rushmc 18
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,426
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>do you think the earth is getting warmer?
>I HAVE SAID YES TO THAT MANY TIMES ON THIS SITE FCFS!!!
Fair enough. So you disagree with the article you posted, which claims the earth is not warming and it's a figment of the measurement process.
>I HAVE SAID YES TO THAT MANY TIMES ON THIS SITE FCFS!!!
Fair enough. So you disagree with the article you posted, which claims the earth is not warming and it's a figment of the measurement process.
Channman 2
> You know, maybe I should just cherry pick out the lines within and article that support only my point. Would that make it easier or would you perfer the whole article for context and honesty.
The article I posted clearly has issues with the way GW temp data is collected which is another point I have made in this debate. You just want to pick out bits and pieces to make this all seem confusing.
Why? I have an idea but I will not post it here.
Hey did you here about the GW Religion march to bring attention to Global Warming. They had to brave a blowing Snow Storm, just plan funny.
Just a follow up, has anybody recued them two pour Pollar Bares stuck and staving on the Ice Flow? Any recue mission being planned? Times running out with rising temp. and such, them poor things could drown.
The article I posted clearly has issues with the way GW temp data is collected which is another point I have made in this debate. You just want to pick out bits and pieces to make this all seem confusing.
Why? I have an idea but I will not post it here.
Hey did you here about the GW Religion march to bring attention to Global Warming. They had to brave a blowing Snow Storm, just plan funny.
Just a follow up, has anybody recued them two pour Pollar Bares stuck and staving on the Ice Flow? Any recue mission being planned? Times running out with rising temp. and such, them poor things could drown.
rushmc 18
Quote>>do you think the earth is getting warmer?
>I HAVE SAID YES TO THAT MANY TIMES ON THIS SITE FCFS!!!
Fair enough. So you disagree with the article you posted, which claims the earth is not warming and it's a figment of the measurement process.
And in my beleifs that the earth is warming I may be wrong. I have been skepitacal of the "science" for some time now. This is first time I have seen this position. What is your take on it?
Now, you add back the other articel you like to keep bringing back up and maybe the earth is not warming.
In any event, you continue to avoid the context of what I bring up for some kind of word game. That says volumes in and of itself.....don't you think?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,426
>Hey did you here about the GW Religion march to bring attention to
>Global Warming. They had to brave a blowing Snow Storm, just plan funny.
You must believe in the carefully-cultivated intentional misconception that global warming will result in warmer and drier temperatures everywhere. Contrary to many strawmen that the deniers have constructed, climate change will not eliminate winter.
>Global Warming. They had to brave a blowing Snow Storm, just plan funny.
You must believe in the carefully-cultivated intentional misconception that global warming will result in warmer and drier temperatures everywhere. Contrary to many strawmen that the deniers have constructed, climate change will not eliminate winter.
Channman 2
> You must believe in the carefully-cultivated intentional misconception that global warming will result in warmer and drier temperatures everywhere. Contrary to many strawmen that the deniers have constructed, climate change will not eliminate winter.
No, I believe I know very little, OK maybe nothing on the matter of GW other than I thought it was funny having a Global Warming March in blowing snow. In a desert would have made their point alittle clearer.
No, I believe I know very little, OK maybe nothing on the matter of GW other than I thought it was funny having a Global Warming March in blowing snow. In a desert would have made their point alittle clearer.
billvon 2,426
>I have been skepitacal of the "science" for some time now. This is first
>time I have seen this position. What is your take on it?
I don't know of any organization that uses geometric averages for temperature averages as he claims; NOAA uses straight arithmetic averages, and they provide much of the data used to estimate the degree of warming. If he identified an organization that did, I would be interested to review their methodology to see if they do indeed inflate their numbers by using a different methodology. Do you know of any that do?
This statement:
"it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth."
is foolish. The temperature in your refrigerator is not homogeneous either; the light bulb is much warmer when the door is open, the coils are much colder, and recently inserted items are warmer. But if you used that to claim "it's meaningless, therefore, if the average temperature in my refrigerator is 40 degrees or 70 degrees" people would laugh. Sane people know that your milk will spoil quickly if the average temperature in your refrigerator is 70 degrees, no matter what numerical hoops mathematicians jump through.
Average temperatures DO matter, and we can see the results every day in Alaska, Greenland, Europe, Maine, Mexico etc.
>In any event, you continue to avoid the context of what I bring up for
> some kind of word game. That says volumes in and of itself.....don't you
>think?
