Dave_In_Norfolk Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html By RICHARD A. MULLER Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be. As many as 757 stations in the United States recorded net surface-temperature cooling over the past century. Many are concentrated in the southeast, where some people attribute tornadoes and hurricanes to warming. The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world. Interesting study Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 This is just one of many "counter" arguments to "Global Warming". There is little question that mankind needs to do a much better job stewarding the environment but the focus on "Global Warming" is a hindrance to that, not a help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 This is just one of many "counter" arguments to "Global Warming". There is little question that mankind needs to do a much better job stewarding the environment but the focus on "Global Warming" is a hindrance to that, not a help. "counter" needs to be in parentheses? You have been reading too many far right wing web sites. And the report supports the findings of ""Global" ""Warming"" even though the guy was a skeptic, and the report was funded by the Koch brothers. And only someone like you would see stopping global warming as a hinderence to improving the environment, or "environment" if that makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 You have been reading too many far right wing web sites. I don't read any right wing websites. Here's the thing: Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them a "right winger" or a Republican. It just makes them different. Or in this case, much smarter. And the report supports the findings of ""Global" ""Warming"" even though the guy was a skeptic, and the report was funded by the Koch brothers. And only someone like you would see stopping global warming as a hinderence to improving the environment, or "environment" if that makes you feel better. What the article stated was that they feel warming is real. They didn't even try to broach the subject of whether or not man is causing it. It also is a very basic summation, which is why you found it "interesting", I'll reserve judgment on the validity until I can view it in its entirety. So once again, do we start looking at sensible solutions to what we do to the environment or do we allow ridiculous things like carbon credit brokering (which makes what goes on on Wall Street look totally on the "up and up") to be the direction we go? I already know your answer, because you're a !@#$ing retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 "counter" needs to be in parentheses? You have been reading too many far right wing web sites. And the report supports the findings of ""Global" ""Warming"" even though the guy was a skeptic, and the report was funded by the Koch brothers. And only someone like you would see stopping global warming as a hinderence to improving the environment, or "environment" if that makes you feel better. Those are "quotation marks", dipshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 I don't read any right wing websites. Here's the thing: Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them a "right winger" or a Republican. It just makes them different. Or in this case, much smarter. What the article stated was that they feel warming is real. They didn't even try to broach the subject of whether or not man is causing it. It also is a very basic summation, which is why you found it "interesting", I'll reserve judgment on the validity until I can view it in its entirety. So once again, do we start looking at sensible solutions to what we do to the environment or do we allow ridiculous things like carbon credit brokering (which makes what goes on on Wall Street look totally on the "up and up") to be the direction we go? I already know your answer, because you're a !@#$ing retard. Why is credit carbon brokering "ridiculous"? It's worked already with other things. Is it because the people that pay for the propaganda you read don't like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Why is credit carbon brokering "ridiculous"? It's worked already with other things. Is it because the people that pay for the propaganda you read don't like it? Congratulations on being the trained monkey that you are and picking out the one tidbit I knew your tiny brain would focus on. What propaganda do I read, Dave? Be specific, you doddering hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Why is credit carbon brokering "ridiculous"? It's worked already with other things. Is it because the people that pay for the propaganda you read don't like it? Does "ridiculous" really need to be in angle brackets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Does "ridiculous" really need to be in angle brackets? Those are not angle brackets you !@#$ing moron. Those are quadruple tildes. Now go back and read your 1% propaganda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) <<Freak October Snowstorm Cripples the North East>> Note the improper use of guillemets. Edited October 30, 2011 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 <<Freak October Snowstorm Cripples the North East>> Note the improper use of guillemets. I am certain they will blame this on [{climate change}] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I am certain they will blame this on [{climate change}] &It is possible that it's a result of global warming.& ^It's also possible it's not.^ @As I've said before, YOU CAN'T DERIVE LONG-TERM TRENDS FROM SHORT-TERM DATA!!!@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barack Obama Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 YOU CAN'T DERIVE LONG-TERM TRENDS FROM SHORT-TERM DATA!!! Yes We Can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html Interesting study But he never claims it's man made And he gets refuted!!! http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts