Thanks, Justin! You too.
Furnishedowner
Furnishedowner,
“I can’t debate science with you because I don’t have the background to do so. I don’t think you do either. So it’s like Dumb and Dumber having a debate. I’m Dumb and you are…”
Petty little insults are hardly substitute for debate… In fact, it just makes you look weak… I find it funny that you constantly say you don’t have the expertise to debate scientific topics but then do so anyway UNTIL you get stuck not being able to address a point, then it’s “I don’t have the expertise to debate this”… That is indeed “dumb”… So, READ A LITTLE… Fine, put aside your “expertise” and just use common sense… heat rises… simple fact… so explain how the ocean temps are UP, the atmosphere temp is UP, but the surface temp is cooler? All while the CHIEF COMPONENT for the previoous heating cycle, which was supposed to be man-made carbon… INCREASED!
See, what bothers me about you, in the face of thinking for yourself, you want to just subjugate it to the “experts”… problem is, you only listen to experts that AGREE with your uninformed position… and try to play them off as the only voice in the matter… when there are other voices on the matters (10’s of thousands), it doesn’t even cause you to QUESTION what you are being fed…
They RELY on people like you to remain uninformed… Some people refer to that as being a lemming… do some reading on the Last Glacial Maximum, and the Medieval WARM Period and the Little Ice Age… That is, if you REALLY want to be informed, as opposed to spending TRILLIONS of dollars and HURTING the same poor people who can’t afford health insurance…
To make the point even more clear, since the last ICE AGE, the earth has WARMED all by itself… Despite us puny humans…
The whole point is THEY DON’T KNOW what causes it… and only have a THEORY at this point known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), aka - man-made global warming… this THEORY is NOT proven…
As far as the cooling oceans go…
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg
Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504
Cooling / Warming trends since 1882…
1882 - 1910 Cooling
1910 - 1944 Warming
1944 - 1975 Cooling
1975 - 2001 Warming
Very interesting… Now, this does NOT cause you to question what you are being fed??? Now mind you, these Cooling / Warming trends occured DURING build-up of the man-made Carbon… How is this possible??? If man-made carbon is the culprit, how can there be CYCLICAL COOLING PERIODS???
“The patient keeps getting sicker, and we’ve got to start treatment now before he gets terminal. Even if we don’t know the disease path for sure.”
First off, I thought liberals referred to the Earth as a She (i.e. - Gaia)… :biggrin If you don’t know the disease, all you can do is GUESS the treatment… and this usually has disastrous results… Don’t you watch “House MD”?.. LOL
Seriously though, what if the TREATMENT makes things worse??? What if we are indeed heading into another ICE AGE, if we ACTUALLY HAD THE ABILITY to affect the climate, wouldn’t we want to be ENCOURAGING activities that would warm us??? After all, the last Ice Age didn’t work out so well for people, animals, plants…
But like I said, they FIRST have to settle on a theory… Warming? Cooling? Change?
Looks to me the experts think we will be in for a long period of cooling.
John,
DOn’t go complicating up the issue with FACTS,you know we all get our info from talk radio :rolleyes
Honestly,thanks you always impress.
People who deny the obvious global warming, or climate crisis, are just flat earthers. How can they not see it?!?!?Either that, or they are paid by the Republicans to lie to the public! Thank god the public is smart enough to really know whats going on!
(It was 4 degrees lower than average today in my area) :rolleyes
Yeah I been making crazy money just goin 2 townhalls and tea parties. :rolleyes
Whatta buncha idiots!!But we’re supposed 2 look the other way when 6 buses(organizing 4 america) pull into the townhalls obama has.He needs to consult with criss angel since his pixie dust is wearing off on how to hide his implanted crowds.
World leaders back delay to final climate deal, Reuters, Africa, November 15, 2009
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE5AE0FP20091115
From the article - “U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders on Sunday supported delaying a legally binding climate pact until 2010 or even later, under a compromise deal for next month’s Copenhagen summit.”
But I thought back in August, we only had four months… from the UN News Centre…
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557
“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Incheon (Republic of Korea)
At what point, do you realize you are being manipulated and lied to regarding all this…
From the article - “U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders on Sunday supported delaying a legally binding climate pact until 2010 or even later, under a compromise deal for next month’s Copenhagen summit.”
We gotta get that health care thingy done first. Can’t have too many irons in the fire you know…
“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Incheon (Republic of Korea)
Someone’s taking that move 2012 WAY too seriously.
Found something interesting in some reading tonight.
Source:
George Kennan, “The Source of Soviet Conduct,”
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 65, no. 4, New York: Spring
1987, pp. 566-582
This brings us to the second of the concepts important to contemporary
Soviet outlook. That is the infallibility of the Kremlin.
The Soviet concept of power, which permits no focal points of
organization outside the Party itself, requires that the Party
leadership remain in theory the sole repository of truth. For if
truth were to be found elsewhere, there would be justification for
its expression in organized activity. But it is precisely that which
the Kremlin cannot and will not permit.
The leadership of the Communist Party is therefore always
right, and has been always right ever since in 1929 Stalin formalized
his personal power by announcing that decisions of the
Politburo were being taken unanimously.
On the principle of infallibility there rests the iron discipline
of the Communist Party. In fact, the two concepts are mutually
self-supporting. Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility.
Infallibility requires the observance of discipline. And
the two together go far to determine the behaviorism of the
entire Soviet apparatus of power. But their effect cannot be
understood unless a third factor be taken into account: namely,
the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical
purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause
at any particular moment and to require the faithful and unquestioning
acceptance of the thesis by the members of the
movement as a whole. This means that truth is not a constant
but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the Soviet
leaders themselves. It may vary from week to week, month
to month. It is nothing absolute and immutable — nothing which
flows from objective reality. It is only the most recent manifestation
of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is
supposed to reside, because they represent the logic of history.
The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to the whole
subordinate apparatus of Soviet power an unshakable stubbornness
and steadfastness in its orientation. This orientation can be
changed at will by the Kremlin but by no other power. Once a
given party line has been laid down on a given issue of current
policy, the whole Soviet governmental machine, including the
mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the prescribed
path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in
a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable
force. The individuals who are the components of
this machine are unamenable to argument or reason which comes
to them from outside sources. Their whole training has taught
them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside
world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear
only the “master’s voice.” And if they are to be called off from
the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call
them off. Thus the foreign representative cannot hope that his
words will make any impression on them. The most that he can
hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are
capable of changing the party line. But even those are not likely
to be swayed by any normal logic in the words of the bourgeois
representative. Since there can be no appeal to common purposes,
there can be no appeal to common mental approaches.
Seems like some interesting parallels here…
Sounds like 2 + 2 = 5
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation, Telegraph.co.uk, by Christopher Booker, 28 Nov 2009
From the article - [i][b]"This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU. "[/b][/i]
Hiding evidence of global cooling, Washington Times Editorial, November 24, 2009
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
From the article -[i][b] “Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.”
“Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed.”[/b][/i]
Does this not cause those here who are Global Warming proponents to QUESTION what they are being told??? ESPECIALLY since they want to throw TRILLIONS of dollars at it… Shouldn’t the science be settled BEFORE we give TRILLIONS of dollars and INCREASED powers to world governments???
One of the most telling quotes from recent articles on this Climategate issue, is how THEY CAN’T EXPLAIN why there is cooling. Doesn’t that BEG the question, then how can they be sure about the reason for the “supposed” warming, ESPECIALLY when they IGNORE that it WARMER during the Medival Warming Period than it is now (with ALL the carbon increases - how do you explain this?)
Not only did their computer models NOT predict the cooling, it predicted the OPPOSITE, so WHY do we give these same computer models ANY credibility talking 10-100 years out??
If you never question what you are being told, who is the fool in the end and whose fault is it when your children are burdened with more TAXATION and LESS freedom?
Yep, the global warming scam has now been exposed for what it was - an attempt to further socialism and gain more control over the American people.
Propertymanager,
It’s get’s even MORE suspect as more comes out…
Climate change data dumped, Timesonline.com, November 29, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Now that they were exposed, they said they would provide all the data (you know, the ones that have been asked for through Freedom of Information requests and they were avoiding)… only problem is… NOW they say that THEY THREW AWAY THE RAW DATA that was the BASIS for their computer modeling…
Now, the BS behind this is that computer modeling is REVERSIBLE, all they have to do is provide the methodology used in the first place… The RAW data should have been included in the original peer-reviewed paper… ALL papers based off this information are now suspect…
The more they dig, the more suspect this becomes… The information provided by the CRU were heavily used as the rational for the IPCC…
I’d like to know what FurnishedOwner thinks now that Global Warming has been exposed for the scam it is? Why did the global warming “scientists” need to fake the data? Why did they discuss in their e-mails using statistical tricks to make the data they had look like the globe was warming (when it wasn’t)? Why did these scientists erase the data when their e-mails were exposed?
Maybe it’s just a misunderstanding or maybe the scientists had a bad childhood. There certainly must be some liberal excuse for this behavior!
Propertymanager,
I think the bigger question is… Now that this information has presented itself, is Furnishedowner STILL willing to NOT question what she is being spoon fed on this, but is she willing to DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE forcing everyone to be subject to INCREASED TAXES and Cost of Goods (COGS) through the international mandates (UN) and Cap and TAX (Trade)?..
If not… WHY NOT? I’d also like to know her “deep throat” source’s opinion on the validity of any scientific paper (and subsequent papers and studies - i.e. - IPCC) where the RAW DATA used was tossed and NOT subject to scrutiny or review…
Re the recent tempest over the University of East Anglia climate unit people…
Here is my opinion:
SCIENTISTS ARGUE. This is what they do, constantly, until the science becomes inarguable. We do now agree that the earth is not flat. That is now accepted as inarguable.
SCIENTIFIC OPINION CHANGES AND EVOLVES AS THE DATA COMES IN. This is exactly the opposite of, say, the Baptist Religion, where the beliefs are pretty much set in stone. No new data there.
If you take sentences and emails out of context, then that’s what you get. Stuff out of context, which is now being interpreted by others.
Like the hysterical talking heads of the extreme right. Who are dying to have a global conspiracy! Of international scientists! And governments! Something to rant about, better than any movie plot.
That data was thrown out in the 1980’s, if I understood the articles correctly. There was no debate then, and people throw out raw data all the time once they get their final version. Heck, we’re always purging stuff out of this office; our shredder works overtime.
I heard Bill Nye, The Science Guy, debate a climate change debunker on TV yesterday. Basically the Science guy said, “We have so much data, from years and years and from all over the world. It is pretty indisputable now that man-made change is occurring.”
The data is vast. The international scientists supplying the date are innumerable. But yes, there is dissent. That is what science is. But I would ignore the opinions of the non-scientists! The politicized opinions.
We can’t ignore the data that comes in, the big picture. We need to start limiting emissions.
We can affect change. Sixty+ years ago the fogs in London were so dark that people routinely got lost in daytime. Buildings, cars, lungs were filled with soot. Respiratory illness was epidemic. Even butterflies and moths started evolving black sub-species!
Then regulations got put in place. London cleaned up. Emissions drastically lowered. Now London has white buildings again, and mostly sweet air. The killer fogs are gone. Also in Los Angeles, it is now sometimes possible to see the gorgeous purple mountains to the East, invisible for years.
These stories give me hope that we CAN undo some man-made problems. That we CAN minimize the climate change and warming we appear to be creating, like we created toxic, polluted cities. Although the developing world continues with unbridled emissions into their polluted air.
We need an international agreement on what to do. Then we need to do it. I have my hopes on Copenhagen. Let’s get on it.
Furnishedowner
Keep drinking that coolaid FO - it’s easier than actually reading the news and learning anything!
Furnishedowner,
Talk about glossing over the entire subject…
“SCIENTISTS ARGUE. This is what they do, constantly, until the science becomes inarguable. We do now agree that the earth is not flat. That is now accepted as inarguable.”
That is because is an OBSERVABLE, reproducible science… as we can see with the global COOLING over the past decade, which their computer models that they used to FORECAST future catastophe’s, FAILED to not only NOT predict, but said the OPPOSITE. They then not only ADMITTED in these emails that it failed to do so, but that it was a “TRAVESTY” that they couldn’t explain it… It was NOT REPEATABLE, but entirely INACCURATE FORECAST… therefore, NOT SCIENCE…
“If you take sentences and emails out of context, then that’s what you get. Stuff out of context, which is now being interpreted by others.”
Instead of parroting their inadequate defense of this, THINK FOR YOURSELF, and tell us what emails and sentences are taken out of context…
“That data was thrown out in the 1980’s, if I understood the articles correctly. There was no debate then…”
THINK about why that was… they WOULDN’T provide the data for scientific review and scrutiny… WHY??? and the BS about the original data being thrown, computer modeling is COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE to identify the core data, which is WHY they are finding out how FRAUDULENT the computer modeling, that the IPCC USED, along with the now DEBUNKED hockey stick theory as the BASIS for their report.
“…and people throw out raw data all the time once they get their final version. Heck, we’re always purging stuff out of this office; our shredder works overtime.”
It is NOT the same… peer-reviewed MEANS that they look at the methodology used, and the ORIGINAL DATA… nice try…
Even your hero, Hansen said - ‘They should release their data for example. Science works that way, you have to release your data’
"I heard Bill Nye, The Science Guy, debate a climate change debunker on TV yesterday. Basically the Science guy said, “We have so much data, from years and years and from all over the world. It is pretty indisputable now that man-made change is occurring.”
If it is INDISPUTABLE, then HOW could we have COOLING when they predicted WARMING when CO2 was INCREASING???
“The data is vast. The international scientists supplying the date are innumerable. But yes, there is dissent.”
Yes, and as we see with Climategate, they were SUPPRESSING dissent. Their are THOUSANDS of scientists disputing this…
“That is what science is. But I would ignore the opinions of the non-scientists! The politicized opinions.”
Problem is there are THOUSANDS of PHD’s DISSENTING… I am curious as to why you don’t consider them credible?? You can’t dismiss them as “right-wing talk show hosts”… :bs
“We can’t ignore the data that comes in, the big picture. We need to start limiting emissions.”
Yes, we can’t IGNORE the COOLING Data, right? Why are you CHOOSING to do so?
“We can affect change. Sixty+ years ago the fogs in London were so dark that people routinely got lost in daytime. Buildings, cars, lungs were filled with soot. Respiratory illness was epidemic. Even butterflies and moths started evolving black sub-species!”
Yes, we all want pollution… :rolleyes
“Then regulations got put in place. London cleaned up. Emissions drastically lowered. Now London has white buildings again, and mostly sweet air. The killer fogs are gone. Also in Los Angeles, it is now sometimes possible to see the gorgeous purple mountains to the East, invisible for years.”
Yes, and we did it WITHOUT giving TRILLIONS of dollars to the government…
“These stories give me hope that we CAN undo some man-made problems. That we CAN minimize the climate change and warming we appear to be creating, like we created toxic, polluted cities. Although the developing world continues with unbridled emissions into their polluted air.”
China and India, the LARGEST developing country, with China having the LARGEST CO2 “footprint” has said they will NOT go along with this… Now, I think it would be fair to say that BOTH these countries have their share of smart scientists… They RECOGNIZE the folly of Copenhagen…
“We need an international agreement on what to do. Then we need to do it. I have my hopes on Copenhagen. Let’s get on it.”
Is there anything you don’t rely on the government for???
Furnished,
You ever wonder why Al Gore never debates anyone on his main scam of the century??Or is he just “too busy” saving the world as he always claims to be.But somehow finds time to go on liberal networks,talk shows.
Kinda like your beloved Obama says he’s open to debate,then never does it.Gotta wonder why,atleast us who hold all accountable do.
Furnishedowner,
“That data was thrown out in the 1980’s, if I understood the articles correctly. There was no debate then, and people throw out raw data all the time once they get their final version. Heck, we’re always purging stuff out of this office; our shredder works overtime.”
Thinking back over your above response Furnishedowner, this thought from you stuck in my head. What is surprising to me is how willing you are to accept that they threw out the data that was used as a basis for the now infamous “hockey stick” graph from Mann and the CRU (that has been debunked), which was used on the FIRST IPCC report, and became the most reported on “evidence” of global warming, and PRINTED IN TEXT BOOKS for kids to read and absorb, and that it is not subject to analysis. Now mind you, they have been after this data for YEARS through FOI requests and NOW all of a sudden, it is revealed that the RAW data was thrown away… interestingly enough, after emails from the CRU show that the scientists said that they would DELETE the information rather than hand it over…
Notice the difference between DELETE and THROW AWAY… They HAVE to have the data to DELETE in the first place… the PHYSICAL raw data (that was SUPPOSEDLY thrown away) cannot be “deleted”… comparing DECADES of scientific research being thrown away to standard office practices is well… incredible…
So, I would ENCOURAGE you to THINK for YOURSELF and QUESTION what you are being fed… because although you PARROT it well, that’s all it is… one of the questions to ASK yourself is…
Why should ANY scientific reports/papers/etc. and subsequent material (IPCC reports, media, kids text books, etc.) BASED on it, hold ANY credibility if the RAW DATA is no longer available to fact-check it ESPECIALLY after it’s “smoking gun” and the BASIS for the global warming movement was DEBUNKED?