Global Warming? are humans to blame?

As usual, Boston misinterprets the facts and mistates the situation.

 

In other words, the good attorney general was on a pure fishing expedition. He had absolutely no evidence or indications that any fraud had been committed.

What's to misunderstand, misinterpret or misstate about that? Since when should a state attorney general get to harass a scientist purely because he doesn't like the results of said scientist's work?

 

Because of modern technologies in transportation and communication, the world seems smaller. There are concerns about over population in some countries, making the world seem crowded. The arrogance factor says because we can blow up the world with atomic bombs, therefore we must be destroying it in other ways with our technolgy.
Truth is, we affect our climate, but to a very small degree. Not catastophic. I've been hearing and reading about one impending doom after another my whole life. All of them are manipulative. The difference between global warmers and sheet-clad, unshorn, street prophets toting placards "Repent! The end is near!", is the street prophet has more credibility. At least he has the Bible!.

I know something about leadership. Panic is always to be avoided. Cooler heads must prevail. Come on people! Wise up! Wake up! Individuals are each important! But the world is a lot bigger and its peoples more insignificant than you think!

 

Hi Troy
I agree with you the state shouldn't be able to pry into private lives.
That's not why the court decided. It wasn't because of lack of evidence like Boston said either.
It was because the university was neither an individual nor a corporation that exempted the university from having to turn over requested papers. A loophole in the law.
Also, the AG hadn't stated "sufficiently" his suspicions.
Sufficiency is arbitrary.
If the government came after you or me or Boston, we would have to comply.

I'm all in favor of individual rights. But not tax supported agencies and their employees hiding how they spend the money.

 

If I thought Yobs statements worthy of consideration I'd take him off the ignore list, but as it is Troy, you just confirmed my suspicions that as usual, he's just not dealing from a rational informed perspective on this one.

Clearly there's no logical argument made by myself or any other unbiased person simply looking at the information, that will dissuade him from the disinformation campaign I'm beginning to suspect he's paid to perpetrate on the readers. Yup, I'm beginning to suspect another paid shill. Its really unfortunate, to have some people come in and erroneously argue what amounts to non-sense/science. Given how important the changing weather patterns are to this field of interest.

I'm hoping that its not to hard for the readers to see that one side is presenting article after article, most often peer reviewed, showing that the changing conditions are actually occurring at a rate far faster than predicted, and that there is no doubt in the minds of the researchers into climate science that its directly the result of human activities.

Its really a no brainer.
cheers
B

a note to the readers
take a look back even just a few pages and notice the typical pattern deniers use when fighting the truth of climate change, then go check this link and read up a case study of the tactics of climate change denial. Notice the similarities

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...imate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/

another great site when looking to research the tactics of the paid shill's is this one

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...xn6N5w&usg=AFQjCNG8rVhZcxEV0N7zGSWLvx6kyqNVYQ

 

If there's to be a hope of informed discussion there are plenty of reputable sources to help us all better understand the subject

This article from 08 is a particularly good place to start

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

 

Here is some more up to date information.

http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

"February '12 Europe caught in deadly deep freeze link Coldest temps in Germany in 26 years as Europe's cold temperatures kill over 300 link temps in China drop to - 50 Deg C ( link http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/2012-02/06/content_14546578.htm ) record cold in Europe for 3 weeks, many areas 25 degrees below normal, death toll numbers 600 ( link http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/three-weeks-on-iceeurope-cold-1/61629 ) Sydney Australia experiences record coldest summer ( link http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ther-to-continue/story-e6freuyi-1226272090075 )"

 

discussing local events represents weather Hoyt, we've been over this a hundred times. Climate is an average of all weather. So just because one area is cold for some period of the year doesn't mean that the average still didn't work out to be warmer.

Also just using one date set isn't great science either. The longer the study term and the more studies you can combine the better results you get. Which is why anything occurring in just the last few years is a poor indicator of trends. Go back say in ten year blocks and it becomes more clear; and yes this particular data group stops about 2005.



and just out of curiosity Hoyt, is that Geoff Pohanka the big auto dealer ? If so, kinda a vested interest isn't it ??

 

Bye bye.

 

I think everbody with open eyes and open mind can see that Boston arrogantly accuses anybody who believes differently than he, must be some kinda paid agent. Does Boston actually believe he's the smartest in the room? He deludes himself. Maybe some day Boston will mature and cease being a perpetual adolescent. Sad.
Boston claims to be unbiased! ROFLMAO!

 

Here's another great image proving the notion of a global cooling trend is simply ridiculous

as our readers can clearly see there is nothing unusual about a two or three or even five year dip in the overall rising trend in any of the major temp monitoring studies.


http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/global_temp_yearly_p1_smthbin11_2.png

 

Here's another great image proving the notion of a global cooling trend is simply ridiculous

as our readers can clearly see there is nothing unusual about a two or three or even five year dip in the overall rising trend in any of the major temp monitoring studies.




and just for clarity, the reason they don't smooth out past about 2005 ish is because no sinlgle five or so year period of time is statistically relevant, so the whole straw man argument about cooling in the last few years is just bunk designed by the disinformation campaign. As any reasonable person can see there are countless dips and hills in the temp data pool, obviously there is an overall rising trend over the entire industrial age.

Love
B

 

CO2 man made or otherwise does not drive climate change.
Yet CO2 is the foundation of all global warmests argument for man made global warming. The basic premise is false.
CO2 doesn't cause climate change.

 

theres nothing unusual about a thousand or 5 thousand year rise in temperature of a couple degrees. Its cyclic. Its been much warmer in earths past.

Boston thinks a couple of tenths of a degree rise since 1880 is significant, data is according to his posted chart.. I don't think thats meaningfull. Nor do I think its man made. I do think global warmers are a bunch of chicken littles running around screaming the sky is falling cause a raindrop fell on their head. Or did their moms drop them on their heads?.

 

This is absolutely right.

Who are we to say what the "correct" temperature for the planet is? What egos we have as humans.