Yep. I think it indicates that you're not following the thread.
>time I have seen this position. What is your take on it?
I don't know of any organization that uses geometric averages for temperature averages as he claims; NOAA uses straight arithmetic averages, and they provide much of the data used to estimate the degree of warming. If he identified an organization that did, I would be interested to review their methodology to see if they do indeed inflate their numbers by using a different methodology. Do you know of any that do?
This statement:
"it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth."
is foolish. The temperature in your refrigerator is not homogeneous either; the light bulb is much warmer when the door is open, the coils are much colder, and recently inserted items are warmer. But if you used that to claim "it's meaningless, therefore, if the average temperature in my refrigerator is 40 degrees or 70 degrees" people would laugh. Sane people know that your milk will spoil quickly if the average temperature in your refrigerator is 70 degrees, no matter what numerical hoops mathematicians jump through.
Average temperatures DO matter, and we can see the results every day in Alaska, Greenland, Europe, Maine, Mexico etc.
>In any event, you continue to avoid the context of what I bring up for
> some kind of word game. That says volumes in and of itself.....don't you
>think?
Yep. I think it indicates that you're not following the thread.
billvon 2,426
>In a desert would have made their point alittle clearer.
If they had done that, deniers would have complained that it's ALWAYS hot in the desert, or something like that.
Climate change doesn't mean that Chicago will reach 90F in January, and it doesn't mean monster storms will come and kill everyone. It means that a 100F heat wave will last an extra day, or be one degree warmer. It means spring will come just a few days sooner. It means that snowfall may be just a bit heavier, and that hurricane may be a bit stronger. We can deal with these changes if they happen slowly. The debate now is how fast we want to force these changes to happen, and whether it would make more economic sense to slow down the changes and save all the money we'd otherwise spend on disaster mitigation (like, say, evacuating Bangladesh.)
If they had done that, deniers would have complained that it's ALWAYS hot in the desert, or something like that.
Climate change doesn't mean that Chicago will reach 90F in January, and it doesn't mean monster storms will come and kill everyone. It means that a 100F heat wave will last an extra day, or be one degree warmer. It means spring will come just a few days sooner. It means that snowfall may be just a bit heavier, and that hurricane may be a bit stronger. We can deal with these changes if they happen slowly. The debate now is how fast we want to force these changes to happen, and whether it would make more economic sense to slow down the changes and save all the money we'd otherwise spend on disaster mitigation (like, say, evacuating Bangladesh.)
rushmc 18
Quote>In a desert would have made their point alittle clearer.
If they had done that, deniers would have complained that it's ALWAYS hot in the desert, or something like that.
Climate change doesn't mean that Chicago will reach 90F in January, and it doesn't mean monster storms will come and kill everyone. It means that a 100F heat wave will last an extra day, or be one degree warmer. It means spring will come just a few days sooner. It means that snowfall may be just a bit heavier, and that hurricane may be a bit stronger. We can deal with these changes if they happen slowly. The debate now is how fast we want to force these changes to happen, and whether it would make more economic sense to slow down the changes and save all the money we'd otherwise spend on disaster mitigation (like, say, evacuating Bangladesh.)
There you do it again. You make a statement that GWisn is caused by man and there is no agrument about that as if it is fact.
What a crazy position.
I do understand why you need to look at it that way however. Time is your enemy in this cause. You have less than 5 years (I believe) to make changes in life styles and economies or you will have to dream up another disaster and start all over again.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,426
>What a crazy position.
Just saying "crazy?" No little crazy emoticon? You're slipping, my one-liner friend!
>I do understand why you need to look at it that way however. Time is
>your enemy in this cause.
Right, because it keeps getting cooler. Remember back when you claimed that global warming stopped in 1998?
>You have less than 5 years (I believe) to make changes in life styles and
> economies or you will have to dream up another disaster and start all
> over again.
Why Marc, are you saying that in 5 years global warming will reverse itself? I will bet you $200 (payable to the charity of your choice) that within the next 7 years we will see at least two more of the ten hottest years ever recorded. If you believe what you are saying, it's easy money.
Just saying "crazy?" No little crazy emoticon? You're slipping, my one-liner friend!
>I do understand why you need to look at it that way however. Time is
>your enemy in this cause.
Right, because it keeps getting cooler. Remember back when you claimed that global warming stopped in 1998?
>You have less than 5 years (I believe) to make changes in life styles and
> economies or you will have to dream up another disaster and start all
> over again.
Why Marc, are you saying that in 5 years global warming will reverse itself? I will bet you $200 (payable to the charity of your choice) that within the next 7 years we will see at least two more of the ten hottest years ever recorded. If you believe what you are saying, it's easy money.
rushmc 18
Quote>What a crazy position.
Just saying "crazy?" No little crazy emoticon? You're slipping, my one-liner friend!
>I do understand why you need to look at it that way however. Time is
>your enemy in this cause.
Right, because it keeps getting cooler. Remember back when you claimed that global warming stopped in 1998?
>You have less than 5 years (I believe) to make changes in life styles and
> economies or you will have to dream up another disaster and start all
> over again.
Why Marc, are you saying that in 5 years global warming will reverse itself? I will bet you $200 (payable to the charity of your choice) that within the next 7 years we will see at least two more of the ten hottest years ever recorded. If you believe what you are saying, it's easy money.
I must be getting close to truth seeing how you are now starting the labeling and semi insults.
If the planet is warming you may be right but that is not the issue now is it. The issue (and now I wonder if it is really) is the cause of the warming man. In either case I think not. And as I learn more I am confident you have no proof of that today.
Oh, I know you have you graphs computer models and Al Gore on your side but no proof.
So, your "one liner friend" as you called me here, will now even have to look more into my belief that the planet really is warming. The article makes some sense but, whether or not I change my mind about that does not change the fact that whatever is happening, man aint the cause.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,426
>If the planet is warming you may be right but that is not the issue now is it.
The article you posted disputed that very issue - so you MADE that the issue. Unless, of course, you have changed your mind again. (Sometimes you are your own worst enemy!)
>Oh, I know you have you graphs computer models and Al Gore on your
>side but no proof.
Agreed. I just have actual climactic observations, paleontological support, ice core data, oxygen-isotope levels over time, CO2 vs temperature studies, atmospheric physics, solar observations, validated models and scientific consensus. You have Rush Limbaugh, who I will readily admit is much bigger than I am, and can talk a LOT more than I can.
>that whatever is happening, man aint the cause.
I know you believe that as much as Speedy believes in his 9/11 conspiracies, and as much as fundamentalists believe in their religions. Which is fine; believe whatever you choose. Just don't make the mistake that some do, and mistake fervent belief for science. They ain't the same.
The article you posted disputed that very issue - so you MADE that the issue. Unless, of course, you have changed your mind again. (Sometimes you are your own worst enemy!)
>Oh, I know you have you graphs computer models and Al Gore on your
>side but no proof.
Agreed. I just have actual climactic observations, paleontological support, ice core data, oxygen-isotope levels over time, CO2 vs temperature studies, atmospheric physics, solar observations, validated models and scientific consensus. You have Rush Limbaugh, who I will readily admit is much bigger than I am, and can talk a LOT more than I can.
>that whatever is happening, man aint the cause.
I know you believe that as much as Speedy believes in his 9/11 conspiracies, and as much as fundamentalists believe in their religions. Which is fine; believe whatever you choose. Just don't make the mistake that some do, and mistake fervent belief for science. They ain't the same.
rushmc 18
Quote>If the planet is warming you may be right but that is not the issue now is it.
The article you posted disputed that very issue - so you MADE that the issue. Unless, of course, you have changed your mind again. (Sometimes you are your own worst enemy!)At least your are honest about where the data comes from but you can't acept that anybody would dare question your conclusionsQuote
Hey billvon, what was my comment? It was directly related to the data gathering. I simply posted the whole article for honestly.
>Oh, I know you have you graphs computer models and Al Gore on your
>side but no proof.
Agreed. I just have actual climactic observations, paleontological support, ice core data, oxygen-isotope levels over time, CO2 vs temperature studies, atmospheric physics, solar observations, validated models and scientific consensus. You have Rush Limbaugh, who I will readily admit is much bigger than I am, and can talk a LOT more than I can.
>that whatever is happening, man aint the cause.
I know you believe that as much as Speedy believes in his 9/11 conspiracies, and as much as fundamentalists believe in their religions. Which is fine; believe whatever you choose. Just don't make the mistake that some do, and mistake fervent belief for science. They ain't the same.
Now we go off topic.
At least I am willing to look at new info, data, questions of data gathering issues and question my views. You have made it quite clear you have no intention of doing anything similar.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
The article I posted clearly has issues with the way GW temp data is collected which is another point I have made in this debate. You just want to pick out bits and pieces to make this all seem confusing.
Why? I have an idea but I will not post it here.
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites