In my opinion, the Sun is the primary cause of global warming, and the fluctuations. If I'm not mistaken, Mars has experienced global warming in about the same pattern as we have. No dinosaur flatulence that we're aware of, no SUV's or spray cans full of ozone. Probably the Sun, don't you think?
So, how we behave, what we do to cope, is all we can control.
Interesting piece on what happened to the Sumerians on Yahoo today. The most advanced civilization of it's time, killed by drought. Maybe we could try to be smarter. Use our technology to preserve when possible.
Denying climate change is totally up to whomever. That said, I find it rather similar to people who denied the roundness of the earth for hundreds and even thousands of years due to "lack of evidence". Trouble was that there was evidence, and even more as the years passed by.
Vulchor. The climate may be changing. In fact, I'm sure it is. Its natural. What I deny is the claim that an increase in CO2 emissions causes the atmospheric temperature to increase. It is the whole basis for reducing oil based energy on this planet. However, it has yet to be proven that increased CO2 causes the temperature to increase. And its' this position that is used in the political landscape across the entire planet. When science gets corrupted by politics, we all lose. JMO.
C02 is causing the planet to heat up,, are you also gonna deny the hole in the ozone layer too, or how bout the *** we pump into the sky performing weather modification. Natural cycles my azz
Denying climate change is totally up to whomever. That said, I find it rather similar to people who denied the roundness of the earth for hundreds and even thousands of years due to "lack of evidence". Trouble was that there was evidence, and even more as the years passed by.
Vulchor. The climate may be changing. In fact, I'm sure it is. Its natural. What I deny is the claim that an increase in CO2 emissions causes the atmospheric temperature to increase. It is the whole basis for reducing oil based energy on this planet. However, it has yet to be proven that increased CO2 causes the temperature to increase. And its' this position that is used in the political landscape across the entire planet. When science gets corrupted by politics, we all lose. JMO.
C02 is causing the planet to heat up,, are you also gonna deny the hole in the ozone layer too, or how bout the *** we pump into the sky performing weather modification. Natural cycles my azz
Actually, Kid, I read an article this summer outlining how much the hole in the ozone has closed up despite the fact that the CFCs blamed for the hole have increased world wide, not declined, despite our outlawing them here. Nobody knows why this happens. Climatology is in its infancy.
Of course climate changes. Weather is proverbial for change. That's not even the question, is it? There's a whole series of questions, each of which must be answered firmly in the affirmative before any of this apocalyptic dread makes any sense. Whether climate is changing is not even on the list. Let me work on this list and post it. See what you think. Cause most of the discussion of this stuff is just straw men and hyperbole.
Denying climate change is totally up to whomever. That said, I find it rather similar to people who denied the roundness of the earth for hundreds and even thousands of years due to "lack of evidence". Trouble was that there was evidence, and even more as the years passed by.
Vulchor. The climate may be changing. In fact, I'm sure it is. Its natural. What I deny is the claim that an increase in CO2 emissions causes the atmospheric temperature to increase. It is the whole basis for reducing oil based energy on this planet. However, it has yet to be proven that increased CO2 causes the temperature to increase. And its' this position that is used in the political landscape across the entire planet. When science gets corrupted by politics, we all lose. JMO.
C02 is causing the planet to heat up,, are you also gonna deny the hole in the ozone layer too, or how bout the *** we pump into the sky performing weather modification. Natural cycles my azz
Show me the proof. Show me a scientific article that proves that an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise in the atmosphere. It should be out there somewhere, but it isn't. Its a theory, not proof. I'm a scientist, and when I hear stuff like "climate scientists all believe" or "its' a consensus of climate scientists". That's crap in my book, not science. Believe? consensus? Poppycock. Science is about proof, and until it is proven, I don't accept it.
I don't know how old many in this forum are, but in the 1970s Time magazine was publishing articles by "scientists " saying that we were entering the next Ice Age. Some say we are headed to one now http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm The Sun controls the temperature of our planet. If Al Gore and the rest of the extremely rich Global Warming fear mongers really believed that CO2 was causing this, then they would ground their fleets of super jets and quit using natural gas to warm and cool their ultra-mansions. Its' about controlling energy, plain and simple. Just my opinion. I'd rather be called a denier of an unproven science than a useful idiot in promoting the unproven.
Don't believe me look it up. The word is the Mississippi will be closed to commercial navigation in December above Cairo IL,when they shut off half the water coming out of the Missouri River . This is normal procedure unfortunately we are already expierencing record low water conditions. I doubt any of the small towing companies will survive. And the big ones will have massive layoffs. Not to mention the tens of thousands of people who make their living in one way or another from river transportation.
This is expected to be a national economic disaster that's unparalleled. Our only hope is if congress or the President forces the corp of engineers to keep the Missouri flowing.
This is the first time in my 30 Years working boats that I've ever feared losing my job.
"...the usual Midwest dry season, combined with the region’s worst drought since 1956, is projected to push Mississippi levels so low shipping would have to be halted in a section near the river’s midpoint south of St. Louis. At risk are 20,000 jobs and $130 million in wages and benefits if the river is closed for two months...
...Because of the drought, the Mississippi has received as much as 78 percent of its water from the Missouri this year, compared with 60 percent in a normal year, according to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. Even more may be needed to stave off economic catastrophe, the shippers argue...
...The Army Corps has the authority to provide additional water flow for downstream interests and has done so several times in the past, Missouri Governor Nixon said in a statement released by his office last month...
... a congressionally mandated manual for the Missouri that spells out eight uses for that river that the Army Corps must take into account: hydropower, water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife, recreation, irrigation, navigation and flood control. To meet irrigation needs, for example, the Army Corps is required to set aside a reserve that can handle 12 years of dryness, a period in length comparable to the Dust Bowl, Farhat said. This year, about a fifth of the supply already has been used, “and this is the first year. Droughts don’t normally last only one year in this part of the country,” she said."
Denying climate change is totally up to whomever. That said, I find it rather similar to people who denied the roundness of the earth for hundreds and even thousands of years due to "lack of evidence". Trouble was that there was evidence, and even more as the years passed by.
Vulchor. The climate may be changing. In fact, I'm sure it is. Its natural. What I deny is the claim that an increase in CO2 emissions causes the atmospheric temperature to increase. It is the whole basis for reducing oil based energy on this planet. However, it has yet to be proven that increased CO2 causes the temperature to increase. And its' this position that is used in the political landscape across the entire planet. When science gets corrupted by politics, we all lose. JMO.
C02 is causing the planet to heat up,, are you also gonna deny the hole in the ozone layer too, or how bout the *** we pump into the sky performing weather modification. Natural cycles my azz
Show me the proof. Show me a scientific article that proves that an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise in the atmosphere. It should be out there somewhere, but it isn't. Its a theory, not proof. I'm a scientist, and when I hear stuff like "climate scientists all believe" or "its' a consensus of climate scientists". That's crap in my book, not science. Believe? consensus? Poppycock. Science is about proof, and until it is proven, I don't accept it.
I don't know how old many in this forum are, but in the 1970s Time magazine was publishing articles by "scientists " saying that we were entering the next Ice Age. Some say we are headed to one now http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm The Sun controls the temperature of our planet. If Al Gore and the rest of the extremely rich Global Warming fear mongers really believed that CO2 was causing this, then they would ground their fleets of super jets and quit using natural gas to warm and cool their ultra-mansions. Its' about controlling energy, plain and simple. Just my opinion. I'd rather be called a denier of an unproven science than a useful idiot in promoting the unproven.
To my knowledge Nobody has called you anything except being a liar but that is another subject. Not sure what your field of expertise is but it has been proven that greenhouse gasses are affecting our climate and to say anything else is an uneducated statement, I dont blame you for your ignorance in the subject but I do question your motivation. Heres just one article that has all kinds of links to empirical data which cannot be denied.(but Im sure youll find a way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
Denying climate change is totally up to whomever. That said, I find it rather similar to people who denied the roundness of the earth for hundreds and even thousands of years due to "lack of evidence". Trouble was that there was evidence, and even more as the years passed by.
Vulchor. The climate may be changing. In fact, I'm sure it is. Its natural. What I deny is the claim that an increase in CO2 emissions causes the atmospheric temperature to increase. It is the whole basis for reducing oil based energy on this planet. However, it has yet to be proven that increased CO2 causes the temperature to increase. And its' this position that is used in the political landscape across the entire planet. When science gets corrupted by politics, we all lose. JMO.
C02 is causing the planet to heat up,, are you also gonna deny the hole in the ozone layer too, or how bout the *** we pump into the sky performing weather modification. Natural cycles my azz
Show me the proof. Show me a scientific article that proves that an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise in the atmosphere. It should be out there somewhere, but it isn't. Its a theory, not proof. I'm a scientist, and when I hear stuff like "climate scientists all believe" or "its' a consensus of climate scientists". That's crap in my book, not science. Believe? consensus? Poppycock. Science is about proof, and until it is proven, I don't accept it.
I don't know how old many in this forum are, but in the 1970s Time magazine was publishing articles by "scientists " saying that we were entering the next Ice Age. Some say we are headed to one now http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm The Sun controls the temperature of our planet. If Al Gore and the rest of the extremely rich Global Warming fear mongers really believed that CO2 was causing this, then they would ground their fleets of super jets and quit using natural gas to warm and cool their ultra-mansions. Its' about controlling energy, plain and simple. Just my opinion. I'd rather be called a denier of an unproven science than a useful idiot in promoting the unproven.
To my knowledge Nobody has called you anything except being a liar but that is another subject. Not sure what your field of expertise is but it has been proven that greenhouse gasses are affecting our climate and to say anything else is an uneducated statement, I dont blame you for your ignorance in the subject but I do question your motivation. Heres just one article that has all kinds of links to empirical data which cannot be denied.(but Im sure youll find a way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
Wiki articles? seriously?. Ok, I went beyond and found it to be based on a NASA study. Nasa? Seriously? They are a government controlled program and have a partnership with the IPCC.
Look, I don't doubt that CO2 has increased in our atmosphere, but it isn't the cause of global warming. If it were, the spike in the chart would correlate to increased temperatures, and it doesn't.
Here's a little reading from the other side.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
As to your other assertions, I have no motivation. I was taught the scientific method in school and this stuff just doesn't fit in. My expertise? I have a BS and an MS in Geology and have had both undergraduate and graduate classes on solar activity. For the past 30 years I have worked in the wetlands of south Louisiana and can tell you from personal experience that the sea level in the Gulf of Mexico has remain basically the same the entire time. And I've listened to the pundits try to deliver science in the public realm my entire life. LOL. You can call me a skeptic of pundit science. I have a question for you. Do you believe that the sun (normal solar activity and sun spots) causes the atmosphere to warm and/or cool? And what is your field of expertise?
I was going to leave this one alone, but wikipedia???? Really? In order for one to make a reasonable argument one must first have reasonable sources of information.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Instructors, professors, others in academia, and experts in their fields will undoubtedly scoff at anything citing wikipedia. Most would prefer something that is not media based or without peer review.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Riiiiight....and you click on the links? And they lead where they say. This is how the internet works. If you think the linked info is false provide links to proper data. Peer reviewed studies. Journals and the like.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
Instructors, professors, others in academia, and experts in their fields will undoubtedly scoff at anything citing wikipedia. Most would prefer something that is not media based or without peer review.
I understand this, but that one article links over 200 citations and multiple sources of further reading. It is like posting an encyclopedia article. They are brief, and provide little to no info on methodology. However, if you follow the footnotes or bibliographies in them you can then reach the sources on which an encyclopedia article is based. It is a summation. It allows multiple sources to be linked with one URL instead of asking a new reader to search 1000s of reports for relevant data. Also, food for thought.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Riiiiight....and you click on the links? And they lead where they say. This is how the internet works. If you think the linked info is false provide links to proper data. Peer reviewed studies. Journals and the like.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
Geology, from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
Geology (from the Greek ??, gê, "earth" and ?????, logos, "study") is the science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change. Geology can also refer generally to the study of the solid features of any celestial body (such as the geology of the Moon or Mars).
Geology gives insight into the history of the Earth, as it provides the primary evidence for plate tectonics, the evolutionary history of life, and past climates. In modern times, geology is commercially important for mineral and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation and for evaluating water resources. It is publicly important for the prediction and understanding of natural hazards, the remediation of environmental problems, and for providing insights into past climate change.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Riiiiight....and you click on the links? And they lead where they say. This is how the internet works. If you think the linked info is false provide links to proper data. Peer reviewed studies. Journals and the like.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
First line, "A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but that is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by a mainstream scientific consensus, or a theory which has been shown to be false." I thought you didn't like consensuses? Also, just showing theories have proven bunk in the past does not mean a current one is true or false. So, just since you have thrown it out there, if encyclopedias cannot be trusted to reference good info, what is your criteria? What makes the references on your linked sites better? I am now genuinely curious. How do you choose?
