Cagney is very smart. I bet the dogs do not blame humans when burning fossil fuels is better than freezing. Global warming/global cooling neither has been proved. The eco-freaks have changed the name to “climate change” because it has been shown that their “DATA” has been fudged.
Well, Noreen, that would be a good point if it were at all in any way true. But it’s not, which kind of makes it a bunch of unscientific nonsense. Go to the NASA site and look for climate change and see how many organizations of actual scientists who don’t work for the oil companies believe in climate change and our contribution to it..Sometimes, disagreeing with 97 percent of the experts doesn’t make you smarter than they are. In fact, when you get up to that figure, it surely doesn’t.
Noreen, you do know that a group set up to prove that climate change wasn’t happening and the data was wrong had to eat crow pie, admitting that the data was right. Look it up.
It’s pretty arrogant to think you can dump junk into the environment at will without any effect. It’s also arrogant to think that YOUR local weather is all that counts – Look! It’s colder here! – while ignoring overall total warming.
Science is rarely the objective game that it is purported to be. The opinions and data collected is all too often designed to follow the opinions of the people funding the study. Right now, climate change is the salient peg in the whack-a-mole game of science. Pointing at any other peg is likely to get your hand hammered.
Up or down is not the point in a phase-locked-loop system. It’s all about the capture and lock ranges. Anthropomorphic contributions to the loop are in the noise floor. It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that they can disturb the loop enough to exceed the system’s lock point. Although you would think that destroying all the rain forests would come close!
Vince is a bit of a straw man here. For a short time, I got caught up in the extremist views that there is a strong, direct link between record lows and global warming. But I am fortunate to read a lot of scientific literature, and found that while rising temperatures do tend to widen weather fluctuations (imagine an unbalanced spin cycle as it speeds up), the vast majority of serious researchers will FIRST point to the fact that we are seeing a serious decrease in such record lows over just a few generations. Yes, these changes have happened before, but they took thousands of times longer. Yes, natural processes account for much more than even our current energy use (last I checked, we churn out about 60 Hiroshima bombs per second). But when you squeeze even a “tiny” overall effect into our window of comfortable habitability, that effect gets magnified very, VERY quickly.
shopdog over 10 years ago
The dog is the smart one.
noreenklose over 10 years ago
Cagney is very smart. I bet the dogs do not blame humans when burning fossil fuels is better than freezing. Global warming/global cooling neither has been proved. The eco-freaks have changed the name to “climate change” because it has been shown that their “DATA” has been fudged.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 10 years ago
Well, Noreen, that would be a good point if it were at all in any way true. But it’s not, which kind of makes it a bunch of unscientific nonsense. Go to the NASA site and look for climate change and see how many organizations of actual scientists who don’t work for the oil companies believe in climate change and our contribution to it..Sometimes, disagreeing with 97 percent of the experts doesn’t make you smarter than they are. In fact, when you get up to that figure, it surely doesn’t.
cabalonrye over 10 years ago
Noreen, you do know that a group set up to prove that climate change wasn’t happening and the data was wrong had to eat crow pie, admitting that the data was right. Look it up.
cdward over 10 years ago
It’s pretty arrogant to think you can dump junk into the environment at will without any effect. It’s also arrogant to think that YOUR local weather is all that counts – Look! It’s colder here! – while ignoring overall total warming.
rkersting over 10 years ago
Noreen is not wrong about the “adjustments” to the data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html
and dozens of other sites with actual data to prove the point…
Comic Minister Premium Member over 10 years ago
I see.
Ralph Drake over 10 years ago
Lil’Bit says, He’s right about the cold. Give me another blanket.
Lamberger over 10 years ago
Science is rarely the objective game that it is purported to be. The opinions and data collected is all too often designed to follow the opinions of the people funding the study. Right now, climate change is the salient peg in the whack-a-mole game of science. Pointing at any other peg is likely to get your hand hammered.
Up or down is not the point in a phase-locked-loop system. It’s all about the capture and lock ranges. Anthropomorphic contributions to the loop are in the noise floor. It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that they can disturb the loop enough to exceed the system’s lock point. Although you would think that destroying all the rain forests would come close!Seeker149 Premium Member over 10 years ago
Vince is a bit of a straw man here. For a short time, I got caught up in the extremist views that there is a strong, direct link between record lows and global warming. But I am fortunate to read a lot of scientific literature, and found that while rising temperatures do tend to widen weather fluctuations (imagine an unbalanced spin cycle as it speeds up), the vast majority of serious researchers will FIRST point to the fact that we are seeing a serious decrease in such record lows over just a few generations. Yes, these changes have happened before, but they took thousands of times longer. Yes, natural processes account for much more than even our current energy use (last I checked, we churn out about 60 Hiroshima bombs per second). But when you squeeze even a “tiny” overall effect into our window of comfortable habitability, that effect gets magnified very, VERY quickly.