Fingon Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 March 2, 2009 -- For those who have endured this winter's frigid temperatures and today's heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful. But climate is known to be variable -- a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn't mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades. Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/g...ming-pause.html Looks like Al Gore was wrong on anything happening in the near future.
Joe Miner Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Is Statistics no longer a required course for almost all college grads?
drnykterstein Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 the globe will warm and Obama will be the anti-christ and then everyone will die and it will be armageddon and your silly bible prophecies will be right and you will go to heaven because you were a good person. is that what you want to hear? are we done yet, can we get serious about these things now?
sweet baboo Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Is Statistics no longer a required course for almost all college grads? are you kidding? can you imagine a music theater major taking statistics?
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 the globe will warm and Obama will be the anti-christ and then everyone will die and it will be armageddon and your silly bible prophecies will be right and you will go to heaven because you were a good person. is that what you want to hear? are we done yet, can we get serious about these things now? Ladies and gentlemen, Bill Maher is in the house. Welcome, Bill. Thanks for paraphrasing your Oscars moment. Tell us again about following our "silly Gods," would you? We just can't get enough of your condescension.
gmac17 Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 the weatherman a week ago was 100% wrong on his prediction for yesterday. I'm shocked that people making predictions decades out aren't correct.
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 You can't determine long-term trends from short-term data.
Booster4324 Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 You can't determine long-term trends from short-term data. Keep trying, maybe it will sink in.
/dev/null Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Shutup! There's a consensus! Not only was there a consensus, there's a freakin Power Point® presentation!
Dante Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/g...ming-pause.html Looks like Al Gore was wrong on anything happening in the near future. Shush. It's settled. We all have to live like euros to save the planet! Please don't muddle this up to cast doubt on the leftist dream of a touchy feely socialist state
Ramius Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 You can't determine long-term trends from short-term data. This.
Bad Lieutenant Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Shutup! There's a consensus! Not only was there a consensus, there's a freakin Power Point® presentation! Shush. It's settled. We all have to live like euros to save the planet! Please don't muddle this up to cast doubt on the leftist dream of a touchy feely socialist state Hilarious! In a frantic rush to flaunt their religious devotion to anthropogenic global warming denial it seems these lemmings are using a scientist who believes in AGW as evidence of a lack of consensus! Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us. "When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive." Apparently reading past the first page is impossible for these clowns once the phrase "global warming" activates their moronic Pavlovian responses.
Helmet_hair Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 You can't determine long-term trends from short-term data. WHAT would make a good representative sample 10, 25, 100, 1 billion years for an earth that's 4.6 billion years old? I don't think even ship weather data goes back over a hundred years. It's all BS
OCinBuffalo Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Hilarious! In a frantic rush to flaunt their religious devotion to anthropogenic global warming denial it seems these lemmings are using a scientist who believes in AGW as evidence of a lack of consensus! There is abundant evidence of a lack of a "consensus" all over the damn internet. I hardly think calling people names changes that fact. We know that a significant # of scientists, and not just ones looking to get grant money to "study global warming" now say that the whole theory/cause and or outcomes are either complete BS, or, aren't going to have a real, noticeable effect. Again, I will remind you that calling people names doesn't make those scientists go away, and neither does avoiding any attempt to refute the direct contradictory evidence by saying the same thing over and over again. Apparently reading past the first page is impossible for these clowns once the phrase "global warming" activates their moronic Pavlovian responses. Apparently you can't deal with the fact that somebody is questioning what has clearly taken on the form of a religion to you. Sorry, but your little hippie religion is about to go away for a very long time: nobody gives a flying f about the environment when they don't have a job, can't feed their kids, or pay for their school. Pack up your schit, the irrelevant train is leaving the station and you and the rest of your little phony religion all have mandatory, first class seats.
IDBillzFan Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 There is abundant evidence of a lack of a "consensus" all over the damn internet. I hardly think calling people names changes that fact. We know that a significant # of scientists, and not just ones looking to get grant money to "study global warming" now say that the whole theory/cause and or outcomes are either complete BS, or, aren't going to have a real, noticeable effect. Again, I will remind you that calling people names doesn't make those scientists go away, and neither does avoiding any attempt to refute the direct contradictory evidence by saying the same thing over and over again. Apparently you can't deal with the fact that somebody is questioning what has clearly taken on the form of a religion to you. Sorry, but your little hippie religion is about to go away for a very long time: nobody gives a flying f about the environment when they don't have a job, can't feed their kids, or pay for their school. Pack up your schit, the irrelevant train is leaving the station and you and the rest of your little phony religion all have mandatory, first class seats. Damn. Keep that up and he's not going to take you purse shopping.
Bad Lieutenant Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 There is abundant evidence of a lack of a "consensus" all over the damn internet. I hardly think calling people names changes that fact. We know that a significant # of scientists, and not just ones looking to get grant money to "study global warming" now say that the whole theory/cause and or outcomes are either complete BS, or, aren't going to have a real, noticeable effect. Again, I will remind you that calling people names doesn't make those scientists go away, and neither does avoiding any attempt to refute the direct contradictory evidence by saying the same thing over and over again. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit- If your going to argue against the existence of a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming that's fine, just don't use a scientist who actually believes in anthropogenic global warming as an example. Is that so hard to understand?
Alaska Darin Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit- If your going to argue against the existence of a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming that's fine, just don't use a scientist who actually believes in anthropogenic global warming as an example. Is that so hard to understand? I didn't read the article. I concentrated on "Earth's climate continues to confound scientists." - which has been my point all along. It's awfully difficult to build a consensus when you're "confounded". The fact that a single scientist in an article believes in "Global Warming" means very little when there isn't a single person on this planet that has even a basic grasp on how the environment really works, much less the overall effect that "emissions" are truly having on it. And just for clarification: The human race is horrible on the environment and should be ashamed of itself. That doesn't mean that we need to adopt the draconian measures being proposed by Gore and the rest of his a-hole pals who're in it to make bank.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit- If your going to argue against the existence of a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming that's fine, just don't use a scientist who actually believes in anthropogenic global warming as an example. Is that so hard to understand? I assure you it is. However your reading comprehension is at issue here, let's try this again. From my post: "There is abundant evidence of a lack of a "consensus" all over the damn internet. I hardly think calling people names changes that fact. We know that a significant # of scientists, and not just ones looking to get grant money to "study global warming" rolleyes.gif now say that the whole theory/cause and or outcomes are either complete BS, or, aren't going to have a real, noticeable effect." Clue 1: Clearly I don't care one way or the other about this, or any, single scientist. That what the "abundant evidence of a lack of consensus" and "a significant # of scientists" mean. Reading comprehension is important and you should work on yours before you question others. Your entire argument: single scientist who supports this farce, for money, is f'ing irrelevant when we consider the fact that literally 10's of 1,000s of scientist have thrown a BS flag on this. Clue 2: This is hysterical, because instead of attempting to deal with what I am saying, you are trying to deflect this into pretending that I agree that using a single scientist, whether he is one of your religious zealots or not, is a good idea, and then acting like you are simply arguing against that. Again, I don't care about a single scientist either way. That's NOT what I am saying. Again, reading comprehension is important and you need to try arguing against points people are actually making instead of these lame attempts to set up straw arguments and then argue against them. I am saying that your dopey little religion is going bye-bye, deal with that, and stop trying to avoid the point I am making.
Recommended Posts