Say It Ain't So, Joe!

Quote






Yep a link that continually refers to Gore, as if Gore is the only one making these claims, and links in faux news stories as sources? Now there a reliable, unbiased source. I guess they’ll also claim the worldwide receding glaziers are also due to ‘lack of precipitation’, gramps if you believe this junk then you truly are an idiot.
 






Unbiased source:

After 1975, glacier shrinkage continues to accelerate until present. The mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-glacier-trends.html
Click to expand...
 






namedPoint_Man said:
Yep a link that continually refers to Gore, as if Gore is the only one making these claims, and links in faux news stories as sources? Now there a reliable, unbiased source. I guess they’ll also claim the worldwide receding glaziers are also due to ‘lack of precipitation’, gramps if you believe this junk then you truly are an idiot.
Click to expand...



I'm open to reason. Show me some data.

Let me give you a hint..Ready?

Hint: The earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Any statistical calculations of "evidence" of global warming will have to take into account the age of the planet.

Even the so-called VOSTOK data (650,000 years) does not reach statistical significance at that level, especially since mankind has only been on earth for about 6 million years. I gave you a link to the VOSTOK data sever

I know it's probably too much to ask, but do you get it? The best evidence available shows several periods of global warming and cooling hundreds of millions of years before mankind even existed.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:






Bubble Burster said:
I'm open to reason. Show me some data.

Let me give you a hint..Ready?

Hint: The earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Any statistical calculations of "evidence" of global will have to take into account the age of the planet.

Even the so-called VOSTOK data (650,000 years) does not reach statistical significance at that level, especially since mankind has only been on earth for about 6 million years.

I know it's probably too much to ask, but do you get it? The best evidence available shows several periods of global warming and cooling hundreds of millions of years before mankind even existed.
.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Warming and cooling trends that were over hundreds of thousands of years, which shows precisely why we're in an unnatural trend having warmed in a century which usually would occur over hundreds of thousands of years. Scientist have even nailed a new technique called “fractional risk attribution”, is a mathematical method to determine how many times an extreme event should have occurred if humans never existed versus the probability of the same extreme event now. Using the method, scientists can single out events and then calculate the probability of that event excluding the effects of green house gasses. Thus taking the 2003 heat wave in Europe, human meddling was 75 percent to blame. That's my lesson for the day, time to hit the books gramps your grandchildren are counting on you.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/27/can-we-blame-extreme-weather-on-climate-change.html
 












namedPoint_Man said:
Yep a link that continually refers to Gore, as if Gore is the only one making these claims, and links in faux news stories as sources? Now there a reliable, unbiased source. I guess they’ll also claim the worldwide receding glaziers are also due to ‘lack of precipitation’, gramps if you believe this junk then you truly are an idiot.
Click to expand...

How convenient of you to have forgotten that Gore got the Nobel Prize and became a multi-billionaire...all because he pushed AGW.

Can you say "conflict of interest"?
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote