Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Well--this don't fit the agenda at all


Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Scientists Expect Global Cooling

“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by
UC-San Diegoand
Northumbria Universityin Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the
Maunder Minimumof the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...w-sun-activity

---

the text you quote misrepresents what the NASA scientist's said ... unsurprisingly as you regularly rely on dubious information.

the cooling referred to by the NASA scientist is in the thermosphere ... as in 65+ miles and beyond above the earth's surface. in contrast there is still a significant warming trend in the troposphere (0-11 miles above the earth's surface).

the original place where the NASA scientist's comments appear makes no mention of little ice age or temperatures/weather on the surface of the earth ... nor do scientists find a direct relationship between warming/cooling of thermosphere and the surface of the earth/troposphere.

whether or not the predictions of a grand solar minimum will come to fruition in the coming decades and whether or not that could lead to a cooling effect ... the amount of cooling predicted from such a grand solar minimum has predicted to be a small fraction compared to the warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

and again ... the little ice age was a localized event in the upper northern hemisphere, not a global event as we're currently observing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I get that it's nothing new... Except this weather pattern used to be referred to by it's correct scientific term "explosive cyclongenisis", but we all know that doesn't make for a really scary sound bite.

---

nice try but "bomb cyclone" has and continues to appear in the scientific literature. fred sanders used both "bomb" and "explosive cyclogenesis" to refer to these types of cyclones. it goes without saying that "bomb cyclone" is the catchier phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

An a little FYI... I'm not the one with an agenda, you have me confused with mainstream media. I just enjoy pointing out their attempt to sensationalize everything

---

uh huh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

the text you quote misrepresent what the NASA scientist's said ... unsurprisingly as you regularly rely on dubious information.

the cooling referred to by the NASA scientist is in the thermosphere ... as in 65+ miles and beyond above the earth's surface. in contrast there is still a significant warming trend in the troposphere (0-11 miles above the earth's surface).

the original place where the NASA scientist's comments appear makes no mention of little ice age or temperatures/weather on the surface of the earth ... nor do scientists find a direct relationship between warming/cooling of thermosphere and the surface of the earth/troposphere.

whether or not the predictions of a grand solar minimum will come to fruition in the coming decades and whether or not that could lead to a cooling effect ... the amount of cooling predicted from such a grand solar has predicted to be a small fraction compared to the warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

and again ... the little ice age was a localized event in the upper northern hemisphere with, not a global event as we're currently observing.

---

So----you believe your "scientist" and I believe mine.

And if it all is a "belief"--there is no "science" involved.

Your "belief" is a religion, not un settled science.



oh--and by the way---I "believe" all your information is dubious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

So----you believe your "scientist" and I believe mine.

And if it all is a "belief"--there is no "science" involved.

Your "belief" is a religion, not un settled science.

---

you don't read too carefully. i am referencing science, not telling you what i believe.

the NASA scientist who was being quoted says it was misrepresented.

your posts continually misrepresent the science. it's par for the course

Do you not understand

climate scientist Judith Curry ?

There is no science here, it is a belief system.

If you, or anyone could prove man made global warming, they would do so.

No one can without being rebuked by equally as qualified climate scientist.

Hence--No settled science!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

your posts continually misrepresent the science. it's par for the course

---

your "science" misrepresents and alters facts!

Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn't come cheap. According to data compiled by

Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute

, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."

But consider a much larger issue. Whatever our individual political orientations or climate views, let's all recognize that it is a very big deal indeed when key professionals entrusted with important science and reporting responsibilities betray our trust. Think about government policy impacts involving many billions of dollars that are influenced by false premises, including regulatory standards and budgets attached to energy, environmental, science and education programs. Try to imagine but a few of the sweeping impacts of bad science upon our national economy and daily lives.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#52d812ed7ecf

So, stefan, which of your "scientist" is not paid through grant money or direct government payroll?

If they end the "research" they end the cash cow...

Gosh oldno7... haven't you figured it out yet? Stefan's scientist are correct because they support his agenda, and your scientist are full of male bovine excrement because they oppose his agenda... it's the liberal way.

Besides, your scientist are probably just a bunch of rich old white guys making money off the environment, while his scientist are a politically correct multiethnic group of men, women and transgenders that only care about the environment and allowing men to dress like women so they can jerk off in the littles girls bathroom...

See the difference?

Oh-no, I figured it out long ago.

If science has an agenda--it is not science.

I can disprove stef and deb all day long but the only information they listen too,

goes in their left ear.

They have no unbiased analytical abilities.

If they can prove man made global warming/climate change, I'm all ears--they cannot.

There is no settled science in this regard or ever will be.

But--blind loyalty makes their house payments, so there is that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

There is no settled science in this regard or ever will be.

