling a rat with what that graph is supposed to be showing us.

ok, but I cant stay up all night. Maybe pkr will join in too.

Im looking at the graphs trying to find the rat.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:But none of that means squat.  I wasn't being sarcastic in the earlier post when I said that even if this thing is real and manmade,  there is no will to stop it.  So why worry about it.  Either it's bullshit and we'll all live happily ever after.  OR it's real and we aint gonna prevent it from happening.
Even if you believe it's real,  you're all too soft to make the sacrifices in your lifestyle and so am I.

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTTjAG7Jpgyl1zAP4kB-K1X1bz4slU3o7_B7FxxGpwhstCw9fa

You're first comment was it sarcastic by saying Rush and Palin were real scientists.

As for your second comment I wanted to see how made mentally challenged liberals (you called them retards) would give me the money I wanted to study man made global warming of 10,000 years ago that ended the last ice age.

I'll go for the cash too if we're going to politicize science.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

 Smile

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Thanks for that link.  I'll study on it after dinner and would like to discuss it with you.  I'm smelling a rat with what that graph is supposed to be showing us.

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTU21iE0nBbf9xfomxtGT3A2s0_BjjGOdIC9NzwrODikMFrfe9O5Q

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIz4v8VwNKHXsyyD8kxb9NcO8qMP51WLOv1_FRGl7KHvBG-c4m

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyLOEwtHiKcfJrwSJUrwo2z6QfTW9U3y9cJLptFwEgW8n_hZmJUg

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSex5HN8Jo7v09GA3JOeBPR7uFcV4UFKAsLSYNiP-51rQkg7l0tWg

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3MhO-0jHcSBK_rB4HXCLPJqw_iGPZVa6s_q8vdyDdVA2aA2Nwcg

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5DZz757q1RE3JkVZp3Nmu1byFP_IwM3IHGgvaiUSYF_IN6y2A-Q

The graphs are self explanatory. You'll note that in first two that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere didn't matter if the earth was in a ice age or not.

Take special note of the last two graphs though. Right now we're in a increased period of sunspot activity because the sun rings like a bell. Which means we're receiving a lot of solar output.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rdF7o08KXw

 Very Happy

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Damaged Eagle wrote:

You're first comment was it sarcastic by saying Rush and Palin were real scientists.


Limbaugh and Palin and their counterparts on the other side are the reasons I'm agnostic.
Rush Limbaugh especially.  Because I already know what crackpot ideas he spews.  That was obvious with his spin on dumping 205 million gallons of oil in the Gulf.  That it was no different from nature's oil seepage on the ocean floor.
And the fundamental principle he applies to all destruction of the natural environment.  That it's impossible because man is too small to hurt the Earth.  That's fucking hogwash.

But then again there's that first ice age graph on the Utah Geological Survey page.  The time scale is so compressed that it could be used to make any argument.  You cannot compress that much time into so little a timeline and expect that to be meaningful when applying it to something like this.  



Last edited by Bob on 4/8/2014, 12:58 am; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This is a timeline that's hard to argue with.

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009

So we can start with that. And it does seem pretty apparent that there is a definite correlation between the amount of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere and rising temperature. And it does seem to have begun when we first started burning fossil fuels and it's increased over time.


Guest


Guest

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFiq1VXqSF-fZtgFDw9LouqBh5hLL02fk2l78ydrH5ykwREQ0w

Sorry Bob but I'm with Pkr on this.

The last two graphs I provided show increased solar activity at this time and that could well account for the increased temps in your graph. That and the grand consensus that Seaoat talks doesn't take solar activity into account as I understand it. Probably why so many of the dissenting scientists are in the fields of physics. Not taking all data into account is bad science and will continue to remain that... bad science.

There's no such thing as a planetologist and there's to many variables to be taken into account for there to be one anytime soon.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

 Smile 

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This would be the reply to the sunspot theory. And remember when you're reading it that I'm just the agnostic messenger who always wants to listen to both sides so don't kill the messenger.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

And here's the counter to the chart I posted.  The entire thing changes by less than six-tenths of one degree.  And a change of less than six-tenths of one degree doesn't convince me.

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Globa-mean-temp

So we're back to square one.

Guest


Guest

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTltYY4tEftSGSSVYoRHG7JbK_3I0gXmpnfNNa_qjAfmwhaRNf4

What did I say about the 'climate experts' not taking solar activity into account in their data?

Just like Pkr pointing out all the other factors that affect the end results of the global warming theory.

Now if you want to believe that an increase or decrease in solar activity doesn't affect the average temperatures on earth then I have a nice plot of seaside property in Antarctica to sell you if and when the ice caps all melt.

Otherwise as far as I'm concerned bad science is bad science and this 'man made global warming theory' is extremely bad politicized science.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

 Smile 

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

One thing's for certain. With enough time humans will know whether they've fucked up the climate or not fucked up the climate.
But I'll be dead when that happens and I don't have children to worry about and even if it does prove to be true I was driving a 45 mpg car so it won't be my fault. In other words, fuck it.

Guest


Guest

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months) - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6OvVgLsaBYRv19BOoNo1S2zkDM35XuzV5ZzmLF6kNLUVwVQBB7Q

I'm more concerned about how people tear down the forests and lay more and more pavement all because they have to live there vice how much CO2 is produced. Just like all the Californians moving into the Seattle area because of the forests that surround it so they can live in the beautiful wooded area.

What was the point if the forest and grass is all gone when they're done moving in?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2MgU7PNHgw

 Smile 

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Damaged Eagle wrote:

I'm more concerned about how people tear down the forests and lay more and more pavement all because they have to live there vice how much CO2 is produced. Just like all the Californians moving into the Seattle area because of the forests that surround it so they can live in the beautiful wooded area.

What was the point if the forest and grass is all gone when they're done moving in?

 

All I know is Rush Limbaugh would point out what Ronnie Reagan said that "trees cause pollution" and would call you an "environmental wacko".

Guest


Guest

Yet again it ends with the consensus pointing and laughing and using disparaging labels... while ignoring elementary science.

97% of their understanding comes from leftist headlines without critical thght or question.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PkrBum wrote:

97% of their understanding comes from leftist headlines without critical thght or question.

I agree 100% about that side's 97%.  But I hope you're not gonna turn around and tell me 97% of the "rightest headlines" are the ones WITH the "critical thought". Because wrastlin matches don't have much "critical thought" on either side of the wrastlin arena.  lol

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

97% of their understanding comes from leftist headlines without critical thght or question.

I agree 100% about that side's 97%.  But I hope you're not gonna turn around and tell me 97% of the "rightest headlines" are the ones WITH the "critical thought". Because wrastlin matches don't have much "critical thought" on either side of the wrastlin arena.  lol

I've used my own critical thght to poke enough holes in the models to question the validity of the hypothesis.

If I can do it... it can't be that difficult to understand. The variables demonstrated by new findings speak for themselves.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:

I've used my own critical thght to poke enough holes in the models to question the validity of the hypothesis.

If I can do it... it can't be that difficult to understand. The variables demonstrated by new findings speak for themselves.

You didn't and you can't.

You introduced data that may be cause for an adjustment to the models.

The consensus remains.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum