The Climate Change Hoax

One scientist going on the Merv Griffin Show does not a consensus make.....

One basis of that idea was the fact that we were putting both aerosols and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One leads to cooling, and the other leads to warming. Schneider and Rasool did a paper on a mathematical model that was published in 1971, which decided the aerosols were going to win out if we didn't do something. But the model was faulty, because it didn't include the upper atmosphere.

Any predictions before that were based on the work of Ewing and Donn, who simply posited that Ice Ages were cyclical in nature, and sooner or later we're going to get another one.

A study of papers published from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling, 44 predicting warming, and 20 that were neutral. That's nothing like the consensus we have today for warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

 

Nothing in your post has anything to do with climate change theory. If you and whatsisname want to spend your time bashing California instead of discussing whether climate change is a hoax or not, I suggest you go start your own thread.

 

"One scientist going on the Merv Griffin Show does not a consensus make....." and the number of so-called "scientists" harmonizing AGW is the only argument for it! ("Scientists" in quotes because they do not use scientific theory in coming to their AGW conclusion.)

 

Well, no. The argument for it is the body of work that has been done by thousands of quite legitimate scientists over the years.

And you seem to be opposed to it for emotional reasons rather than rational ones: if a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals and scumbag liberals are fer it, yer agin' it.

Sorry, son. That's not good enough. Nor is citing Michael Savage. He's a professional agitator, not a scientist.....

 

Name one thing that is happening now, temp change, ice melt, under sea current change that has not happened in the past.
Recorded history and gas bubbles trapped in the ice show only a fraction of true climate events. One bubble trapped 60,000,000 million years ago shows only what was at that location at that given second. Unless you believe when it rains outside your house it raining everywhere in the world.

You want to look at a grain of sand and paint a picture of the Mountain range it came from and sell it to me as a Rembrandt.

"Sorry, son. That's not good enough."

 

If a bunch of white-coated intellectuals decide to throw themselves off a cliff, should we necessarily have to join them bekuz dey iz much smotte den we arr?

 

Obama is a professional agitator. Michael Savage is a botanist and talk show host. What has that to do with anything?

 

I'm not the one who brought up Savage. Ask Mark what he has to do with the subject, not me. Ask him what California has to do with it, while you're at it.

Now for God's sake: can we get back to the subject? I'm not responding again, until someone actually posts something intelligent and relevant to whether climate change is a hoax.

 

Climate change is real. It is relevant and it has been constant on the face of the globe since before humans. But of course no one was taking notes except God. When we see Him we should ask Him.

 

Savage probably has a take on this crap and he is a scientist that, I'm sure, doesn't get AGW grants. Here, I'll bring up another scientist who can explain in more direct terms why what AGW "scientists" postulates is crap; Fred Ebert. try http://www.koaradio.com/podcast/theprofessor.xml I am not going to search for it and the radio station screwed up the titles of the various talks but Ebert spelled it out once so that even a child could understand. Maybe somebody else with more (green!) energy could search for his debunking.

 

M. Savage has several strikes against him. He is honest, well-educated and scientifically minded. For these reasons he will never be listened to, respected or believed.

 

Not in California or in Californified America, anyway. Fred Ebert is a liberal and has respect by the masses but he is a scientist first, and the scientist part of him makes him debunk AGW.

 

I doubt he knows more about climate change than the scientists doing the research...I don't generally turn to radio talk show hosts when I want answers to scientific matters.

If he happened to be a scientist doing a show that concentrated on scientific matters, like Dr. Dean Edell does with medical matters, I might pay him some attention. Instead, he's just another conservative political hack, milking the airwaves for a good living.

Besides, how seriously can I take a guy who writes books promoting homeopathy? Homeopathic remedies don't even have to be tested and approved by the FDC. You know why? Because there's nothing in them that will help or hurt a person; they're basically placebos.

 

Savage holds a master's degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in nutritional ethnomedicine. (Nutritional Ethnomedicine is kind of like a mixture of Biology, Nutritional Sciences, and Anthropology disciplines)
One can have an education, from Berkeley of all places, and still be an idiot (this is proven daily by some who believe in AGW) but none of his books are on homeopathy, that I know, nor is he a doctor of homeopathy.
There is an oft-repeated citing of this 97% figure. I don't know what part of this 97% are climatologists. I know that there was not even a title of "climatologist" until people started getting grants for it that I pay for but my guess is that climatology is a minute percentage of science, so what does that figure actually mean? Are pseudo-scientists advancing AGW on a grant more qualified than somebody studied in, say, nutritional ethnomedicine?
Listen, I don't even know the guy that well - I just brought him up because of his "borders, language, culture" philosophy sounded like what I was saying. You people have a way of grasping an idea and not letting go!

 

you mean the idea that mountain tops are bare of snow, the glaciers are melting, the arctic was bare of ice for the first time in many thousands of years or that this has been the warmest decade since records have been kept?