2010 hits global temperature high

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

So what about all the other peer reviewed articles Its clear you did not ready any of them, are you just going to ignore them and go on with your CC/GW crusade???

haha ... ok ... i challenge you to pick any article amongst your whatever and for BOTH of us to read them fully and we will debate it after ... deal? ... go ahead ... pick one ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

So what about all the other peer reviewed articles Its clear you did not ready any of them, are you just going to ignore them and go on with your CC/GW crusade???

haha ... ok ... i challenge you to pick any article amongst your whatever and for BOTH of us to read them fully and we will debate it after ... deal? ... go ahead ... pick one ...

Why 1, why not 1,000??? What is there to debate??? My point is that there is no consensus among the science of climate change, there seem to be alot of variables, You putting the sole blame on man is rediculous... Also i asked where you got your science of climate degree from?

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

You are right I don't trust scientist, I do not trust the government and I do not trust the oil companies. But the only way the oil company is screwing me is at the pumps and not paying their fair share of taxes, but hell there is all kinds of corporations and people that don't pay their fair share of taxes. The government on the other hand

Are Leeches-they leech off the productivity of others, they continually create layer upon layer of government jobs that are not needed.

Am I an authority of course not, but I do know this winter today is just as cold as it was when I was in high school and in college, we've been under a deep freeze since early December. Can we clean up the planet and pollute less, we sure can. Maybe instead of funding these scientist, take that money and find better ways to pollute less, better ways to recycle, better ways to dispose of our trash and the list could go on and on.

If you are convinced that these scientist are right, then why does the government need to fund more research into proving humans are the problem, now that funding should be directed into other areas to find a better way.

if we spent money on learning how to pollute less ... well, guess what? ... we'd have to pay scientists ... science is what we use to cure cancer, build more efficient cars, etc ... it's the foundation of pretty much our society ...

as for your cold winter ... i'm sorry but even the most hardliners of climate skeptics would not use this as proof ... it only highlights what little you know of the subject ...

i agree on one thing - we should be funding programs outside of proving AGW because we have a scientific consensus ... but yet we do because, there are people that still choose to subscribe to the gospel of oil companies ... beyond not paying their fair share of taxes ... oil companies pollute our air and water ... which leads to illness ... and guess who pays for that? ... we do ...

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

Why 1, why not 1,000??? What is there to debate??? My point is that there is no consensus among the science of climate change, there seem to be alot of variables, You putting the sole blame on man is rediculous... Also i asked where you got your science of climate degree from?

well ... before you can debate a 1,000 articles ... you have to first start with 1 ... i understand your point - your proof is based on your copy and paste jobs ... i have debunked your copy and paste jobs however, seeing as you choose not to accept my debunking points ... i suggested we read 1 article and debate the topic based on your scientific proof that there is no consensus ...

not that it matters, but i have a bacelor of environmental science from the university of waterloo ... and spent two work terms working with climate change research facilities here in canada ... but my credentials or yours for that matter is irrelevant ...

AGW is only ridiculous to you because you continue to read from sources that suit your biases ... and choose to not study the other side ...

it's similar to those that believe obama was not born in america ... you can google and get a million links to articles that say he wasn't born ... is that proof? ... hardly ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

You are right I don't trust scientist, I do not trust the government and I do not trust the oil companies. But the only way the oil company is screwing me is at the pumps and not paying their fair share of taxes, but hell there is all kinds of corporations and people that don't pay their fair share of taxes. The government on the other hand

Are Leeches-they leech off the productivity of others, they continually create layer upon layer of government jobs that are not needed.

Am I an authority of course not, but I do know this winter today is just as cold as it was when I was in high school and in college, we've been under a deep freeze since early December. Can we clean up the planet and pollute less, we sure can. Maybe instead of funding these scientist, take that money and find better ways to pollute less, better ways to recycle, better ways to dispose of our trash and the list could go on and on.

If you are convinced that these scientist are right, then why does the government need to fund more research into proving humans are the problem, now that funding should be directed into other areas to find a better way.

if we spent money on learning how to pollute less ... well, guess what? ... we'd have to pay scientists ... science is what we use to cure cancer, build more efficient cars, etc ... it's the foundation of pretty much our society ...

as for your cold winter ... i'm sorry but even the most hardliners of climate skeptics would not use this as proof ... it only highlights what little you know of the subject ...

i agree on one thing - we should be funding programs outside of proving AGW because we have a scientific consensus ... but yet we do because, there are people that still choose to subscribe to the gospel of oil companies ... beyond not paying their fair share of taxes ... oil companies pollute our air and water ... which leads to illness ... and guess who pays for that? ... we do ...

Refresh my memory, what is the latest cancer that scientist have cured? Actually engineers make cars more fuel efficient, but I'm willing to bet a good auto mechanic can tell the engineers a better way. I'm really curious about these cancer cure, seriuosly people need to know. Are you holding out on us, do you have the secret .

He's not a scientist, a science student maybe, but not a scientist.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... ecomposes/

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

Why 1, why not 1,000??? What is there to debate??? My point is that there is no consensus among the science of climate change, there seem to be alot of variables, You putting the sole blame on man is rediculous... Also i asked where you got your science of climate degree from?

well ... before you can debate a 1,000 articles ... you have to first start with 1 ... i understand your point - your proof is based on your copy and paste jobs ... i have debunked your copy and paste jobs however, seeing as you choose not to accept my debunking points ... i suggested we read 1 article and debate the topic based on your scientific proof that there is no consensus ...

not that it matters, but i have a bacelor of environmental science from the university of waterloo ... and spent two work terms working with climate change research facilities here in canada ... but my credentials or yours for that matter is irrelevant ...

AGW is only ridiculous to you because you continue to read from sources that suit your biases ... and choose to not study the other side ...

it's similar to those that believe obama was not born in america ... you can google and get a million links to articles that say he wasn't born ... is that proof? ... hardly ...

Was the last major disease cured in the 50's, that being polio. And I believe Salk never put a patent on it. So what have these scientist been up to for the last 50 + years?

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Refresh my memory, what is the latest cancer that scientist have cured? Actually engineers make cars more fuel efficient, but I'm willing to bet a good auto mechanic can tell the engineers a better way. I'm really curious about these cancer cure, seriuosly people need to know. Are you holding out on us, do you have the secret .

He's not a scientist, a science student maybe, but not a scientist.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... ecomposes/

uhhh ... people are cured from cancer everyday through chemotherapy and surgery ... and i dare you to goto an engineer and tell him you don't trust scientists and we'll see what he/she has to say about that ...

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Was the last major disease cured in the 50's, that being polio. And I believe Salk never put a patent on it. So what have these scientist been up to for the last 50 + years?

i'm not really sure what your point is here ... if you are trying to slag medical reserachers ... go ahead - feel free to walk that plank ... but it has nothing to do with AGW ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

well ... before you can debate a 1,000 articles ... you have to first start with 1 ... i understand your point - your proof is based on your copy and paste jobs ... i have debunked your copy and paste jobs however, seeing as you choose not to accept my debunking points ... i suggested we read 1 article and debate the topic based on your scientific proof that there is no consensus ...

not that it matters, but i have a bacelor of environmental science from the university of waterloo ... and spent two work terms working with climate change research facilities here in canada ... but my credentials or yours for that matter is irrelevant ...

AGW is only ridiculous to you because you continue to read from sources that suit your biases ... and choose to not study the other side ...

it's similar to those that believe obama was not born in america ... you can google and get a million links to articles that say he wasn't born ... is that proof? ... hardly ...

What did you debunk??? There are 1,000 articles that don't support your CONSENSUS! And i never said its rediculious to me, I said its hard for me to really know what to think, when there is no consensus between scientists, as you can see from 1,000 peer reviewed scientific studies. You are putting it all on man, yet ignore all the other natural causes, (water vapor, magnetisim, solar flares, clouds, ozone layer, volcanos, etc.) All of those effect the climate. I have no bias on this at all, I DON"T KNOW, but at least I am not running around on the internet telling everybody its mans fault, with only 2 work terms of experience in the field. Just because i disagree with you does not mean that I am biased, it means that there seems to be NO CONSENSUS and alot of money / politics involved.

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

What did you debunk??? There are 1,000 articles that don't support your CONSENSUS! And i never said its rediculious to me, I said its hard for me to really know what to think, when there is no consensus between scientists, as you can see from 1,000 peer reviewed scientific studies. You are putting it all on man, yet ignore all the other natural causes, (water vapor, magnetisim, solar flares, clouds, ozone layer, volcanos, etc.) All of those effect the climate. I have no bias on this at all, I DON"T KNOW, but at least I am not running around on the internet telling everybody its mans fault, with only 2 work terms of experience in the field. Just because i disagree with you does not mean that I am biased, it means that there seems to be NO CONSENSUS and alot of money / politics involved.

i debunked it by saying your source is not recognized by the international body that cites journals and that their "peer review" process does not qualify ... also, many of your sources are articles that have been debunked by the scientific community as propaganda pieces for big oil ...

again - if you want to pick ANY one of your articles - i will gladly read it and we can debate it if you so wish ... but i suspect you will not take me up on this because the science is irrelevant to you ... all your natural causes have been factored into the science and have been addressed in numerous articles and studies by climate scientists ...

also, like i said in my previous post ... my educational background and work experience is irrelevant ... it doesn't take any kind of specific expertise to understand global warming ... all it takes is the ability to grasp basic scientific terms and the ability to think for yourself ...

you can post all your blog postings all day but you have given nothing of substance ... i am not telling people there is a scientific consensus based on my own personal evaluation ... i am saying so because that is what the scientific community has said ...

care to read the following link?

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-chang ... us-on.html

know1

Records are made to be broken.

Locally, we had the coldest December on record. But you can't use local events to make a valid point, right?

polaris_x

know1 wrote:

Records are made to be broken.

Locally, we had the coldest December on record. But you can't use local events to make a valid point, right?

actually ... having the coldest december on record is further proof of global warming ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

Records are made to be broken.

Locally, we had the coldest December on record. But you can't use local events to make a valid point, right?

actually ... having the coldest december on record is further proof of global warming ...

this is a legitmate question, do you have any good links to journal articles that point to man being able to reverse the trend? I am interested but sifting through google searches is damn near impossible. I no longer have access to jstor.

edit*** naming the issue global warming was the biggest mistake ever. if they had called it climate change from teh beginning I cannot help but wonder what would be happening now.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Refresh my memory, what is the latest cancer that scientist have cured? Actually engineers make cars more fuel efficient, but I'm willing to bet a good auto mechanic can tell the engineers a better way. I'm really curious about these cancer cure, seriuosly people need to know. Are you holding out on us, do you have the secret .

He's not a scientist, a science student maybe, but not a scientist.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... ecomposes/

uhhh ... people are cured from cancer everyday through chemotherapy and surgery ... and i dare you to goto an engineer and tell him you don't trust scientists and we'll see what he/she has to say about that ...

Why would the engineer care about my opinion of scientist, unless he is insecure of course. People recover from cancer but the disease itself is not cured. My Dad had cancer and he considers himself a survivor of cancer, not cured, and he stands a greater chance of cancer coming back. I am not knocking medical researchers, just saying the last major disease cured was polio in the 50's.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Was the last major disease cured in the 50's, that being polio. And I believe Salk never put a patent on it. So what have these scientist been up to for the last 50 + years?

i'm not really sure what your point is here ... if you are trying to slag medical reserachers ... go ahead - feel free to walk that plank ... but it has nothing to do with AGW ...

Then if your convinced that the global warming scientist are right, then why do you not call for the funding to end that proved your point? Then the government can take that money and invest in green technologies. Why continue to fund the scientific community to conduct research that apparently is telling us the same thing over and over again? Or do they need to research this subject for ever in hoping to obtain definitive data that proves your point.

You never seem to answer questions asked of you?

Anyways as far as I'm concerned, I'll chalk global warming or climate change or what ever the enviro freaks are calling it these days as to a scam to suck money from people, just like religion.

This is point less subject to continue to discuss.

sabreleaf

I live in Buffalo,NY. It's 10 with windchill of -5 right now. Where is this global warming. Not on the Canadian boarder I'll tell you. Snows everyday. Summer was cold.

know1

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

Records are made to be broken.

Locally, we had the coldest December on record. But you can't use local events to make a valid point, right?

actually ... having the coldest december on record is further proof of global warming ...

That was kind of my point - thanks for strengthening it.

You really can't use local events or occurrences as evidence, yet it seems EVERY single weather occurrence just *wink* *wink* happens to be more *wink* *wink* "proof" about Global War...er..Climate Cha....er Ozone Ho....er...

WaveCameCrashin

1st it was global cooling,then it was global warming,now it's climate change. I personally believe there is climate change. I just don't believe it's from man. There are just as many scientist and climatologist if not more that think it's nothing but a scam to pass Cape and trade

lukin2006

prfctlefts wrote:

1st it was global cooling,then it was global warming,now it's climate change. I personally believe there is climate change. I just don't believe it's from man. There are just as many scientist and climatologist if not more that think it's nothing but a scam to pass Cape and trade

Agreed, the name keeps changing. Personally I think it's a scam. The thing I do agree is that we can pollute less, do better at recycling, find better ways to dispose of our trash, etc.. I just wonder why if the so called greenies are convinced they are right why studies are continually conducted at tax payers expense?

I would think they would want the money re directed to finding better ways to reduce, reuse, recycle.

Another favorite of my is oil companies pollute, so does just about everyone else. Now around these parts in the winter the governments a big polluter, the amount of road salt that get thrown down, unbelievable. Some of that money could be redirected to find better ways to keep our roads clear.

Jeanwah

know1 wrote:

Locally, we had the coldest December on record. But you can't use local events to make a valid point, right?

sabreleaf wrote:

I live in Buffalo,NY. It's 10 with windchill of -5 right now. Where is this global warming. Not on the Canadian boarder I'll tell you. Snows everyday. Summer was cold.

Come on guys. If you knew anything about the topic, you'd know that extreme weather, not warm weather, is a sign of global warming. For Bob's sake, read the science!