---

On the contrary...when our cities burn up, the glaciers disappear, coasts flood, massive hurricanes smash and destroy one after another, worldwide famine, disease, insects go apeshit, forests all burn up and the sky turns red...then we'll know they were right all along.

I think that would be a good time for Jesus to show back up, too.

@ddavis @stefan --

For my part, I acknowledged back in post #325 that I gullibly bit on that NASA article without questioning or double checking sources. It's an easy thing to do. Clearly this is an issue that many folks are passionate about, and sometimes it can be difficult to divest emotion.

In college I wrote two papers about Global Warming -- one supporting and the other opposing it. Additionally I've read a lot of extra curricular literature about the issue. Enough to conclude that the issue has become blurred too much by money and power to be infallible. At this point the term "global warming" is now basically a political grandstand. But that's just one guy's opinion. You can disagree and I won't hold it against you.

Personally, I would like to see our dependence on fossil fuels dwindle to nothing at all - but not because I fear the Earth will end in 12 years, but because I believe we have the capability to utilize and exploit much more efficient energy sources in the form of solar, hydro, etc. Why continue to burn coal and oil when we have the capacity to wean ourselves from it forever? I believe our society is already headed in that direction -- which is why coal's grip on energy production in the U.S. has slid by over 50% in the last 20 years. So, were on the right track. But in the meantime, I just cannot buy into the doomsday scenarios so prevalent in the media. Because that might work on the gullible masses on Facebook or CNN, but it repulses me.

OK here's an explanation about the infamous "97% of scientists agree" quotation that absolutely everybody has heard.

If there is an aspect to this explanation that is incorrect, I would be open to hearing it. But as you'll see, the origins of this statistic are less than honest. A lot of people agree that the climate changes, but much less agree to the extent it's caused by human created CO2.

If somebody uses this statistic to say 97% of scientists agree that human activity is changing the climate, this is largely misleading and false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

@ddavis @stefan --

For my part, I acknowledged back in post #325 that I gullibly bit on that NASA article without questioning or double checking sources. It's an easy thing to do. Clearly this is an issue that many folks are passionate about, and sometimes it can be difficult to divest emotion.

In college I wrote two papers about Global Warming -- one supporting and the other opposing it. Additionally I've read a lot of extra curricular literature about the issue. Enough to conclude that the issue has become blurred too much by money and power to be infallible. At this point the term "global warming" is now basically a political grandstand. But that's just one guy's opinion. You can disagree and I won't hold it against you.

Personally, I would like to see our dependence on fossil fuels dwindle to nothing at all - but not because I fear the Earth will end in 12 years, but because I believe we have the capability to utilize and exploit much more efficient energy sources in the form of solar, hydro, etc. Why continue to burn coal and oil when we have the capacity to wean ourselves from it forever? I believe our society is already headed in that direction -- which is why coal's grip on energy production in the U.S. has slid by over 50% in the last 20 years. So, were on the right track. But in the meantime, I just cannot buy into the doomsday scenarios so prevalent in the media. Because that might work on the gullible masses on Facebook or CNN, but it repulses me.

---

^^^Excellent

...,,.

https://i.imgur.com/8L3FpAW.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

...,,.

---

It’s funny because climate science in itself doesn’t have any political leaning and the earth’s climate doesn’t care if you are liberal or conservative. The findings are pretty clear, and if you take an unbiased look, it’s rather obvious that things are definently changing on a worldwide scale, with some regions being more affected than others.

Now when it comes to gender studies...... that’s a whole different thing. I wouldn’t even call it science at all. Gender studies is totally ridiculous and silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricBTTA

It’s funny because climate science in itself doesn’t have any political leaning

---

Correction, this is a myth/fake reporting.

Facts have no political bias!

Those who interpret facts to fit an political agenda on the other hand....

"it’s rather obvious that things are definently changing on a worldwide scale"(you spelled definitely wrong):facepalm1:


Rather obvious to whom? The "climate scientist" who's whole livelihood depends on government grants?

Educated makes you educated on what people want you to learn, it does in no way make you smart--merely educated, often times

by an educator who has a political bias.

A smart person would know how to weed through the fluff and establish your own opinion on real facts, not taught half truths or altered facts.

you'll have to excuse me for a minute--I have to go put another log in my woodstove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricBTTA

It’s funny because climate science in itself doesn’t have any political leaning and the earth’s climate doesn’t care if you are liberal or conservative. The findings are pretty clear, and if you take an unbiased look, it’s rather obvious that things are definently changing on a worldwide scale, with some regions being more affected than others.

---

Your "science" like your post are filled with political leanings.... don't believe me? Then try this on for size and get back to me....

What is the timeline you are basing your science on? 56 million years ago the earth was much warmer than it is today. So based on that timeline the earth is cooling.

Care to comment on the above statement? Do you see the error in your thinking and original post yet?

:popcorn: