Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    "97.5% of the most active climate change experts in the world believe it is happening and human activity is the primary driver"


     

    Indeed. They don't seem to understand that a scientific theory can be valid without being able to explain every last data point the second it comes up.

    All we have here is competing explanations for something, and the failure to have a 100% consensus as to its cause doesn't disprove the overall theory.

    Sort of like our models for physics were valid despite our failure to find the higgs boson for quite some time. Sort of like general and special relativity held true even though they couldn't explain observations better explained by quantum mechanics. Sort of like evolution holds true even though the skeleton record is incomplete, and hence, there have been some disagreements as to which trees various pre-homo-sapien species belonged - nobody said, "well, clearly, if we can't agree we were wrong all along about everything". Instead, they argued it out and developed further theory/data until a consensus was reached.

     

     

     

    Perhaps it's a failure to understand the scientific method that is the problem here?



    Several failures I see.  First is the 95% numbers is bogus, as I pointed out with the Forbes article.

    Second is that some on the left have grabbed and issue that scientists are not in lock-step agreement, i.e. the science is settled, and declared it so anyways.  Probably for political purposes.

    Third.  Human contribution to the overall global warming is small, though not insigifiicant.  Not saying we should pollute with great abandon, but that we should pursue a course that balances the needs with the population withthe effect. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

    What we're saying is that the AGW theory does not fit the data and that instead of trying to alter the data to fit the theory an appropriate application of the scientific method would be to toss the theory and come up with a new one that better fits the facts as we know them.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    97.5% of the most active climate change experts in the world believe it is happening and human activity is the primary driver.  But don't worry, I"m sure Republicans will be on the right side of history again, like they were with Iraq, gay marriage, civil rights, banking and housing regulations, tax cuts and gun control.

     



    Well, no.  Your post is incorrect:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

    36%.



    This survey consists geologists and engineers.  I'd say they fall somewhere between general public and non-climatologists.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

    What we're saying is that the AGW theory does not fit the data and that instead of trying to alter the data to fit the theory an appropriate application of the scientific method would be to toss the theory and come up with a new one that better fits the facts as we know them.

     



    Because 1997-98 were unusually hot outliers, you're using them as the start of your timeline to say "see, temperatures are consistent over the past 15 years".  That's pretty much the text-book definition of cherry-picking.  Slide your data-range forward two years, and you can't make the same argument.  Slide it back any number of years, and you can't make the same argument.  

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

     

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.



    Scientific theory vs. a game of chance. Sure, they are just the same.  Best stop talking now.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    Because 1997-98 were unusually hot outliers, you're using them as the start of your timeline to say "see, temperatures are consistent over the past 15 years".  That's pretty much the text-book definition of cherry-picking.

     

    It's not my timeline, Slomag. Look at the OP, even true believers like NASA's Hanson are at a loss to explain the missing heat. And if you want cherry picking and worse, the altering and suppression of knowledge, look no further than Micheal Mann, Phil Jones, the IPCC and the others that have been at the forefront of promoting AGW.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

     

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.

     



    Scientific theory vs. a game of chance. Sure, they are just the same.  Best stop talking now.  

     

     



    Right.  So why does the left claim to know the future outcome of global warming based on disproven science? Sounds like a game of chance to me.

     

    Still, his point is that polar bears are drowning due to global warming.  they are not.

    So, there goes your goal post moving argument up in flames.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

     

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.

     



    Scientific theory vs. a game of chance. Sure, they are just the same.  Best stop talking now.  

     

     



    Right.  So why does the left claim to know the future outcome of global warming based on disproven science? Sounds like a game of chance to me.

     

    Still, his point is that polar bears are drowning due to global warming.  they are not.

    So, there goes your goal post moving argument up in flames.

     



    It is not the "left".  It is science that is making the claim.  You just don't like the science.

    Why does the "right" seek to run away from scientific theory?  Because it conflicts with their ideology.  How very "traditional" of you.  You probably don't like that lefty idea of evolution either...    And that lefty Galileo deserved what he got...

