Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[homersapien 11,373]

meanwhile, back to reality, the arctic ice mass has more than doubled,

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/9544/20130918/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-highs-due-increasing-polar-winds.htm

[homersapien 11,373]

.....To assume that unequivocal conclusions can be drawn from a couple hundred years of weather related data collection...much of it tainted..is supremely arrogant.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/

[homersapien 11,373]

..... Republicans have not dismissed science .....

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0465046762

http://www.alternet....ics/gop-science

http://www.huffingto...n_n_229382.html

http://articles.wash...epublican-party

http://www.mediaite....heyre-children/

[Strychnine 1,802]

Considering the subject at hand, and its potential ramifications, why is no one asking "what do we actually know about the subject?" Not "What do we think?" or "What are our theories?". If the issue were settled enough to be rationally acted upon, no one would be debating the issue's existence itself. A theory's validity is always a question on the table. It has to be. However, the more important question on the table is why is it relevant? Is it because individuals or groups propose action based on the theory in question? How can one propose a rational course of action, when the cause isn't even fully understood?

The "debate" is pretty much over within the scientific community. That's why all of the major international scientific associations have issued definitive position statements.

What we are witnessing now is not a debate on the theory as much as a political effort by those who feel financially threatened by proposed responses.

As far as the body politic acting "rationally" there will always be significant segments of the population who simply reject the truth for reasons of their own. Look at the so called "Intelligent Design" movement for example.

I'm not really concerned with anyone's position statements, as I have yet to see anything definitive.

So why should we care about what you think?

No one said you had to. That was a great response, almost as great as posting a convenient link containing the extinction hypotheses.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Anyone naive enough to NOT be able to see what is happening is a simple minded tool. Aside from the political and financial implications of sticking with the man made climate change - it also has global taxation implications. Emerging economies like China and India who have the cheapest labor and probably the worst pollution would be taxed for their non-compliance with the international laws governing emissions.

Politically and financially, the western world has a lot to gain if they can push the world to believe global warming is seriously the cause of humans. This allows them to heavily tax other countries who are producing large amounts of goods at low costs like China and India. Forcing them to increase their costs would create a more level playing field for western countries who currently have increased costs due to the demand for higher wages.

We must also take into consideration the simple fact of uncontrolled human ego. Many scientists today have built a great deal of wealth and status over their claims and assumptions on global warming. Some of them have built complete careers around the belief and any threat to what they have done is not simply an acceptance of new science but also an admittance that there previous belief was incorrect. For many, this is not easy to face when so much has been built. Global warming is hardly the one and only area of study that new science has proven incorrect, yet it still remains due to the lack of open minded and ego-less scientists.

http://www.collectiv...not-man-made/#_

- See more at: http://www.collectiv...not-man-made/#_

[homersapien 11,373]

Anyone naive enough to NOT be able to see what is happening is a simple minded tool. Aside from the political and financial implications of sticking with the man made climate change - it also has global taxation implications. Emerging economies like China and India who have the cheapest labor and probably the worst pollution would be taxed for their non-compliance with the international laws governing emissions.

Politically and financially, the western world has a lot to gain if they can push the world to believe global warming is seriously the cause of humans. This allows them to heavily tax other countries who are producing large amounts of goods at low costs like China and India. Forcing them to increase their costs would create a more level playing field for western countries who currently have increased costs due to the demand for higher wages.

We must also take into consideration the simple fact of uncontrolled human ego. Many scientists today have built a great deal of wealth and status over their claims and assumptions on global warming. Some of them have built complete careers around the belief and any threat to what they have done is not simply an acceptance of new science but also an admittance that there previous belief was incorrect. For many, this is not easy to face when so much has been built. Global warming is hardly the one and only area of study that new science has proven incorrect, yet it still remains due to the lack of open minded and ego-less scientists.

http://www.collectiv...not-man-made/#_

- See more at: http://www.collectiv...not-man-made/#_

Great site you found there. Joe Martino has been a busy little bee compiling info from other denier sites (and Pravda no less!) on AGW. Not sure what his background is, but it doesn't appear to be in science. Real young guy too.

Nevertheless is was entertaining to read articles on the 9/11 conspiracy, the human "aura", "chem trails", the "hollow earth theory" and how ET's are deactivating nuclear warheads. I didn't know that Russia had a "men in black" department!

Heck, the National Inquirer's got nothing on "Collective-Evolution". It's a written version of "Coast to Coast".

Perhaps you should make a donation to them.

[AUDub 11,148]

Nevertheless is was entertaining to read articles on the 9/11 conspiracy, the human "aura", "chem trails", the "hollow earth theory" and how ET's are deactivating nuclear warheads. I didn't know that Russia had a "men in black" department! :o/>

I generally think most of these are harmless, but they actually buy in to the anti-vaccination quackery on that site. That crosses the line into dangerous misinformation.

[homersapien 11,373]

Nevertheless is was entertaining to read articles on the 9/11 conspiracy, the human "aura", "chem trails", the "hollow earth theory" and how ET's are deactivating nuclear warheads. I didn't know that Russia had a "men in black" department! :o/>

I generally think most of these are harmless, but they actually buy in to the anti-vaccination quackery on that site. That crosses the line into dangerous misinformation.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that one.