Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

What is Climate change all about? Is it driven by science, an ideology or the money funding it? Time to get it on and see what is what.

I will start it with this little gem that I think expose just how close minded the ones pushing this agenda truly are. The debate is over...except for the fact we can't properly model due to us really not knowing what we are doing.

How can any reliable modeling be done if they keep discovering new factors?

Newly discovered Icelandic current:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/iceland ... 10823.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The current, called the North Icelandic Jet (NIJ), contributes to a key component of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also known as the “great ocean conveyor belt,” which is critically important for regulating Earth’s climate. As part of the planet’s reciprocal relationship between ocean circulation and climate, this conveyor belt transports warm surface water to high latitudes where the water warms the air, then cools, sinks, and returns towards the equator as a deep flow.

If I remember correctly, there was another discovery for another part of the conveyor belt back in 2007-2008, but I can't seem to locate it via google.

-
What we need is a hollywood star to let us know what's going on

I remember when Ted Danson told us in the 80's that the seas will be dead in 10 years

German Scientific Study Predicts Global Cooling Till 2030
Climate Change Dispatch ^ | March 9, 2012 | John O' Sullivan

Research based on over 100 independent expert studies points to a cooling Earth climate at least until 2030. Author, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity points to failures by climatologists to account for solar variation in their projections.

(Excerpt) Read more at climatechangedispatch.com ...

I'll side with the experts and specialists:


97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.

youngterrier wrote:I'll side with the experts and specialists:


97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.

\thread.

Bronco wrote:-
What we need is a hollywood star to let us know what's going on

I remember when Ted Danson told us in the 80's that the seas will be dead in 10 years

German Scientific Study Predicts Global Cooling Till 2030
Climate Change Dispatch ^ | March 9, 2012 | John O' Sullivan

Research based on over 100 independent expert studies points to a cooling Earth climate at least until 2030. Author, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity points to failures by climatologists to account for solar variation in their projections.

(Excerpt) Read more at climatechangedispatch.com ...

Say what you will about climate change but there is no disputing the effects man is having on the oceans.

Consensus was the earth was flat.
Consensus was the universe revolved around earth.


And nice chart. Obscene oil profits? Why is private funding of research bad but government funding not even mentioned? How many millions have govt spent on funding research into global warming? Do those scientists want to protect their fat govt paychecks?

Well, if the science wasn't so shoddy for Climate Change, they wouldn't have to drum up a conspiracy of the evil oil profiteers buying dissension.

How about we talk about the bribe of funding research? You don't produce research that promotes climate change and you lose your funding and most likely are ostracized to boot.

A couple years ago, Newsweek did a hitpiece on the evil groups that funded science to refute the climate change studies and they were paid in total 50 MILLION!!!!! Oh my, that sounded horrible until you found out later the pro-climate change group was paid over 2 billion. Was something like 2200 times the funding.

If it is such a noble cause and a slam dunk, why have we had climategate 1 and now climategate 2.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

That's not science. That is an ideology...and greed for research bucks.

HI54UNI wrote:Consensus was the earth was flat.
Consensus was the universe revolved around earth.


And nice chart. Obscene oil profits? Why is private funding of research bad but government funding not even mentioned? How many millions have govt spent on funding research into global warming? Do those scientists want to protect their fat govt paychecks?

As for the second comment: I have none, just a quick meme.

As for the first comment: Consensus was based off ignorance, there was no science that proved the earth was flat or that the universe revolved around the earth. Today, our scope of science is much more precise, accurate, etc. We have great reason to believe these things, and there's a reason specialists have consensus. Saying because we had consensus on a verifiable false fact 1000 years ago does not refute consensus of the day, because we are smarter. I'd trust that the scientific community would adapt their views on such things if data falsifying claims arose. That's how science works.

SeattleGriz wrote:Well, if the science wasn't so shoddy for Climate Change, they wouldn't have to drum up a conspiracy of the evil oil profiteers buying dissension.

How about we talk about the bribe of funding research? You don't produce research that promotes climate change and you lose your funding and most likely are ostracized to boot.

A couple years ago, Newsweek did a hitpiece on the evil groups that funded science to refute the climate change studies and they were paid in total 50 MILLION!!!!! Oh my, that sounded horrible until you found out later the pro-climate change group was paid over 2 billion. Was something like 2200 times the funding.

If it is such a noble cause and a slam dunk, why have we had climategate 1 and now climategate 2.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

That's not science. That is an ideology...and greed for research bucks.

