Global Warming is a bunch of hooey

[Philosophy Explorer]

I keep seeing articles saying that global warming is a bunch of nonsense:

http://rickwells.us/nobel-prize-winning ... -it-alone/

PhilX

[SpheresOfBalance]

They're in denial, for fear!! As it stands to reason.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?

[Philosophy Explorer]

The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?

That's a secondary issue of minor importance.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?

That's a secondary issue of minor importance.

PhilX

Why do YOU think that they use "Hussien"? And not Barach?

[Philosophy Explorer]

The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?

That's a secondary issue of minor importance.

PhilX

Why do YOU think that they use "Hussien"? And not Barach?

Couldn't care less. I'm concerned with what the Nobel prize-winning physicist said about global warming and another part of the article in relationship to that.

PhilX

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."

And in my mind it surely stands to reason!

Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?

[Philosophy Explorer]

"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."

And in my mind it surely stands to reason!

Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?

A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.

Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.

PhilX

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."

And in my mind it surely stands to reason!

Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?

A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.
Or is it just that you and a few others can't have it any other way, so you grab for anything that makes you more comfortable. Then their's bias relating to those that have 'stock' in fossil fuel companies, stock in whatever terms! What if there was no hooey, no hoaxes, yet everyone believed that there was? Why ignore all the global events? Ask Californians and quite a few others about water. We know what the desserts once were.

If in fact you come upon a neighbors burning home, would you:

A) throw fuel on it?
B) stand and watch it burn?
C) or help throw water or it?

In that instant would it really matter how it got started?


Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."

And in my mind it surely stands to reason!

Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?

A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.
Or is it just that you and a few others can't have it any other way, so you grab for anything that makes you more comfortable. Then their's bias relating to those that have 'stock' in fossil fuel companies, stock in whatever terms! What if there was no hooey, no hoaxes, yet everyone believed that there was? Why ignore all the global events? Ask Californians and quite a few others about water. We know what the desserts once were.

If in fact you come upon a neighbors burning home, would you:

A) throw fuel on it?
B) stand and watch it burn?
C) or help throw water or it?

In that instant would it really matter how it got started?


Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.

PhilX

First you really don't know me as I'm not the type to just "grab for anything." With Californians, they seem to have a propensity for using a lot of water (btw Israel turned a desert into livable land with their desalination project). As far as knowing what the deserts once were, that would depend on the desert. I can't speak for the others so I'll let them speak for themselves.

PhilX

[SpheresOfBalance]

About the dead dinosaurs and plants that was once in the ground, as a remnant of prior life, was it required for future life? Did it somehow ensure that their would be future life? Show me such a study that asked such a thing, prior to it being extracted and sent into the atmosphere, never to return.

Actually it's more important to ask if we 'should' do something rather than ask if we 'could' do something. One "could" steal, rape and murder, but "should" they? I'd say no!

Instead, as to that which was in the earth, only "'could' I do this," was asked;


could I do this and make money;


could I make money;


Could I Make Money;


COULD I MAKE MONEY;


MONEY;


MONEY, WAAA HAAA HAAA HAH HAH HAH;


WHOOO HOOO HOOO HOOO HOOO, MONEY;


YEAH!!! MONEEEEEEEYYYY.


It was never asked if it 'should' be done, only very insanely, if it 'could' be done, greed, "Can I Make Money!"

And then we find out the truth...

But it's far too late...

It's been done...

The end of life...

The stupid animal that thought it 'could,' yet it really 'couldn't,' because of it's extremely irrational fear of survival, it went way way way over the top!

For what? Speed? Speed to the grave?

"Slow and steady," she said, "slow and steady."

It really 'shouldn't' have!

The End, Case Closed!

Another one bites the dust;

another one bites the dust;

And another one down;

Another one down;

Another one bites the dust;

Hey, it's gonna get you too;

Another one bites the dust!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Tell that to the polar bears.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."

And in my mind it surely stands to reason!

Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?

A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.

Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.

PhilX

I've already pointed this out to you, that daily weather forecast is NOT the same as global climate trends!!! It's like the difference between predicting approximately how many people in a population will die of cancer every year, to predicting whether a particular person will die of it. You might be able to take an educated guess, based on lifestyle etc. but you will be wrong a lot of the time. Did you not understand the first time?

[Philosophy Explorer]

"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."

And in my mind it surely stands to reason!

Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?

A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.

Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.

PhilX

I've already pointed this out to you, that daily weather forecast is NOT the same as global climate trends!!! It's like the difference between predicting approximately how many people in a population will die of cancer every year, to predicting whether a particular person will die of it (leaving out factors like smoking etc..) Did you not understand the first time?

My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.

PhilX

WTF? I just explained it to you. AGAIN!!