Reality rears its ugly head. These are scientists who are baffled here guys. Apparently, these people do not know everything after all.
Excellent. I'll go buy an 8 MPG truck now, burn my old tires outside, and throw all my trash into the ocean.
lol. More idiocy. Just like people who look at snowfalls and say "guess global warming ain't really happening, har har har" but never say the opposite when we experience record heat waves, here we have yet another article expressing the inability of some people to understand the concept of "long term trending". Boring.
MojoMan, you already put this turd in the punchbowl earlier this month. Even if you refuse to answer all the scientific and data-rich replies to your "points," you could have the courtesy to put your latest denialist misinterpretation of science in the existing thread with exactly the same topic. Thank you.
Basic thermodynamics tells me if the Earth is soaking up more energy via a greenhouse effect, you will get more extreme weather. Globally significant and locally catastrophic. With glaciers melting much faster than anticipated, it would stand to reason that temperature rise may slow due to all the energy used to melt the ice. However, if that is the case, this is only a short term reprieve in warming because ground and sea both absorb more sunlight than sea ice or glaciers.
No, actually this is a fresh turd being deposited in the anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) punch bowl. Thank you.
Nope, same issue. You are watching the Rockets dunk the ball in the 2nd quarter and assuming that means we win the game. That's either dumb or intentionally disingenuous, and I'm not interested in figuring out which. If you're really "new," it could be the former. If you're Trader_Jorge, it's the later. I encourage any sincere parties to read the thread I linked. Over and out.
Come on people. Haven't anyone learned from the 70s or 80s that you can't f**k with mother nature. :grin: (someone please tell me you remember the commercial so I don't feel too old) She has 4.5 billion of years dealing with this kind of stuff and she's far better at that than any of us. She will never loose. But us? Who's been here a tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the time? We're just fleas on a dog. And as such, we're here at her grace. My point is we're trying to predict the future of this planet with the interpretation of scientific data that seems to point in two different directions. That should tell us immediately that we need to back away from policies until we truly understand what the numbers are telling us. Unless this is all political then never mind and carry on.
No, the scientific data points only one direction. Short term trends come and go, but the long term trend is decidedly upward. Read the thread that B-bob linked for details.
Reality "rear[ed] its ugly head" a month ago at which point you stuck your fingers in your ears, then went "la-la-la-la, I won't listen to you." When you are ready to discuss facts and long term trends rather than short term data points, then this topic will be open for discussion again. After the way B-Bob pwned you last time, I suspect that you will continue to take the fingers in your ears approach except when another denier publishes an article based on short term data points as opposed to the clear, stark long term trends that have been shown time and time again.
the bottom line is... this world would be better if humans didn't inhabit it. we should focus our efforts on colonizing Mars, so Mother Earth can enjoy herself without the burden of humans. signed, Liberals.
Of course she doesn't lose - because she doesn't care if the planet is inhabitable for humans. It's just all the life on the planet that loses through extinction. I think humans, in general, would like to not go extinct.
What? You want long-term? How about 12,000 years: This hypothetical rendering of what the polar ice cap might have looked like 12,000 years ago is PROOF POSITIVE that antromopomorhic global warming is fictional.
It saddens me that this is a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. I mean advocating we save energy and resources, stop giving money to Islamic regimes and Hugo Chavez for oil. Why that sounds downright conservative.
You do understand that anthromorphic global warming doesn't mean that the Earth doesn't warm, or cool, apart from human activities but that the rate of warming is faster than what would be predicted from previous cycles when human activities weren't present.
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. --Dr. Carl Sagan
