E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-29-2011, 10:37 PM   #41
l0e3o7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 45 min from LA
Posts: 159
My Ride: isn't important
Send a message via AIM to l0e3o7
so what melted the ICE AGE? was it global warming? To many camp fires? Could it be the Earth is getting hotter since then?
__________________

Wake up America


(\OO\ (||)(||) /OO/)
l0e3o7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 09:52 AM   #42
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 10:32 AM   #43
Penguin Koolaid
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chitown
Posts: 6,701
My Ride: Inline Six
Someone want to give me a quick update? I get the impression the credibility of the original article is being debated. Anyconvincing evidence for or against?

TIA
Penguin Koolaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 10:43 AM   #44
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin Koolaid View Post
Someone want to give me a quick update? I get the impression the credibility of the original article is being debated. Anyconvincing evidence for or against?

TIA

Quote:
The majority of the scientific community along with several respected media outlets have managed to discredit recently publicized conclusions by a NASA scientist that global warming theory is a hoax.

Dr. Roy Spencer, climate change scientist and a team leader for NASA’s Aqua satellite, recently publicized his findings, which indicate that the earth is releasing more heat into space than it is retaining.

His conclusions prompted headlines such as, “Global Warming a Hoax? NASA Reveals Earth Releasing Heat into Space,” which ran in the San Fransisco International Business Times. Forbes Magazine ran the Op/Ed headline, “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism.”

The study’s results would point to a fundamental flaw in the UN model for global warming and lend public credence to the idea that climate change theory is overly “alarmist.”

Spencer reportedly studied a decade’s worth of data collected from NASA’s Terra satellite. He claims that new satellite findings indicate a higher efficiency of releasing heat from the atmosphere than previously thought.

Spencer explained, “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show...There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Published in the journal Remote Sensing, his hypothesis further “indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”

Spencer’s cross-examination of data allowed him to conclude that carbon dioxide emissions account for only a small portion of atmospheric warming.

Fortunately for environmental advocates, Spencer has been discredited by his peers in the scientific community. According to an article in Discover Magazine, “they say Spencer’s model is ‘unrealistic’, ‘flawed’, and ‘incorrect’...A geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, ‘don’t make any physical sense,’ and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.”

Reportedly, Spencer did not account for statistical fluctuations or other variables while collecting data for his study. Dr. Andrew Tessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, maintained: “He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct.”

According to a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Kevin Trenberth, “the paper has been published in a journal called Remote Sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.”

Stephanie Pappas, senior writer for LiveScience, distinguishes Spencer’s radical and “politically motivated” opinions from the mainstream scientific community and points to his past promotion of climate change skepticism.

Although largely discredited, the notions of conspiracy surrounding global warming clearly still manage to garner media and public attention. Moreover, this could prove to be a particularly significant threat to green enthusiasts, given the current conservative political tide that is seeking to deregulate domestic industry at the expense of the environment. For more on this, see appropriations bill HR 2584.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 10:57 AM   #45
Lair
Modded ///Member
 
Lair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sea level
Posts: 321
My Ride: e90, cheap Boxster
Took longer than I thought it would.
__________________

Quote:
Are you following him?

Yes.
Congratulations.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 11:07 AM   #46
Penguin Koolaid
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chitown
Posts: 6,701
My Ride: Inline Six
Someone do me the trouble of quoting all the *insert foot in mouth* posts
Penguin Koolaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 03:02 PM   #47
crovax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 297
My Ride: 04 CB/Cinnamon M3
Send a message via AIM to crovax
Arguing with people who don't believe in science is pointless. I have degrees in Chemistry and biology. I can assure you, global warming is real, we are causing it, it will get worse, and the vast majority of scientists agree with me.
__________________
Tom
04 M3
crovax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 08:07 PM   #48
DylloS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 672
My Ride: nothing
Lol I knew it would be entertaining to stop over here
DylloS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 02:42 AM   #49
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
Quote:
Originally Posted by crovax View Post
Arguing with people who don't believe in science is pointless. I have degrees in Chemistry and biology. I can assure you, global warming is real, we are causing it, it will get worse, and the vast majority of scientists agree with me.
Not to get sucked too deep in this thread, but does not the statement "vast majority" dictate that it is not really science, just more of an opinion? I mean, when you work through the scientific theory, you have a hypothesis, which you try to prove through data acquisition and testing, and once you put all your data together you end up with a result.

So if 60% of the people say one thing, and 40% of the other say something different, does that not make anything that was said to be "fact" an opinion?

I mean, who is right in that case. All the scientists on this wall say it is real and have facts and data to prove it. All the scientists on that wall have facts and data to prove that it is not...

I see more politics than science in this debate.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 08:05 AM   #50
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
Not to get sucked too deep in this thread, but does not the statement "vast majority" dictate that it is not really science, just more of an opinion? I mean, when you work through the scientific theory, you have a hypothesis, which you try to prove through data acquisition and testing, and once you put all your data together you end up with a result.
You do. But then you have scientists like Roy Spencer who also denies evolution. "Vast majority" of scientists not only "believe" it's true, they know it is. Same with global warming. You'll always have that doctor who says that smoking cigarettes is not bad for you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
So if 60% of the people say one thing, and 40% of the other say something different, does that not make anything that was said to be "fact" an opinion?
Where did you get those numbers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
I mean, who is right in that case. All the scientists on this wall say it is real and have facts and data to prove it. All the scientists on that wall have facts and data to prove that it is not...

I see more politics than science in this debate.
Go to any reputable scientific journal, any real science site, not a blog, not someone's myspace page or editorial article in a newspaper. Read actual scientific research and it will be more clear.

The problem is that politics has simply brought more money into the game and is fueling a debate that shouldn't even exist.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 10:33 AM   #51
Lair
Modded ///Member
 
Lair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sea level
Posts: 321
My Ride: e90, cheap Boxster
Anybody seen AOG lately?
__________________

Quote:
Are you following him?

Yes.
Congratulations.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 10:37 AM   #52
BimmerFerret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cardinal Country, KY
Posts: 1,882
My Ride: 08 G37S, 07 Sky RL
Send a message via Skype™ to BimmerFerret
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post

Go to any reputable scientific journal, any real science site, not a blog, not someone's myspace page or editorial article in a newspaper. Read actual scientific research and it will be more clear.

The problem is that politics has simply brought more money into the game and is fueling a debate that shouldn't even exist.
I agree.
__________________
2008 Infiniti G37S - Big Brakes, Limited Slip, etc.
2007 Sky Redline
1998 Honda Civic EX Sedan


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxlo View Post
Class of '03, yet you're still an idiot. Whats your point? Do you really think that you're somehow a god because you joined a site before someone else? ****ing nerd.
BimmerFerret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 11:49 AM   #53
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
You do. But then you have scientists like Roy Spencer who also denies evolution. "Vast majority" of scientists not only "believe" it's true, they know it is. Same with global warming. You'll always have that doctor who says that smoking cigarettes is not bad for you.

Sure I can see that, but the problem I have with the global warming debate is that even those that were for it, are now backing out, changing it to "global climate change" and changing what they are backing. The "science" has changed, and the numbers and data were found to be corrupt. So what is the truth?

Where did you get those numbers?

I literally pulled them out of my ass for an example. It was just to show a majority and minority with conflicting opinions.

Go to any reputable scientific journal, any real science site, not a blog, not someone's myspace page or editorial article in a newspaper. Read actual scientific research and it will be more clear.

Actually, you can argue the same. I have read much research to the contrary. My problem is the "source" as you label it is corrupt across the board. Those that disagree are labeled crackpots because their research was funded by companies connected to or directly by the oil companies, and those that are for it, are directly tied to Gore, the Media and the left wing liberal machine. That is the issue. No one is able to give a full, honest answer and everything is getting clouded because of money.

The problem is that politics has simply brought more money into the game and is fueling a debate that shouldn't even exist.

I agree money has had an impact, but the debate is real, and IMHO should be there.

First the world was going to get too hot, and everything was doomed. Then when the winters were just as cold, if not colder, they backtracked to "climate change". When you can't prove something scientifically, and change what you say to suit your data, you are not a scientist, you are a politician in a lab coat. It is the same "scientists" claiming Global Climate Change that were shouting from the roof tops regarding carbon credits, drive a hybrid, etc, etc, etc. Change the name, change the plan, change the beginning, change the end and change the results. Omit data, change the models, and confuse everyone. What will happen next? A repeat of the 1970s scare regarding "global cooling"?

Oh yea, that was just the other side of global climate change. That was the cold period, and now war are in the hot side. Let me guess, we will see cooling in... 2035?

In bold. I am not getting into this debate to far cause I really don't care. My opinion differs from those in here with time on their hands to post sources. We had a talk about this before, and I was involved. My only point is how long does it take till those follow the scientists change their opinion when theirs change?

Has anyone in here actually read any comparison to the heat of the earth and sun spot activity? How about the destruction of our forests in regards to CO2 production?

I think we have inconclusive data lead by new technology and comparisons based only on a cool period in the 70s, and people attempting to make money off of the warm period. Where are the models from the 40s? how about the early 1900s? We don't have images of the earth back then. No data to support one side or the other. I think we will not know anything concrete for another 30 years, and by then, our decisions as people will have already dictated what we are doing anyway.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 12:57 PM   #54
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
Originally Posted by 'busa
You do. But then you have scientists like Roy Spencer who also denies evolution. "Vast majority" of scientists not only "believe" it's true, they know it is. Same with global warming. You'll always have that doctor who says that smoking cigarettes is not bad for you.

Sure I can see that, but the problem I have with the global warming debate is that even those that were for it, are now backing out, changing it to "global climate change" and changing what they are backing. The "science" has changed, and the numbers and data were found to be corrupt. So what is the truth?

Who are those that supported it that are now backing out? How many of them are there? What percentage of total climatologists do they make up? What are their credentials?

Scientists flipping on the global warming debate is NOT happening to the extent that you think it is and I can with strong certainty tell you that their switch is as rooted in science as is that of people who decide to support creationism.


Furthermore, the only reason we are talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming" is because of the media campaign to discredit that term and because idiots will not believe that global warming is occuring simply because it hasn't stopped snowing in the winter yet.

AND FINALLY, the science has NOT changed, and the numbers and data were NOT found to be corrupt. There was no such thing as Climategate.


Where did you get those numbers?

I literally pulled them out of my ass for an example. It was just to show a majority and minority with conflicting opinions.

It served no purpose at all other than to illustrate that there is a 40/60 split, which there isn't. It's uninformed at best, dishonest at worst. Quick Google:

(i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[104]
...

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
What ELSE do you want? You want 101% agreement?

Go to any reputable scientific journal, any real science site, not a blog, not someone's myspace page or editorial article in a newspaper. Read actual scientific research and it will be more clear.

Actually, you can argue the same. I have read much research to the contrary. My problem is the "source" as you label it is corrupt across the board. Those that disagree are labeled crackpots because their research was funded by companies connected to or directly by the oil companies, and those that are for it, are directly tied to Gore, the Media and the left wing liberal machine. That is the issue. No one is able to give a full, honest answer and everything is getting clouded because of money.

That's bullsh*t. You've demonstrated above that your "research" is sloppy at best and likely includes ideological sources. I've shown you that there was no corrupt data, that the split in the scientific community is nowhere near what you think it is and that there is plenty of information to be found within minutes.

The problem is that politics has simply brought more money into the game and is fueling a debate that shouldn't even exist.

I agree money has had an impact, but the debate is real, and IMHO should be there.

First the world was going to get too hot, and everything was doomed. Then when the winters were just as cold, if not colder, they backtracked to "climate change".

See above.

When you can't prove something scientifically, and change what you say to suit your data, you are not a scientist, you are a politician in a lab coat. It is the same "scientists" claiming Global Climate Change that were shouting from the roof tops regarding carbon credits, drive a hybrid, etc, etc, etc. Change the name, change the plan, change the beginning, change the end and change the results. Omit data, change the models, and confuse everyone. What will happen next? A repeat of the 1970s scare regarding "global cooling"?

"Global cooling" was their "Shark Week." There was neither enough research nor support to make such a claim, but Time Magazine and some others ran with the idea because it sounded interesting. Besides, NO ONE, not even the craziest right-wingers are denying that global warming is occuring. They've switched to saying that it's not affected by humans. But the data is clear.

Oh yea, that was just the other side of global climate change. That was the cold period, and now war are in the hot side. Let me guess, we will see cooling in... 2035?

You're resorting to some really bad debate tactics.

In red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
In bold. I am not getting into this debate to far cause I really don't care.
It shows that you don't care. You're not very informed on this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
My opinion differs from those in here with time on their hands to post sources. We had a talk about this before, and I was involved. My only point is how long does it take till those follow the scientists change their opinion when theirs change?
First of all, they're not opinions, they're findings. Secondly, the science is solid. It's real. Don't just skim over the articles and comments on a blog and think you've done research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
Has anyone in here actually read any comparison to the heat of the earth and sun spot activity? How about the destruction of our forests in regards to CO2 production?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
I think we have inconclusive data lead by new technology and comparisons based only on a cool period in the 70s, and people attempting to make money off of the warm period. Where are the models from the 40s? how about the early 1900s? We don't have images of the earth back then. No data to support one side or the other. I think we will not know anything concrete for another 30 years, and by then, our decisions as people will have already dictated what we are doing anyway.
I think based on the fact that I've refuted many of easily checkable claims you've made and proven you wrong, you are in no position to spout off climatological pseudo-science.
__________________

Last edited by 'busa; 08-04-2011 at 01:02 PM.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 01:26 PM   #55
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,024
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0e3o7 View Post
so what melted the ICE AGE? was it global warming? To many camp fires? Could it be the Earth is getting hotter since then?
Liberals were right in the 70's, when they proclaimed global cooling. Liberals were right in the 90's when they warned of global warming. Liberals are right today with climate change. And the only solution to this is government intervention and the expansion of big brother's intrusion into our lives. We clearly need a cap and trade program and only then will we save mother nature.

By the way, the rest of the world, in particular developing countries currently undergoing their industrial ages, have zero impact on climate change and are therefore excluded from any efforts we try and impose upon US business entities which are evil and, despite being some of the cleanest in the world, should be vilified to the full extent of our media powers.

Al Gore is a genuine genius and a sincere man who partakes in climate change discussions only to further the ability for mother nature to once again love us. He flies in private jets, rides around in limos, and lives in gigantic houses (which are less environmentally friendly than GW Bush's) house only to demonstrate how NOT to live one's life.

If you don't subscribe to this, you have been brainwashed by Fox news and are my enemy. I will label you a moron for not believing the obvious fact that global warming exists. Only a moron would be willing to consider evidence presented to the contrary of our beliefs in global warming.
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
Wrapping an E46 in Vinyl : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ghlight=bronze
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 01:27 PM   #56
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Jesus Christ!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Liberals were right in the 70's, when they proclaimed global cooling. Liberals were right in the 90's when they warned of global warming. Liberals are right today with climate change. And the only solution to this is government intervention and the expansion of big brother's intrusion into our lives. We clearly need a cap and trade program and only then will we save mother nature.

By the way, the rest of the world, in particular developing countries currently undergoing their industrial ages, have zero impact on climate change and are therefore excluded from any efforts we try and impose upon US business entities which are evil and, despite being some of the cleanest in the world, should be vilified to the full extent of our media powers.

Al Gore is a genuine genius and a sincere man who partakes in climate change discussions only to further the ability for mother nature to once again love us. He flies in private jets, rides around in limos, and lives in gigantic houses (which are less environmentally friendly than GW Bush's) house only to demonstrate how NOT to live one's life.

If you don't subscribe to this, you have been brainwashed by Fox news and are my enemy. I will label you a moron for not believing the obvious fact that global warming exists. Only a moron would be willing to consider evidence presented to the contrary of our beliefs in global warming.
Show what "evidence" you have.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 01:30 PM   #57
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,024
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
Jesus Christ!



Show what "evidence" you have.
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 01:32 PM   #58
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2...0corrected.pdf

NOAA 7 years ago decided that it would be a good idea to monitor our oceans temperatures since the Climate Warming Modelers all predicted that our oceans would show significant warming trends even higher then land air temperatures. In order to monitor the oceans temperature, NOAA launched 3000 robots in the oceans which would monitor the oceans temperature on a continuous basis and send the information back to NOAA scientists.

Here's the link to location of those robots. http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Buoywaterfall2.mov

So whats the outcome of this 7 year study....Ocean temperatures over the past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global warming. That means the main indicator of global warming that the IPCC has been so worried about has shown zero change in ocean temperatures.

But again when ever any information or scientific paper surfaces to contradict the myth of Global warming, the global warming alarmists squirm and actually try to find reasons why the reality does not match their predisposition to believe all things in their own flawed science.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025

One can't help but smile as these two scientists squirm in this NPR interview. Notice how they talk about how much there is to learn about our climate.
Do you ever hear these same scientists parse thier words when it comes to talk about how the climate is warming?



Not getting involved, just posting some info I have found and read. If you feel the need to reply, make sure you actually read it, and not just read the title, skim the contents and decide that this person is a crackpot, faux news watching oil executive.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 01:47 PM   #59
Penguin Koolaid
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chitown
Posts: 6,701
My Ride: Inline Six
^^

Seven years of data for something that develops over hundreds is essentially worthless. I say that purely in the context of sound quantitative testing and measures.


Edit: I cannot spell for ****.

Last edited by Penguin Koolaid; 08-04-2011 at 01:57 PM.
Penguin Koolaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 01:49 PM   #60
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
What's this other than a 4+ year old paper that starts with the word "myth"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
NOAA 7 years ago decided that it would be a good idea to monitor our oceans temperatures since the Climate Warming Modelers all predicted that our oceans would show significant warming trends even higher then land air temperatures. In order to monitor the oceans temperature, NOAA launched 3000 robots in the oceans which would monitor the oceans temperature on a continuous basis and send the information back to NOAA scientists.

So whats the outcome of this 7 year study....Ocean temperatures over the past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global warming. That means the main indicator of global warming that the IPCC has been so worried about has shown zero change in ocean temperatures.

But again when ever any information or scientific paper surfaces to contradict the myth of Global warming, the global warming alarmists squirm and actually try to find reasons why the reality does not match their predisposition to believe all things in their own flawed science.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025

One can't help but smile as these two scientists squirm in this NPR interview. Notice how they talk about how much there is to learn about our climate.
Do you ever hear these same scientists parse thier words when it comes to talk about how the climate is warming?
The "ocean cooling" data was erroneous: http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/hc_bias_jtech_v3.pdf <-- From 2009.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
Not getting involved, just posting some info I have found and read. If you feel the need to reply, make sure you actually read it, and not just read the title, skim the contents and decide that this person is a crackpot, faux news watching oil executive.
I read it. Did you? From the article:
Quote:
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
...
"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."
That's how it works. See next post for full article from NASA.
__________________

Last edited by 'busa; 08-04-2011 at 01:53 PM.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use