brenthutch 388 #1 December 30, 2011 I was listening to some left wing radio; (on-line because they can not support an, over air audience (RIP Air America)) Their "proof of AGW was that this winter has had the least amount of snow EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY since 1972. The warmists look at that fact as irrefutable evidence of global warming, I look at it and think that it was worse in '72. Same thing with drought, "Worst drought in 500 years" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5239212/ns/weather-weather_news/t/west-drought-could-be-worst-years/#.Tv1jvvLfcjk I look at that as think "wow it was a lot worse 500 years ago" Warmest use that as a cudgel to push their AGW agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #2 December 30, 2011 Conservatives and science, lol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #3 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteConservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteConservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #5 December 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Conservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. In a way they have proven his point They also provide evidence that deniers are more intelligent that alarmists"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #6 December 30, 2011 Quote *** Quote Quote Quote *** Quote Conservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. In a way they have proven his point They also provide evidence that deniers are more intelligent that alarmists I wonder what percentage of climate change deniers beleive in an 8000 year old earth ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #7 December 30, 2011 Quote Quote *** Quote Quote Quote *** Quote Conservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. In a way they have proven his point They also provide evidence that deniers are more intelligent that alarmists I wonder what percentage of climate change deniers beleive in an 8000 year old earth ? Now knowledge or intelligence is the direction you want to take this? Or since you used the word believe, are we going the alarmists and faith direction?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #8 December 30, 2011 Quote***QuoteQuote***QuoteConservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. Speaking of funny, no more bright ideas like the US diposing dictators for half of the countries wealth? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 December 30, 2011 Quote Quote *** Quote Quote *** Quote Conservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. Speaking of funny, no more bright ideas like the US diposing dictators for half of the countries wealth? What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Some more funny stuff...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #10 December 30, 2011 Quote What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? The WMD didn't exist either?Edit: In the mean time plants and trees in my garden are budding out and I even got some plants flowering. Well, that's of course just the local weather faking climate change resulting in spring-like weather in December. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 December 30, 2011 Last year, proof was in the record snowcover that included every state except Florida. Hence my problem of attribution. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 December 30, 2011 Quote Quote What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? The WMD didn't exist either?Edit: In the mean time plants and trees in my garden are budding out and I even got some plants flowering. Well, that's of course just the local weather faking climate change resulting in spring-like weather in December. And we had snow last year in November. Did you have a point or are you also basing your views on anecdotal evidence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #13 December 30, 2011 QuoteAnd we had snow last year in November. Did you have a point or are you also basing your views on anecdotal evidence? You forgot to mention that Dutch weather tends to be liberally biased. As for my views: I'm no climatologist, but I know the basics of GW, and AFAICS the data points in the direction of GW. My anecdotal experiences that indeed don't prove a thing, happen to point in the same direction, that's all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd we had snow last year in November. Did you have a point or are you also basing your views on anecdotal evidence? You forgot to mention that Dutch weather tends to be liberally biased. As for my views: I'm no climatologist, but I know the basics of GW, and AFAICS the data points in the direction of GW. My anecdotal experiences that indeed don't prove a thing, happen to point in the same direction, that's all. Then hopefully you understand the differences between Global Warming and Climate Change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #15 December 30, 2011 QuoteThen hopefully you understand the differences between Global Warming and Climate Change. I do, I also see the connection between the two. Shall we exchange more rather meaningless phrases, or shall we call it a day? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #16 December 30, 2011 >You forgot to mention that Dutch weather tends to be liberally biased. Yep. Like the man said, reality has a well-known liberal bias. Only by getting a wide variety of information, from CNN, FOX News _and_ denier sites, can right wingers avoid the insidious influence of reality on their opinions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteThen hopefully you understand the differences between Global Warming and Climate Change. I do, I also see the connection between the two. Shall we exchange more rather meaningless phrases, or shall we call it a day? If you have something more meaningful to contribute, please do so. Or you could just continue to try and hijack the thread and turn it into another off topic folly about deposing dictators bladda.... bladda.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #18 December 30, 2011 Quote>You forgot to mention that Dutch weather tends to be liberally biased. Yep. Like the man said, reality has a well-known liberal bias. Only by getting a wide variety of information, from CNN, FOX News _and_ denier sites, can right wingers avoid the insidious influence of reality on their opinions. And Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. But what does he know? He's probably just a racist redneck like the rest of the climate change skeptics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuote>You forgot to mention that Dutch weather tends to be liberally biased. Yep. Like the man said, reality has a well-known liberal bias. Only by getting a wide variety of information, from CNN, FOX News _and_ denier sites, can right wingers avoid the insidious influence of reality on their opinions. And Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. But what does he know? He's probably just a racist redneck like the rest of the climate change skeptics. No, no...he's under the pay of "Big Oil", remember? That whopping 300 million that *COMPLETELY* overshadows the 80 billion that's been spent on climate "research". Isn't it amazing how the "logic" works, though? Conservatives are stupid politically because they (supposedly) get all their info from a single source, and skeptics are stupid regarding climate because they get their info from several sources. Of course, the lie in the statement is that the 'multiple sources' that are so touted on the political side are all spouting the exact same message, just as the single source on the climate side is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #20 December 31, 2011 That is what I am trying to figure out. It would seem that scientific knowledge on the left is a mile wide and an inch deep. They will say "the head of NASA's space studies department and the science advisor to the White House says: ................. Which sounds impressive until one peels back a layer or two and finds out that this same guy (James Hanson) was warning about global COOLING and the next ICE AGE back in the 70s. And that he has been arrested several times and has been widely criticized, even by those who support his goals. "New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert believes Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists." [95] Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist.... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible..."[95] New York Times climate columnist Christa Marshall asks if Hansen still matters in the ongoing climate debate, noting that he "has irked many longtime supporters with his scathing attacks against President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system."[96] "The right wing loves what he's doing," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.[96] Yet you still have warmists site his words as gospel!??!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #21 December 31, 2011 I just came across an article which further illustrates the limited nature of scientific understanding on the left. http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/30/the-suns-impact-on-earths-temperature-goes-far-beyond-tsi-new-paper-shows/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #22 December 31, 2011 Framing a scientific issue into a left/right debate is a fool's errand. I choose not to drink that Kool-aid, thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #23 December 31, 2011 Well, I can see how you can split science into left wing and right wing fields, but it's kinda hard if you're in the political centre. You would need to believe that in birds the right wing was created, and the left wing evolved, I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 December 31, 2011 Which is exactly the problem. Politics has become the adjunct for science on both sides. Climate change would NOT be the issue it is without the political ramifications measured in where people want trillions of dollars sent. The sooner we start differentiating between science and politics the better. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #25 December 31, 2011 QuoteWhich sounds impressive until one peels back a layer or two and finds out that this same guy (James Hanson) was warning about global COOLING and the next ICE AGE back in the 70s. Do you have an original source for this? Or are you just relying on what you've heard? Hansen has a different take on the subject: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