And you are right. Challenging your credentials was a low blow. I am sorry. It was petty of me. Anyone who has devoted enough time to have a Master's and is still working and seeking learning in his chosen field should be respected for that.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Riiiiight....and you click on the links? And they lead where they say. This is how the internet works. If you think the linked info is false provide links to proper data. Peer reviewed studies. Journals and the like.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
First line, "A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but that is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by a mainstream scientific consensus, or a theory which has been shown to be false." I thought you didn't like consensuses? Also, just showing theories have proven bunk in the past does not mean a current one is true or false. So, just since you have thrown it out there, if encyclopedias cannot be trusted to reference good info, what is your criteria? What makes the references on your linked sites better? I am now genuinely curious. How do you choose?
And you are right. Challenging your credentials was a low blow. I am sorry. It was petty of me. Anyone who has devoted enough time to have a Master's and is still working and seeking learning in his chosen field should be respected for that.
My whole objective over the last few posts was just to show that we all have access to a computer in front of us and can probably pull up something to prove our point. Did you notice how I used wiki in the last 2? hehe. But my main objection would be to say that I think CO2 based, man-mad Global Warming is not proven science. But, more so, it has been kidnapped by certain groups for their agenda. There's money to be made in this. A lot of that money has gone on to promote it and fund certain scientists. And I also know that energy money also gets spent on research to promote their agenda too. I'm just not a cheerleader for this cause. Carbon Taxes? That's governmental control. Unless people start calling me really bad names, I'm gonna let this rest. I'll leave you with one more link that I found, yes, posted on the internet, by someone probably not credit worthy, but who has obviously done more homework than me, and has presented in a manner far more professional than me. Oh, and he also has lots of blue links. Hehe. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/ is an excellent link right there, beatnic. That guy has taken the time to link a whole crapload of data all in one page.
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Riiiiight....and you click on the links? And they lead where they say. This is how the internet works. If you think the linked info is false provide links to proper data. Peer reviewed studies. Journals and the like.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
First line, "A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but that is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by a mainstream scientific consensus, or a theory which has been shown to be false." I thought you didn't like consensuses? Also, just showing theories have proven bunk in the past does not mean a current one is true or false. So, just since you have thrown it out there, if encyclopedias cannot be trusted to reference good info, what is your criteria? What makes the references on your linked sites better? I am now genuinely curious. How do you choose?
And you are right. Challenging your credentials was a low blow. I am sorry. It was petty of me. Anyone who has devoted enough time to have a Master's and is still working and seeking learning in his chosen field should be respected for that.
My whole objective over the last few posts was just to show that we all have access to a computer in front of us and can probably pull up something to prove our point. Did you notice how I used wiki in the last 2? hehe. But my main objection would be to say that I think CO2 based, man-mad Global Warming is not proven science. But, more so, it has been kidnapped by certain groups for their agenda. There's money to be made in this. A lot of that money has gone on to promote it and fund certain scientists. And I also know that energy money also gets spent on research to promote their agenda too. I'm just not a cheerleader for this cause. Carbon Taxes? That's governmental control. Unless people start calling me really bad names, I'm gonna let this rest. I'll leave you with one more link that I found, yes, posted on the internet, by someone probably not credit worthy, but who has obviously done more homework than me, and has presented in a manner far more professional than me. Oh, and he also has lots of blue links. Hehe. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
Do you mind tellin us what petroleum company you are employed by? Exxon, BP, Chevron???
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/ is an excellent link right there, beatnic. That guy has taken the time to link a whole crapload of data all in one page.
Yeah but unfortunately I couldn't get past his very first data point on Minnesota about record cold weather in 2011. You see, Minnesota had one of the warmest winters on record in 2011. Having lived through the balmy 2011 winter in MN, the comment made me laugh out loud. His data is referring to a specific day. On September 16th there was a trace of snow in Duluth and the temp was +19 deg F! Hilarious! Talk about spinning a tale in your favor! Hey guys, look what I googled... http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/ is an excellent link right there, beatnic. That guy has taken the time to link a whole crapload of data all in one page.
Yeah but unfortunately I couldn't get past his very first data point on Minnesota about record cold weather in 2011. You see, Minnesota had one of the warmest winters on record in 2011. Having lived through the balmy 2011 winter in MN, the comment made me laugh out loud. His data is referring to a specific day. Talk about spinning a tale in your favor! Hey guys, look what I googled... http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/
I knew you guys would get a kick out of that link. I got it off the internet. LOL.
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/ is an excellent link right there, beatnic. That guy has taken the time to link a whole crapload of data all in one page.
Yeah but unfortunately I couldn't get past his very first data point on Minnesota about record cold weather in 2011. You see, Minnesota had one of the warmest winters on record in 2011. Having lived through the balmy 2011 winter in MN, the comment made me laugh out loud. His data is referring to a specific day. Talk about spinning a tale in your favor! Hey guys, look what I googled... http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/
I knew you guys would get a kick out of that link. I got it off the internet. LOL.
I googled c3 to try and find out who was backing them and it turns out they are a right wing movement which is constantly referenced by Shaun Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. and I found the link noted above, I tend not to rely on any blog, but threw it out there.. I guess we all agree just because its in print doesnt make it true
Two bashings of Wikipedia for data integrity is too much. Those big blue numbers by the facts on an article? They are called citations. You click on them. They lead to the studies, articles, and journals where the information was originally found. Also, note at the bottom of such articles links to both further reading on the subject and external links.
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
Those big blue marks you speak of? They are put there by the folks who post the info. And the folks who post decide what citations they want you to refer to.
Riiiiight....and you click on the links? And they lead where they say. This is how the internet works. If you think the linked info is false provide links to proper data. Peer reviewed studies. Journals and the like.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
First line, "A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but that is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by a mainstream scientific consensus, or a theory which has been shown to be false." I thought you didn't like consensuses? Also, just showing theories have proven bunk in the past does not mean a current one is true or false. So, just since you have thrown it out there, if encyclopedias cannot be trusted to reference good info, what is your criteria? What makes the references on your linked sites better? I am now genuinely curious. How do you choose?
And you are right. Challenging your credentials was a low blow. I am sorry. It was petty of me. Anyone who has devoted enough time to have a Master's and is still working and seeking learning in his chosen field should be respected for that.
My whole objective over the last few posts was just to show that we all have access to a computer in front of us and can probably pull up something to prove our point. Did you notice how I used wiki in the last 2? hehe. But my main objection would be to say that I think CO2 based, man-mad Global Warming is not proven science. But, more so, it has been kidnapped by certain groups for their agenda. There's money to be made in this. A lot of that money has gone on to promote it and fund certain scientists. And I also know that energy money also gets spent on research to promote their agenda too. I'm just not a cheerleader for this cause. Carbon Taxes? That's governmental control. Unless people start calling me really bad names, I'm gonna let this rest. I'll leave you with one more link that I found, yes, posted on the internet, by someone probably not credit worthy, but who has obviously done more homework than me, and has presented in a manner far more professional than me. Oh, and he also has lots of blue links. Hehe. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
Do you mind tellin us what petroleum company you are employed by? Exxon, BP, Chevron???
Interesting you should ask. Actually, I work as an independent consultant in the environmental side of the oil patch. I survey and map water bottoms and marshlands, and perform damage assessments for the environmental compliance by exploration and navigation interests. I also map oyster reefs for compliance with the Department of Fisheries. The oil/navigation companies that I work with actually look at me as the GREEN guy. However, they also foot the bill. And, at some point over my career, I have consulted for Exxon, BP, and Chevron, and many others. How's that for an honest disclosure? Let the hating begin.
Comments
So, how we behave, what we do to cope, is all we can control.
Interesting piece on what happened to the Sumerians on Yahoo today. The most advanced civilization of it's time, killed by drought. Maybe we could try to be smarter. Use our technology to preserve when possible.
Of course climate changes. Weather is proverbial for change. That's not even the question, is it? There's a whole series of questions, each of which must be answered firmly in the affirmative before any of this apocalyptic dread makes any sense. Whether climate is changing is not even on the list. Let me work on this list and post it. See what you think. Cause most of the discussion of this stuff is just straw men and hyperbole.
I don't know how old many in this forum are, but in the 1970s Time magazine was publishing articles by "scientists " saying that we were entering the next Ice Age.
