USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Actually the global warming theory promulgated by Gore is a bunch of crap. Bad science. And that has been proven.

 

Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's a marketer, as far as this issue goes. Nobody in this thread has been referencing Al Gore in support of man-made global warming.

 

All I can say is man-made global warming is a fallacy.

 

Excellent. And I'm sure this is based on a combination of your scientific background and years of study in the topic and has nothing to do with your own political agenda.

 

Yeah, I've seen some crazy hazy vog days in Kona too. Obviously, the difference is that we have zero control over volcanic eruptions.

Ever been to Mexico City? Boy howdy, now that place has smog. As the plane descends, you think wow, this is bad. Then as the plane continues to descend you keep thinking it can't get much worse but it does. Beautiful city, great people, incredible culture, but horrible air there.

 

Look we manufactured the cold war to boost the economy, why can't we create another threat to do the same. Think of it like the insurance industry, or medical coverage. You might not ever need it, but people can make money from working towards preventing it.

 

Somewhat true. The problem for both sides is the number of politicos pushing agendas and trying to whore out science however they can to support their agendas. Good solid science and understanding of it by policy makers is what we need.

Schleps googling to find graphs and random quotes that they don't understand and passing it off as irrefutable is the problem.

True for both sides.

 

It's only based on my personal research. I have no political agenda.

 

Lol. Well nice work then -- you've successfully been able to reach conclusions an untold number of Ph.D. researchers have not.

 

Since when is offering contradicting data an "irrefutable" position. People like Al Gore declaring "the debate is over" on anthropogenic GW are in an 'irrefutable' position, at least according to them.

Yet data exists that refutes the 'irrefutable' arguement, and it isn't answered by science, it's answered by opinion or guesstimates from unproven "models" that are constantly being tweaked as they become invalid.

 

Simply put, in this thread you have been the conservative version of Al Gore. No difference in approach. The only difference is in political agenda.

It's not that you are offering contradicting data that is the problem (in fact, that is a good thing in terms of scientific process as long as the data is solid and well considered). The problem is that the data is not as rock solid as you make it out to be. Good science would mean that you measure the strengths/weaknesses of it, not wield it like a sword at anyone who holds a different opinion.

You have continued to insist your googled data be explained, yet you immediately turn around and reject any models and theories that don't fit your agenda. Science should drive policy. Not the other way around.

 

Conclusions coming soon...

 

Simply put, that's a losing argument. You tipped your hand. I've offered data that shows temps aren't increasing in correlation to CO2 emissions over the past ten years. That is a fact. You are being more like Gore by demonizing me instead of refuting the data. I doubt you even recognize this, however, but it is true.

Great. Tell me the weakness of the CO2 vs. temperature data. You've yet to do it. Instead, you just lecture about how correct you are while belittling me as having a "political agenda". Silly.

You've offered no data to reject the CO2 vs. temp map. I've already conceded that I believe there is climate change. If you'd like to have a serious discussion, great. If you'd like to continue to attack the poster instead of the data, there is no reason for us to continue. As for "Googled" data, where did you get yours? Is it your data?

 

Oh well if you put it that way.


/thread