Climate gate 1 was not what it was reported as......stop watching Hannity. He hates science.

youngterrier wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Well, if the science wasn't so shoddy for Climate Change, they wouldn't have to drum up a conspiracy of the evil oil profiteers buying dissension.

How about we talk about the bribe of funding research? You don't produce research that promotes climate change and you lose your funding and most likely are ostracized to boot.

A couple years ago, Newsweek did a hitpiece on the evil groups that funded science to refute the climate change studies and they were paid in total 50 MILLION!!!!! Oh my, that sounded horrible until you found out later the pro-climate change group was paid over 2 billion. Was something like 2200 times the funding.

If it is such a noble cause and a slam dunk, why have we had climategate 1 and now climategate 2.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



That's not science. That is an ideology...and greed for research bucks.

Climate gate 1 was not what it was reported as......stop watching Hannity. He hates science.

Refusing to allow other scientists to look over the data is nothing big? Huh. Seems most of real science operates willingly to allow inspection of data. Or are we now allowing peer review of pro climate change only by those who are pro climate change.

You should be able to see where I am trying to go with this one. Climate change is not only an ideology to the majority of scientists who support it, but a huge cash cow that adds to their already biased efforts.

SeattleGriz wrote:

youngterrier wrote: Climate gate 1 was not what it was reported as......stop watching Hannity. He hates science.

Refusing to allow other scientists to look over the data is nothing big? Huh. Seems most of real science operates willingly to allow inspection of data. Or are we now allowing peer review of pro climate change only by those who are pro climate change.

You should be able to see where I am trying to go with this one. Climate change is not only an ideology to the majority of scientists who support it, but a huge cash cow that adds to their already biased efforts.

sigh......you're right science is a conspiracy, Hannity and Rush and O'Reilly know better than them "specialists"

Everyone's favorite scientist Michio Kaku to explain, because I'm not going to get worked up over it.
There is no smoking gun.

[youtube][/youtube]

Highly partisan ideologues sucking off the government teat pushing an anti-capitalist agenda.
End of story...

[youtube][/youtube]


[youtube]ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw&feature=related[/youtube]

Baldy wrote:Highly partisan ideologues sucking off the government teat pushing an anti-capitalist agenda.
End of story...

[youtube][/youtube]


[youtube]ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw&feature=related[/youtube]

What's capitalistic about big oil?

HI54UNI wrote:Consensus was the earth was flat.
Consensus was the universe revolved around earth.


And nice chart. Obscene oil profits? Why is private funding of research bad but government funding not even mentioned? How many millions have govt spent on funding research into global warming? Do those scientists want to protect their fat govt paychecks?

NOW we can /thread.

Every time I try to warm up to SeaGriz and take him seriously, he starts playing CLOWN FOOTBALL again.

AZGrizFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Consensus was the earth was flat.
Consensus was the universe revolved around earth.


And nice chart. Obscene oil profits? Why is private funding of research bad but government funding not even mentioned? How many millions have govt spent on funding research into global warming? Do those scientists want to protect their fat govt paychecks?

NOW we can /thread.

Science hater. \thread

kalm wrote:

youngterrier wrote:I'll side with the experts and specialists:


97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.

\thread.

Bump.

AZGrizFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Consensus was the earth was flat.
Consensus was the universe revolved around earth.


And nice chart. Obscene oil profits? Why is private funding of research bad but government funding not even mentioned? How many millions have govt spent on funding research into global warming? Do those scientists want to protect their fat govt paychecks?

NOW we can /thread.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
NOW we can /thread.

Science hater. \thread

Government lover. /thread.

D1B wrote:

Shill.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Science hater. \thread

Government lover. /thread.

Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. Quasi Capitalism lover \thread

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Government lover. /thread.

Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. Quasi Capitalism lover \thread

Precisely. Yet that's exactly what they've done with their $59 billion in funding. Glad we agree.

93henfan wrote:Every time I try to warm up to SeaGriz and take him seriously, he starts playing CLOWN FOOTBALL again.

I love clown football...wish I had some booze.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. Quasi Capitalism lover \thread

Precisely. Yet that's exactly what they've done with their $59 billion in funding. Glad we agree.

$59 billion? How much was spent on the interstate highway system, our middle east military presence over the last 60 years, environmental clean up, health costs...

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Precisely. Yet that's exactly what they've done with their $59 billion in funding. Glad we agree.

$59 billion? How much was spent on the interstate highway system, our middle east military presence over the last 60 years, environmental clean up, health costs...

Huh. I thought this was a thread about global warming.