Global warming

[realbrown1]

I guess that the science of global warming (aka climate change) is not settled.

http://www.youngcons.com/founder-of-the-weather-channel-explains-the-global-warming-hoax/

 

[realbrown1]

If a baseball player batted .380 he would be an allstar.

A surgeon, who had a 38% success record on performing his surgeries, who lose his medical license.
An NFL quarterback that completed only 38% of his passes, would be out a job.
A student who scored a 38% on a test, fails that test.
A car company that made cars that worked only 38% of the time would go out of business.

Face it, a 38% success record is horrible.

 

[Sportello]

So you are not only a birther, but a statistician, as well?

That's not what the 38% means. Here, try to understand:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...were-right-about-the-2014-temperature-record/

 

[moreluck]

 

[realbrown1]

you first want to make sure you trust where you get your news. you have to know who is writing the articles. all of the guys i listen to say global warming is a major disaster and they say 50% chance humans will be extinct by 2100.

When I was in elementary school 35 years ago, we had environmentalists come to our school.

They said we had less than 10 years left of oil on the planet.
They also said that we were cutting all the forests down on the planet and in about 50 years we wouldn't have trees left.

Has any of this happened?

 

[rickyb]

When I was in elementary school 35 years ago, we had environmentalists come to our school.

They said we had less than 10 years left of oil on the planet.
They also said that we were cutting all the forests down on the planet and in about 50 years we wouldn't have trees left.

Has any of this happened?

a: they were ahead of their time for being environmentalists in the first place.
b: what were their credentials? anybody can say anything.

the leading authority on global warming is the IPCC. they have recently always been too conservative on their reports, and they report that the situation keeps getting more and more dire.

who do you get your news from? there should be some consistency in what they all say.

 

[realbrown1]

a: they were ahead of their time for being environmentalists in the first place.
b: what were their credentials? anybody can say anything.

the leading authority on global warming is the IPCC. they have recently always been too conservative on their reports, and they report that the situation keeps getting more and more dire.

who do you get your news from? there should be some consistency in what they all say.

The man who founded the weather channel says global warming is a lie.

And those environmentalists that came to my classroom 35 years ago were wrong. Just like they are today.

 

[realbrown1]

I guess that the science of global warming (aka climate change) is not settled.

http://www.youngcons.com/founder-of-the-weather-channel-explains-the-global-warming-hoax/

This guy founded the weather channel.

 

[realbrown1]

If a baseball player batted .380 he would be an allstar.

But that's only.380 because it's 1 man versus 1 man. If you did only 38% of your work or got 38% of your job done correctly, you would be fired.

 

[rickyb]

This guy founded the weather channel.

i would encourage you to look at arctic sea ice: has it gotten smaller over the years or not?

go to glaciers and has the ice retreated? i know theres one in alberta that is very famous and has retreated alot over 100 years

look at world wide temperatures and where are the hottest years on record? 2014 was the hottest year on record

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...hannel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

its from the guardian, they worked with glenn greenwald and snowden to do the NSA surveillance state leaks. they do alot of good reporting

 

[rickyb]

This guy founded the weather channel.

Several times during the Fox interview, Megyn Kelly commented that The Weather Channel will “be pushed out of existence since [Coleman has] taken this position.” In reality, Coleman was forced out of The Weather Channel in 1983, just a year after he helped found it. Coleman has had no affiliation with The Weather Channel for over 30 years. The Weather Channel has an official statement on climate change, which it updated a few days after the Coleman interview. It states,

More than a century’s worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

On CNN, The Weather Channel CEO David Kenny said,

I’m concerned whenever the discussion of climate change veers from the science. The science is really clear, and I don’t like our brand being associated with something that’s not scientifically based. I think we can all be proud of our résumés, but I would prefer people use the credentials they have today, not the credentials of three decades ago.

On CNN, Coleman claimed to be a scientist. He’s been a TV weatherman for over 60 years, but his degree is in journalism. In recent years he forecasted the weather in San Diego, where it generally ranges from sunny and warm to sunnier and warmer.

The Weather Channel, on the other hand, employs meteorologists with climate science training. For example, Heidi Cullen was The Weather Channel’s first on-air climate expert. Cullen received a Ph.D. in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and has worked as a research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society. On the subject of climate change, Cullen has said,

There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change ... If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

 

[Babagounj]

So if this is settled science , how do all these " experts " say it can be stopped & reversed ?