    This is NOT about the politics of what to do about climate change, it is about the theory of climate change.  And the science is pretty clear on that point.  You just pretend it is not there: it is inconvenient to your political world view. And that is pretty sad. 

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    Global cooling is the real danger!

    The last iceage was the end to many species. 1 large meteor or a super volcano eruption and it's "Good night Gracie"!

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

     

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.

     



    Scientific theory vs. a game of chance. Sure, they are just the same.  Best stop talking now.  

     

     



    Right.  So why does the left claim to know the future outcome of global warming based on disproven science? Sounds like a game of chance to me.

     

    Still, his point is that polar bears are drowning due to global warming.  they are not.

    So, there goes your goal post moving argument up in flames.

     

     



    It is not the "left".  It is science that is making the claim.  You just don't like the science.

     

    Why does the "right" seek to run away from scientific theory?  Because it conflicts with their ideology.  How very "traditional" of you.  You probably don't like that lefty idea of evolution either...    And that lefty Galileo deserved what he got...

    This is NOT about the politics of what to do about climate change, it is about the theory of climate change.  And the science is pretty clear on that point.  You just pretend it is not there: it is inconvenient to your political world view. And that is pretty sad. 

     



    Are polar bears drowning due to global warming?  Yes or No?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    "97.5% of the most active climate change experts in the world believe it is happening and human activity is the primary driver"

    Indeed. They don't seem to understand that a scientific theory can be valid without being able to explain every last data point the second it comes up.

    All we have here is competing explanations for something, and the failure to have a 100% consensus as to its cause doesn't disprove the overall theory.

    Sort of like our models for physics were valid despite our failure to find the higgs boson for quite some time. Sort of like general and special relativity held true even though they couldn't explain observations better explained by quantum mechanics. Sort of like evolution holds true even though the skeleton record is incomplete, and hence, there have been some disagreements as to which trees various pre-homo-sapien species belonged - nobody said, "well, clearly, if we can't agree we were wrong all along about everything". Instead, they argued it out and developed further theory/data until a consensus was reached.
     

    Perhaps it's a failure to understand the scientific method that is the problem here?


    [QUOTE]

    Listing all the times we (scientist theories) were wrong without consequence is really not indicative of the whole truth.

    Widely accepted theories have been proven false many times as well:

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

     

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.

     



    Scientific theory vs. a game of chance. Sure, they are just the same.  Best stop talking now.  

     

     



    Right.  So why does the left claim to know the future outcome of global warming based on disproven science? Sounds like a game of chance to me.

     

    Still, his point is that polar bears are drowning due to global warming.  they are not.

    So, there goes your goal post moving argument up in flames.

     

     



    It is not the "left".  It is science that is making the claim.  You just don't like the science.

     

    Why does the "right" seek to run away from scientific theory?  Because it conflicts with their ideology.  How very "traditional" of you.  You probably don't like that lefty idea of evolution either...    And that lefty Galileo deserved what he got...

    This is NOT about the politics of what to do about climate change, it is about the theory of climate change.  And the science is pretty clear on that point.  You just pretend it is not there: it is inconvenient to your political world view. And that is pretty sad. 

     

     



    Are polar bears drowning due to global warming?  Yes or No?

     



    Global warming doesn't kill polar bears, people and lax-gun-laws do......

    And you never see them playing with (or eating) penguins any more, wassup wit' dat?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    Here a few WIDELY accepted theories that were proven wrong.

    One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.

    Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works.

    Needless to say there have been a lot of theories discarded along the way. The following represents my best efforts to select the 9 most spectacularly wrong scientific theories.

    To qualify for the list, a large number of scientists at any given time must have subscribed to the particular theory before it was eventually discarded. Thus a long list of pseudoscientific ideas, crackpot though they might be, didn’t make the list.

    1. Geocentric universe: The concept that the Earth was at the center of the universe dates back to at least 600 B.C. with Greek philosophers who proposed cosmologies of the Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth. The most famous contortion of the system was Ptolemy’s epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of Mars. This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions. The theory was disproven with the publication of Nicholas Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

    2. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

    3. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the

    1920s. A photo of the aether appears below.

    4. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005.

    5. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.

    6. Phlogiston: Arising in the mid-17th century, physicians conjured up the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston”, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. Charcoal, for example, left little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston. Experiments in the mid-1700s led chemists to conclude the theory was false, giving birth to the field of modern chemistry.

    7. The “four humours” theory of human physiology: From Hippocrates onward, the humoral theory was adopted by Greek, Roman and Islamic physicians, and became the most commonly held view of the human body among European physicians until the advent of modern medical research in the 19th century. The four humours of Hippocratic medicine were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood.

    8. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.

    9. young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Here a few WIDELY accepted theories that were proven wrong.

     

     




     

    That people who said the world was flat were wrong has no bearing on this particular theory. That you copy/pasted 9 others is completely irrelevant. The same would be true if you copy/pasted a million others.

     

    Hence, my example of how the increasing fossil record has sometimes caused squabbles regarding the evolutionary tree of humans (and other creatures) without disproving evolution.



    The point I am making is that scientific theories that were thought to be true for decades and centuries have been proven false!

    The idea that man is warming the planet since the industrial age is debatable due to the simple fact that the globe warmed the fastest on record between 1814 and 1834.

    Along with the fact that Greenland now a tundra was once farm land to the vikings!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The point I am making is that scientific theories that were thought to be true for decades and centuries have been proven false!

    And I accept your point, but don't see it as relevant. The lone fact that the article could describe four areas of disagreement about mitigation mechanisms should tell you that the "original" theory isn't being treated as absolutely true.

    This simply isn't a flat-world situation. 

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The idea that man is warming the planet since the industrial age is debatable due to the simple fact that the globe warmed the fastest on record between 1814 and 1834.

     

    Along with the fact that Greenland now a tundra was once farm land to the vikings


    They are well aware of cyclical changes.

    You stated that the world has warmed since the industrial age. I pointed out that it warmed faster before the industrial age.

    The cyclical part is the problem; it appears the scientist do not have a clue exactly how much is cyclical and how much if, any is caused by man.

    The planet is cooling right now so.... may be an iceage which would be way more detrimental to mankind than global warming ever could be is coming?

    Assuming the planet is warming; it would be idiotic to put govt regulations in place that hurt industry and thus quality of life for millions until we know how to what extent.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    So Im not sure where we all stand. The cons have been saying for years that global warming is cyclical and not from man.

    Unlike the progressives which say otherwise.

    Are the cons now saying none of it ever existed?

     

    Shhh, Dont tell the drowning polar bears.

     



    From the Canadian Free PRess:

     

    "Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

    In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario."

     

    But, by all means, go save the drowning polar bears.  I hear the best technique is to put a salmon in your mouth and run up to them.

     



    Are you saying global warming doesnt exist now or are we in a cyclical warm up?

     

     




    I don't know.  I just know polar bears are not drowning.

     

     



    Yes, the answer is "I DONT KNOW".

     

    Got it, thanks. So you can shut TF up now.

     




    Well, no.  Your question is incongruent to the point.  you said polar bears are drowning, they are not.  So, why is it that you have such a difficult time when you are proven wrong?

     

    Besides, no one knows.  Do you claim to know?  If so, please post the winning lottery numbers for tonight.

     



    Scientific theory vs. a game of chance. Sure, they are just the same.  Best stop talking now.  

     

     



    Right.  So why does the left claim to know the future outcome of global warming based on disproven science? Sounds like a game of chance to me.

     

    Still, his point is that polar bears are drowning due to global warming.  they are not.

    So, there goes your goal post moving argument up in flames.

     

     



    It is not the "left".  It is science that is making the claim.  You just don't like the science.

     

    Why does the "right" seek to run away from scientific theory?  Because it conflicts with their ideology.  How very "traditional" of you.  You probably don't like that lefty idea of evolution either...    And that lefty Galileo deserved what he got...