Some say we are headed to one now
http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm
The Sun controls the temperature of our planet. If Al Gore and the rest of the extremely rich Global Warming fear mongers really believed that CO2 was causing this, then they would ground their fleets of super jets and quit using natural gas to warm and cool their ultra-mansions. Its' about controlling energy, plain and simple. Just my opinion. I'd rather be called a denier of an unproven science than a useful idiot in promoting the unproven.
"...the usual Midwest dry season, combined with the region’s worst drought since 1956, is projected to push Mississippi levels so low shipping would have to be halted in a section near the river’s midpoint south of St. Louis. At risk are 20,000 jobs and $130 million in wages and benefits if the river is closed for two months...
...Because of the drought, the Mississippi has received as much as 78 percent of its water from the Missouri this year, compared with 60 percent in a normal year, according to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. Even more may be needed to stave off economic catastrophe, the shippers argue...
...The Army Corps has the authority to provide additional water flow for downstream interests and has done so several times in the past, Missouri Governor Nixon said in a statement released by his office last month...
... a congressionally mandated manual for the Missouri that spells out eight uses for that river that the Army Corps must take into account: hydropower, water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife, recreation, irrigation, navigation and flood control. To meet irrigation needs, for example, the Army Corps is required to set aside a reserve that can handle 12 years of dryness, a period in length comparable to the Dust Bowl, Farhat said. This year, about a fifth of the supply already has been used, “and this is the first year. Droughts don’t normally last only one year in this part of the country,” she said."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
Look, I don't doubt that CO2 has increased in our atmosphere, but it isn't the cause of global warming. If it were, the spike in the chart would correlate to increased temperatures, and it doesn't.
Here's a little reading from the other side.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
As to your other assertions, I have no motivation. I was taught the scientific method in school and this stuff just doesn't fit in. My expertise? I have a BS and an MS in Geology and have had both undergraduate and graduate classes on solar activity. For the past 30 years I have worked in the wetlands of south Louisiana and can tell you from personal experience that the sea level in the Gulf of Mexico has remain basically the same the entire time. And I've listened to the pundits try to deliver science in the public realm my entire life. LOL. You can call me a skeptic of pundit science.
I have a question for you. Do you believe that the sun (normal solar activity and sun spots) causes the atmosphere to warm and/or cool? And what is your field of expertise?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/
While some of the conclusions can be argued, which is part of the hypothesis portion of the scientific method, Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable source of information.
I know, I know, you are a scientist. You don't want to click on them unless they have been proven. Right now, I just have a theory that they go where they say they are linked too. You know, like gravity, relativity, all those fun things, but just a theory. But then again, you are a scientist, I don't need to tell you what theories are and how they differ from a hypothesis. You only trust what is proven. Unless you don't like who is giving the data, then you hand wave it away. Or unless your anecdotal observations don't seem to agree, or unless it doesn't fit your opinion. But other than that, only facts for you. Yes siree.
The worst part of this whole thing is we are basically on the same side of the argument regarding Climate change, the it may be changing but humans have little to no impact side. But damned if you don't make our side look bad. You climb up on your appeal to authority, and yet when presented with evidence, you merely scoff and rest on your credentials. Your 30 year old credentials. In an unrelated field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
Geology (from the Greek ??, gê, "earth" and ?????, logos, "study") is the science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change. Geology can also refer generally to the study of the solid features of any celestial body (such as the geology of the Moon or Mars).
Geology gives insight into the history of the Earth, as it provides the primary evidence for plate tectonics, the evolutionary history of life, and past climates. In modern times, geology is commercially important for mineral and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation and for evaluating water resources. It is publicly important for the prediction and understanding of natural hazards, the remediation of environmental problems, and for providing insights into past climate change.
And you are right. Challenging your credentials was a low blow. I am sorry. It was petty of me. Anyone who has devoted enough time to have a Master's and is still working and seeking learning in his chosen field should be respected for that.
I'll leave you with one more link that I found, yes, posted on the internet, by someone probably not credit worthy, but who has obviously done more homework than me, and has presented in a manner far more professional than me. Oh, and he also has lots of blue links. Hehe.
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
So Beatnic which petroleum company is it????
I googled c3 to try and find out who was backing them and it turns out they are a right wing movement which is constantly referenced by Shaun Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. and I found the link noted above, I tend not to rely on any blog, but threw it out there.. I guess we all agree just because its in print doesnt make it true