IGX

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 27348.html

The "Climatologists" can estimate the "Earth's Temperature" to a resolution of 0.1 Celsius a century later but these guys can't predict exactly when the debris from Fukushima will land on Hawaii.

To be added to the inaccuracies of predicting the paths of Hurricanes 24 hours in advance....

It could be the first official report of tsunami debris from Japan nearing Hawaii.

A new report coming from a Russian ship have UH researchers changing their predictions. Since the March 11th earthquake and tsunami, researchers have been predicting it would take about two years for the debris from Japan to hit Hawaii's west-facing beaches.

Hafner and UH researchers predict the first wave of tsunami debris will hit Midway Atoll by this winter, then Hawaii in less than 2 years.

Read more: http://www.kitv.com/news/29530797/detai ... z1bdtvqZL3

Human Caused Global Warming is Progressive Horseshit.

Helps to read the article, too.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Like I said... Progressive Horseshit.

Actually it does seem to debunk a lot of the claims by the global warming community.

Turdacious wrote:Actually it does seem to debunk a lot of the claims by the global warming community.

say what?

Gene wrote:The "Climatologists" can estimate the "Earth's Temperature" to a resolution of 0.1 Celsius a century later but these guys can't predict exactly when the debris from Fukushima will land on Hawaii.

Weather is a statistical phenomena associated with random variables - this is kind of like predicting exactly what the wave height and direction will be at a specific latitude and longitude every moment of every day - I can tell you with some level of certainty (say maybe 95%) what it will be, but to be 100% accurate is just a dream. Weather prediction is the same shit.

The "Climatologists" can estimate the "Earth's Temperature" to a resolution of 0.1 Celsius a century later but these guys can't predict exactly when the debris from Fukushima will land on Hawaii.

To be added to the inaccuracies of predicting the paths of Hurricanes 24 hours in advance....

Honest question that isn't meant to be a jab, but, did you go to college and if so, what did you study, Gene?

Nafod is a dem-bootlicking faggot and the product of an anal birth.

if you're diabetic you don't keep drinking a gallon of pepsi per day - even if you're convinced the pepsi isn't what "caused" the condition.

Not if you're sane anyhoo.

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Actually it does seem to debunk a lot of the claims by the global warming community.

say what?

Does not state that there is a correlation between climate change and human activity. Also takes into account the limited time that there's been accurate measurement.

Makes a focused claim, and seems to back it up-- seems like good science, although the data may say differently. Should be easy enough to validate too-- they don't seem like they're particularly interested in hiding their data or playing mathematical tricks.

If they're right, and looking at climate change in such a limited sense is the right way to look at it, the man made climate change argument has suffered a pretty serious blow.

Gene wrote:The "Climatologists" can estimate the "Earth's Temperature" to a resolution of 0.1 Celsius a century later but these guys can't predict exactly when the debris from Fukushima will land on Hawaii.

To be added to the inaccuracies of predicting the paths of Hurricanes 24 hours in advance....

It could be the first official report of tsunami debris from Japan nearing Hawaii.

A new report coming from a Russian ship have UH researchers changing their predictions. Since the March 11th earthquake and tsunami, researchers have been predicting it would take about two years for the debris from Japan to hit Hawaii's west-facing beaches.

Hafner and UH researchers predict the first wave of tsunami debris will hit Midway Atoll by this winter, then Hawaii in less than 2 years.

Read more: http://www.kitv.com/news/29530797/detai ... z1bdtvqZL3

Human Caused Global Warming is Progressive Horseshit.

Gene, I don't know nothing about all this shit, but wouldn't it logically make sense that burning the carbon that has accumulated in the earth during a shitload of years (too many zeros to comprehend) all up in just a few years, and thus releasing it back to the atmosphere would cause some kind of effect?

Why does it so often seem to me that people make up their minds about all kind of things either on a political or religious basis? Very rarely do I get the impression that people actually would do some independent thinking and stuff.

The biggest opposition to climate change science emanates from the US. There are two pillars supporting its arrogant dismissal and embracing of ignorance. Firstly, its Divine Sense Of Entitlement. This is based on an unshakeable belief in Jesus, rendering "this life" transitory, subject to Divine correction and interference as needed. Zealous faith which displaces evolutionary theory and substitutes creationism should sound alarm bells for the rest of us. Zealous faith which sees "The Rapture" as requiring fanatical support of Israel should do likewise. The results of this child-like devotion to Sky-God feeds the Divine Sense of Entitlement of the US.

The other pillar is the individual rights cult of US political thinking. The Climate Change debate is framed not as a collaborative introspective, objective enquiry into saving the viability of humanity on the planet. It is viewed through the prism of "Us v Them". "Us" is the God-fearing frontiersman needing to guard freedom from evil oppressors. "Them " is anyone even proposing sensible collectively beneficial limits to individual freedom for the ultimate safeguarding of life on the planet.

Fuck off, Rant

Herv100 wrote:Fuck off, Rant

Your real life lack of authority and patent intellectual disability carry over very well to your Internet persona.

Gorbachev wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Fuck off, Rant

Your real life lack of authority and patent intellectual disability carry over very well to your Internet persona.

Fuck off, Rant

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Fuck off, Rant

Your real life lack of authority and patent intellectual disability carry over very well to your Internet persona.

Fuck off, Rant

I'm not Rant but will fuck off if you don't wish to debate anything and just shout me down with this shit. Actually thought Dr Donkey Love was a more moderate voice on here.

Gorbachev wrote:The biggest opposition to climate change science emanates from the US. There are two pillars supporting its arrogant dismissal and embracing of ignorance. Firstly, its Divine Sense Of Entitlement. This is based on an unshakeable belief in Jesus, rendering "this life" transitory, subject to Divine correction and interference as needed. Zealous faith which displaces evolutionary theory and substitutes creationism should sound alarm bells for the rest of us. Zealous faith which sees "The Rapture" as requiring fanatical support of Israel should do likewise. The results of this child-like devotion to Sky-God feeds the Divine Sense of Entitlement of the US.

The other pillar is the individual rights cult of US political thinking. The Climate Change debate is framed not as a collaborative introspective, objective enquiry into saving the viability of humanity on the planet. It is viewed through the prism of "Us v Them". "Us" is the God-fearing frontiersman needing to guard freedom from evil oppressors. "Them " is anyone even proposing sensible collectively beneficial limits to individual freedom for the ultimate safeguarding of life on the planet.

From my very limited perspective this seems to be at least somewhat true knowledge. Any counter arguments, other than "fuck you, rant!"?

Gorbachev wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Fuck off, Rant

Your real life lack of authority and patent intellectual disability carry over very well to your Internet persona.

Fuck off, Rant

I'm not Rant but will fuck off if you don't wish to debate anything and just shout me down with this shit. Actually thought Dr Donkey Love was a more moderate voice on here.

I am, unless it involves one of the Rants.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Fuck off, Rant

Your real life lack of authority and patent intellectual disability carry over very well to your Internet persona.

Fuck off, Rant

I'm not Rant but will fuck off if you don't wish to debate anything and just shout me down with this shit. Actually thought Dr Donkey Love was a more moderate voice on here.

I am, unless it involves one of the Rants.

Ok, mate. Not going to persist against a torrent of Rant-inspired abuse. You are wrong. Spells called it when pointing to syntax not content. But heh, it's just the interwebz. Hope your niece got her records / money from the beauty school. Good luck to you standing up to the next person who comes on here who is not Rant but who you decide is Rant.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Actually it does seem to debunk a lot of the claims by the global warming community.

say what?

Does not state that there is a correlation between climate change and human activity. Also takes into account the limited time that there's been accurate measurement.

Makes a focused claim, and seems to back it up-- seems like good science, although the data may say differently. Should be easy enough to validate too-- they don't seem like they're particularly interested in hiding their data or playing mathematical tricks.

If they're right, and looking at climate change in such a limited sense is the right way to look at it, the man made climate change argument has suffered a pretty serious blow.

you're missing the main point. a climate change skeptic runs a well regarded study that says change is, in fact, happening. doubters position is weakened.

this had nothing to do with role of humans, only whether change is occurring. read this:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/glo ... ot-a-hoax/

dead man walking wrote:this had nothing to do with role of humans, only whether change is occurring. read this:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/glo ... ot-a-hoax/

Yep, people conflate the two all the time, and it makes everything messier.

Nafod is a dem-bootlicking faggot and the product of an anal birth.

All right Gene! Another one in the "thermometers didn't work 100 years ago" club.

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Actually it does seem to debunk a lot of the claims by the global warming community.

say what?

Does not state that there is a correlation between climate change and human activity. Also takes into account the limited time that there's been accurate measurement.

Makes a focused claim, and seems to back it up-- seems like good science, although the data may say differently. Should be easy enough to validate too-- they don't seem like they're particularly interested in hiding their data or playing mathematical tricks.

If they're right, and looking at climate change in such a limited sense is the right way to look at it, the man made climate change argument has suffered a pretty serious blow.

you're missing the main point. a climate change skeptic runs a well regarded study that says change is, in fact, happening. doubters position is weakened.

this had nothing to do with role of humans, only whether change is occurring. read this:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/glo ... ot-a-hoax/

That does nothing to undermine my point. It's pretty simple:

1. If the climate change is due primarily to normal natural shifts, then we need to adapt to what Gaia is doing, not change our activity.
2. If the climate change is due primarily to human activity (pollution, etc...), then we need to change our behavior to save the planet.

It seems like the Berkeley study is saying that this is a normal shift-- there seems to be pretty strong evidence that shifts in climate have happened throughout history without human involvement and that they have often happened without some big natural disaster (not always because of a meteor falling or a huge volcanic eruption).

This undermines the urgency of changing human behavior, which is really the point of the climate change/global warming/global cooling hysteria. This doesn't help the 'Save the Planet' folks at all.