    This is NOT about the politics of what to do about climate change, it is about the theory of climate change.  And the science is pretty clear on that point.  You just pretend it is not there: it is inconvenient to your political world view. And that is pretty sad. 

     



    The ole "the a science is settled" argument, again? Crikey. How many times do we need to gthrogutughtheir? The science is NOT settled, period.  The 95% number is bogus.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    1 large meteor



    Eh? Send Bruce Willis and Aerosmith.

     



    Best movie of all time, and it didn't get any Oscars.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Einstein



    Which is why I also threw out the anthropology example.

     

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    The difference here is that the data DISPROVE the global warming theory as it is known today. If CO2 is rising and global temperature is not, then either the theory is wrong, it has to be modified or the data is faulty. 

    The major question out of this is not so much scientific but political. Should the country  impose onerous taxation and spend $trillions on something that is not a solution to the problem of global warming, oops I mean climate change.

     



     

    No. They do not disprove the warming mechanism. They call into question the understanding about how various environmental systems might response to rising CO2 levels. It isn't a "throw the whole thing out" situation. That, or you're calling 98% of scientists in the field either liars or idiots - and that would be odd to say the least.

    This isn't phrenology.

     

    The cost of stopping the problem depends entirely on what is done to stop the problem. Investing far more in searching for cleaner alternative fuels and energy production technology could create revenue in the long run, if it's our companies that develop it and can therefore sell it to other countries.

    Obviously, it won't help if we do something only in America given that the developing world is always going to go for the cheapest readily available energy source. Any direct approach - on emissions - would have to get them on board. Which won't happen unless we can come up with an affordable cleaner way to produce energy.

    I don't see the difficulties as a reason to simply not even talk about potential solutions.

     

     

    But this is a far cry from the current politics, which has a large number of a certain party simply denying that there is any problem caused by man and instead alleging that the other party is a bunch of evil conspirators.

     

     



     

    Of course these data disprove the theory that increasing CO2 causes global warming. HOw could that not be if we have years of data that show the global temperature not increasing while CO2 does? Are you daft? If you read what I said, it does not mean throw out the whole thing. There are 3 possibilities here.

     

    1. The data disproving the theory is faulty. Did you get that one?

    2. The data disproving the theory are good but the theory has to be modified to account for the reality of the new data. Read that one again in case you miss it again.

    3. The theory is wrong.

    Has anyone presented any data testing the Theory of Evolution that has been scientifically accepted? I do no think so. So go see point #1 - that data disproving the theory is faulty.

    Your semantics do not change the outcome. Someone will have to explain how the level of CO2 can increase over 30 years and global temperature does not. Then the revised theory is subject to test. I think Hanson did, saying it takes a longer period of time to account for a real divergence of CO2 and global temperature. I am somewhat skeptical of such a claim because we only have 130 years of data for increasing CO2 while man is in the industrial age spewing it out. We are already talking 1/4 of the time that the theory is not working. That is not insignificant.

    Then that will be subject to test. Or maybe you do not want to have it tested and you just want to believe regardless of data? That would be quite creationist of you.

     

    If the theory of increasing CO2 causing global warming does not show itself in the data, why would think that changing the solutions to this problem is not worth considering?

    First of all, even if the theory is correct, the solution so far porposed - CO2 mitigation - is not going to work. It takes too long to affect a change even if you could get the world to 0 ppm man made emissions tomorrow. Of course we can't even get the European Union to overcome differences among nations as it amounts to dealing with sovereign debt so how the f would anyone in their right mind think that getting the WORLD to agree on how to limit Co2 emissions by the time it actually might do some good?

    You are defying logic.

    Either that or their is some different agenda or outcome that is hidden that can be acheived by making an effort to curb man-made CO2 emissions.

    I suspect it is the hidden agenda, whatever it is. Otherwise why bother with this nonsense?




    Do we really need all this discussion?  the truth is that progressives simply want to use this issue as a means to tax us more and enable greater restrictions on our freedoms.  the "science" is incidental.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share