Foxfire
Well-known member
I think that's shorthand for "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up."
Sahara Desert Thriving on Global Warming
- Thread starter Saved.One.by.Grace
- Start date
I'm kinda reading tea leaves here but I think she's saying that if you don't pollute then you hate the people who live in the desert.
Caledvwlch
New member
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
In contrast to weather alarmists, there have been no major hurricanes in 9 years. Will the diety in the White House take credit, or will he blame Bush for messing up the weather patterns for meteorologists?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/01/media-fail-no-major-hurricanes-in-9-years/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/01/media-fail-no-major-hurricanes-in-9-years/
Foxfire
Well-known member
Tell that to New Jersey
http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/aug/28/hurricane-irene-new-york-live-coverage1
"Super Typhoon Haiyan, one of strongest storms ever, hits central Philippines"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/asia/philippines-typhoon-haiyan/index.html
I think the important question is, does this mean that you now accept the science of global warming, in light of the discovery of a potential justification for doing it?
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Do you now accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour? That's a more important question. I believe in a Sovereign God. I worked for and with enough scientists not to attribute to them Sovereignty that belongs only to God. Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.
HisServant
New member
Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.
In the case of global warming, you have a lot of discrete sciences trying to cobble their research together (which all have built in fudge factors.. btw) into a larger theory that can be used to forecast the future.
So far, a lot of that science has had to back track from time to time due to unsound principles used.
I'm about 60% on board with the whole Global warming thing... it wont take much more junk science to push me below 50%.
In the case of global warming, you have a lot of discrete sciences trying to cobble their research together (which all have built in fudge factors.. btw) into a larger theory that can be used to forecast the future.
So far, a lot of that science has had to back track from time to time due to unsound principles used.
I'm about 60% on board with the whole Global warming thing... it wont take much more junk science to push me below 50%.
Quetzal
New member
Quetzal
New member
Almost all studies seem to agree that over the last 50 years the Earth has warmed by as much as 3-4 degrees. How is that junk science?
What does any of this have to do with anything?
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
I gave the answer to your signature which you post on every reply and original posting you make. I'm sorry for you if you reject the Answer.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
A new letter to the American Physical Society (APS) from physicists Roger Cohen, Lawrence I. Gould, and William Happer makes it clear that the 2015 revision of the Society’s 2007 statement on climate change still hasn’t been revised enough.
One major point of contention, the unacceptable use of the heavily loaded term “incontrovertible,” has been addressed, but the process by which that word slithered into the statement has not been dissected thoroughly enough, and dissenting scientists say promises to consult them on the new statement have not been honored.
The American Physical Society is a non-profit organization boasting over 51,000 members, making it one of the largest such groups in the world. Climate science is a branch of physics, and climate change is the biggest and hottest debate in science (at least, it has the most money, cultural influence, and political power riding on it) so an APS statement on the matter was inevitable.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nger-incontrovertible-but-still-unacceptable/
One major point of contention, the unacceptable use of the heavily loaded term “incontrovertible,” has been addressed, but the process by which that word slithered into the statement has not been dissected thoroughly enough, and dissenting scientists say promises to consult them on the new statement have not been honored.
The American Physical Society is a non-profit organization boasting over 51,000 members, making it one of the largest such groups in the world. Climate science is a branch of physics, and climate change is the biggest and hottest debate in science (at least, it has the most money, cultural influence, and political power riding on it) so an APS statement on the matter was inevitable.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nger-incontrovertible-but-still-unacceptable/
As has been noted before, global warming is going to have winners and losers. Northern Africa is apparently going to be a winner. Western U.S. is becoming a loser. So is the Gulf Coast.
Looking at the data, I had thought perhaps North Texas would become wetter, as more moist air from the Gulf would move north in the spring and early summer. It sure looked that way, this year.
Looking at the data, I had thought perhaps North Texas would become wetter, as more moist air from the Gulf would move north in the spring and early summer. It sure looked that way, this year.
HisServant
New member
Not all of them have... and as another report indicated, that the stations that were used to monitor the temperature increases have been compromised due to local disturbances over the last 50 years.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
You could be right, but I don't believe there's enough of a trend yet to predict winners and losers. When I was growing up, scientists talked about the coming ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it's climate change which is another phrase for W E A T H E R.
Conservation with respect to "old growth" forests, "rain" forests, too much damming of rivers, etc, makes sense. The problem with some recycling efforts is that it results in more energy used than if virgin materials were used in the first place. This an "inconvenient truth" that TOL psuedo-scientists fail to acknowledge. There is a definite lack of common sense when it comes to this subject.
Quetzal
New member
I didn't say they all have, however, some of the most reputable agencies are in agreement. In fact, I would love see a contradicting set of data from a reputable agency, if you have any laying around.
Quetzal
New member
Here is a nice collection of graphs and data.
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/graphs-diagrams-of-global-warming-and-climate.html
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/graphs-diagrams-of-global-warming-and-climate.html
It's a signature. So it isn't really meant to be the topic of discussion. If you really want to talk about my signature, make a thread so I can ignore you from there instead of derailing your own thread.
So, getting back on topic, it seems you will happily accept global warming, as long as you can rationalize some reason to keep doing it. Does that seem logical to you?
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
I suggest you remove or modify your signature so I'm not subjected to your opinion on the matter. Otherwise, I can put you on ignore like I'm currently doing to 50-60 other posters on TOL. Feel free to put me on Ignore too if you don't like me quoting the Bible to you. I get fed up with all you pseudo-intellectuals who think you're mother nature's gift to the Darwinian world you imagine.