Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
During the Reagan administration liberal scientists were still stuck on their peer-reviewed "scientific evidence" from the 1970's. Claiming global cooling was inevitable, and our entire planet was doomed for another ice age. Which according to their calculations, should have been here by now. So where is it?


http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

So there you have it. The scientific consensus, even before Reagan was the planet was warming and humans were the cause. Even the email produced by an ex Exxon petroleum engineer proves they knew about it as early as 1981;

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Still "lamestream liberal propaganda" "controlled by Obama"?
 

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
let's stay on topic. How often do you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for your daily dose of unbiased view?
Not at all right? Unless you find them "objectively verifiable". do you?

Rush Limpdick, boy what a prince to the foaming at the mouth crowd pill popping junkie that he is, that program is full of hate mongering, mysogony he went crazy when he heard the James Bond role went to Idris Elba.

B4L
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member


http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

So there you have it. The scientific consensus, even before Reagan was the planet was warming and humans were the cause. Even the email produced by an ex Exxon petroleum engineer proves they knew about it as early as 1981;

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Still "lamestream liberal propaganda" "controlled by Obama"?

We are right back to science is a popularity contest... How is that religion working out for you?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
We are right back to science is a popularity contest... How is that religion working out for you?
More peer-reviewed papers were published in the 1960s and 1970s that support increasing global temperatures than decreasing global temperatures, yet people like you hold onto the myth that there was a scientific consensus of "global cooling" during that time. Well, the data doesn't support your claim, in fact, the amount of papers published proves your belief to be factually, demonstrably, objectively and verifiably false.

But don't you already believe NASA, NOAA & the IPCC are all in cahoots with the "lamestream liberal media" anyway?
 

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
More peer-reviewed papers were published in the 1960s and 1970s that support increasing global temperatures than decreasing global temperatures, yet people like you hold onto the myth that there was a scientific consensus of "global cooling" during that time. Well, the data doesn't support your claim, in fact, the amount of papers published proves your belief to be factually, demonstrably, objectively and verifiably false.

But don't you already believe NASA, NOAA & the IPCC are all in cahoots with the "lamestream liberal media" anyway?
According to NASA on August 22, 2002, posting on the Goddard Space Flight Center website: “While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period”

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
According to NASA on August 22, 2002, posting on the Goddard Space Flight Center website: “While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period”

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.
Ultimate fail.

Roy Spencer, as already well established, is not an authority on climate science. He's a policial hack pushing a right wing agenda, which is probably why you didn't cite the source you pulled that garbage from.

Here's what NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and over 30 international academies of science (you know, the actual leading experts) have to say about the issue of anthropogenic climate change:


"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

"Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)"

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
More peer-reviewed papers were published in the 1960s and 1970s that support increasing global temperatures than decreasing global temperatures, yet people like you hold onto the myth that there was a scientific consensus of "global cooling" during that time. Well, the data doesn't support your claim, in fact, the amount of papers published proves your belief to be factually, demonstrably, objectively and verifiably false.

But don't you already believe NASA, NOAA & the IPCC are all in cahoots with the "lamestream liberal media" anyway?
When you get done with this list of articles from the 1970's, I have more for you to pick through later
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/

 
Last edited:

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
When you get done with this list of articles from the 1970's, I have more for you to pick through later
You just cited Roy Spencer as an authority on climate change...

Safe to say you're not the least bit informed if you buy the bullshit he's selling
 

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
You just cited Roy Spencer as an authority on climate change...

Safe to say you're not the least bit informed if you buy the bullshit he's selling
I got that quote from NASA. You wanted to use them as a source for information, not me. For all I know he's just another guy who slipped and said something he wasnt supposed to say.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You should know, Liberals from the 1970s predicted another ice age.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. "Pollution Prospect A Chilling One""

Your own source says "the media", not NASA, NOAA or the IPCC (remember, the leading experts on studying the climate?)

"Climate science as we know it today did
not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated
enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize-winning
work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change existed then as separate threads of
research pursued by independent groups of
scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers
grappled with the measurement and
understanding of carbon dioxide and other
atmospheric gases while geologists and
paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when
Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the
1970s the climate science community was
predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice
age, an observation frequently used by those who
would undermine what climate scientists say today
about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the
contrary, greenhouse warming even then
dominated scientists’ thinking about the most
important forces shaping Earth’s climate on
human time scales. More importantly than
showing the falsehood of the myth, this review
shows the important way scientists of the time built
the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of
modern climate science now rests.
"

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
 

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. "Pollution Prospect A Chilling One""

Your own source says "the media", not NASA, NOAA or the IPCC (remember, the leading experts on studying the climate?)

"Climate science as we know it today did
not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated
enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize-winning
work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change existed then as separate threads of
research pursued by independent groups of
scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers
grappled with the measurement and
understanding of carbon dioxide and other
atmospheric gases while geologists and
paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when
Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the
1970s the climate science community was
predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice
age, an observation frequently used by those who
would undermine what climate scientists say today
about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the
contrary, greenhouse warming even then
dominated scientists’ thinking about the most
important forces shaping Earth’s climate on
human time scales. More importantly than
showing the falsehood of the myth, this review
shows the important way scientists of the time built
the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of
modern climate science now rests.
"

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
If you're trying to convince me that they had no clue what they were talking about, then I agree. But now you're stating the media almost had the right information with "global warming", and they for sure now; have all the exact science down on climate change. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? 5th time is a charm? Just because you come up with a model and a couple of charts, now we are supposed to believe Obamas Energy Department when they claim that pumpkins contribute to global warming? Its waste of time, we could be discussing Donald Trump right now. Why are you trying to hijack Trump's thread?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
If you're trying to convince me that they had no clue what they were talking about, then I agree. But now you're stating the media almost had the right information with "global warming", and they for sure now; have all the exact science down on climate change. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? 5th time is a charm? Just because you come up with a model and a couple of charts, now we are supposed to believe Obamas Energy Department when they claim that pumpkins contribute to global warming? Its waste of time, we could be discussing Donald Trump right now. Why are you trying to hijack Trump's thread?
You are talking about what the media says

I am talking about what the science says

Are you completely oblivious to the difference, being purposefully obtuse, or are you legitimately mentally handicapped?

The ratio of scientifically peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals throughout the 1960s and 1970s is about 9/1 in favor of increasing global temperatures. The science has been consistent since the first paper detailing the warming trend since the 1880s was published in the 1930s.

I'm not really all that concerned with what TMZ has to say about the global climate
 

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
You are talking about what the media says

I am talking about what the science says

Are you completely oblivious to the difference, being purposefully obtuse, or are you legitimately mentally handicapped?

The ratio of scientifically peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals throughout the 1960s and 1970s is about 9/1 in favor of increasing global temperatures. The science has been consistent since the first paper detailing the warming trend since the 1880s was published in the 1930s.

I'm not really all that concerned with what TMZ has to say about the global climate
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member


And now we've come full circle. The reason you [namely, conservatives] believe scientifically objectifiable facts are false is because you get your scientific understanding from media outlets, some of whom claim to be legitimate "news" sources.

It's all beginning to make so much more sense now!
 

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
And now we've come full circle. The reason you [namely, conservatives] believe scientifically objectifiable facts are false is because you get your scientific understanding from media outlets, some of whom claim to be legitimate "news" sources.

It's all beginning to make so much more sense now!
The media didn't just come up with the idea of a new ice age all on their own, they got information from the Natonal Academy of Scientists, and other scientists. Just like you do, right? what are you trying to pull here? FYI, conservatives don't watch TMZ. I'm a moderate, and even I know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top