 

[rickyb]

So if this is settled science , how do all these " experts " say it can be stopped & reversed ?

it is settled science, cant remember the wording but 98% or so of climate scientists agree it is real and happening. the "debate" is just big oil adding confusion. the cigarette corporations did the same thing for decades, and finally admitted they were wrong in late 90s.

again:
look at arctic sea ice: has it gotten smaller over the years or not? there are animated pictures online with corresponding years where you can see this.

go to glaciers and has the ice retreated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Icefield
ive visited this one just last year, they have markings on the ground where the ice was at what date.

look at world wide temperatures and where are the hottest years on record? 2014 was the hottest year on record and many of the hottest years on record have been last 2 decades if i recall.

its too bad alex jones thinks global warming is a conspiracy, but then again he thinks ALOT of things are conspiracies.

if we keep doing what we are doing, the earth will likely warm 5 to 7 degrees next 100 years, which scientists think will cause extinction for humans. theres methane trapped under ice in russia, methane which is way more polluting than Carbon dioxide, and they think if it releases into the atmosphere it will be enough to suffocate humans. the ocean has absorbed alot of the pollution and is acidifying. they are saying the earth will warm up, but they want to keep it max 2 degrees celcius which could sustain life. theres no way of reversing it yet. whats done is done.

 

[realbrown1]

it is settled science, cant remember the wording but 98% or so of climate scientists agree it is real and happening. the "debate" is just big oil adding confusion. the cigarette corporations did the same thing for decades, and finally admitted they were wrong in late 90s.

again:
look at arctic sea ice: has it gotten smaller over the years or not? there are animated pictures online with corresponding years where you can see this.

go to glaciers and has the ice retreated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Icefield
ive visited this one just last year, they have markings on the ground where the ice was at what date.

look at world wide temperatures and where are the hottest years on record? 2014 was the hottest year on record and many of the hottest years on record have been last 2 decades if i recall.

its too bad alex jones thinks global warming is a conspiracy, but then again he thinks ALOT of things are conspiracies.

if we keep doing what we are doing, the earth will likely warm 5 to 7 degrees next 100 years, which scientists think will cause extinction for humans. theres methane trapped under ice in russia, methane which is way more polluting than Carbon dioxide, and they think if it releases into the atmosphere it will be enough to suffocate humans. the ocean has absorbed alot of the pollution and is acidifying. they are saying the earth will warm up, but they want to keep it max 2 degrees celcius which could sustain life. theres no way of reversing it yet. whats done is done.

How old are you and who has said it's settled science?

 

[Sportello]

How old are you and who has said it's settled science?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm old enough to be your daddy, and every climatologist that is not on the payroll of a right wing 'think tank' (Heartland) or big oil says so.

There are about a dozen quacks who disagree. Eighteen if you count the BC experts.

 

[realbrown1]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm old enough to be your daddy, and every climatologist that is not on the payroll of a right wing 'think tank' (Heartland) or big oil says so.

There are about a dozen quacks who disagree. Eighteen if you count the BC experts.

Really? You are in your mid 80's. Because that's how old my dad is.

And who do you think has more climatologists on their payroll? Government and universities or private businesses?

 

[rickyb]

Really? You are in your mid 80's. Because that's how old my dad is.

And who do you think has more climatologists on their payroll? Government and universities or private businesses?

private business has more money than governments do, and considering the most profitable corporations in the world are usually oil, my guess is private business. the US government like republicans quite often deny climate change, because they have private business on their payroll. i mean both democrats and republicans are totaly owned by corporations now, but democrats havent always been.

not sure wat age has to do with anything i mean older people may know more becuase they have had more time to take in information, but i know more than my pops about politics and thats because where he gets his news from is garbage. and hes almost 70

 

[moreluck]

 

[realbrown1]

These guys kill the Global Warming theory and/or Climate Change theory.
It's all about control.
And most of the scientists that come out against it now, and there are more and more every day, are the ones with nothing to lose. The ones who are retired and who's funding isn't dependent on maintaining a global warming position.

 

[rickyb]

global warming also creates more extreme weather patterns like blizzards. i know alot of knuckleheads think that if we get a lot of snow in one area that the world isnt warming...you have to know your history if u want to know the future.