-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Climate Change!
- Thread starter mzungu
- Start date
Thanks for confirming that nothing you post comes from any scientific sources. NASA did nothing of the sort. What the Forbes (ha ha) article is about is a paper published by Roy Spencer in the Journal Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing is a very reputable peer review journal, however, climatology is not their expertise. Anyway, to make a long story short, the paper submitted to Spencer was heavily flawed and just really bad science. So bad that the chief editor made a public apology for allowing the paper to get published and resigned from the journal.
Here's his published apology and resignation, which appears on the Remote Sensing Journals site.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
Upvote
0
idscience
Regular Member
Climate alarmist changes his mind
What is funny about this article is all the alarmist propaganda embedded in it.
The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened, Lovelock said.
The climate is doing its usual tricks. Theres nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now, he said.
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that, he added.
He pointed to Gores An Inconvenient Truth and Tim Flannerys The Weather Makers as other examples of alarmist forecasts of the future.
What is funny about this article is all the alarmist propaganda embedded in it.
The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened, Lovelock said.
The climate is doing its usual tricks. Theres nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now, he said.
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that, he added.
He pointed to Gores An Inconvenient Truth and Tim Flannerys The Weather Makers as other examples of alarmist forecasts of the future.
Upvote
0
Look idscience, this is a forum to discuss science, and in particular in this thread, climate science. Making silly statements like the one above is just plain childish. Neither you nor Greatcloud has even attempted to discuss any climate science. All either of you have done is to parrot and link articles from politically oriented sources. The climate science community contrary to your political beliefs are neither idiots or global conspirators.
If you two want to discuss the topic from a political point of view, please do so from the "Political Forum" in the CF.
If you decide to discuss climate science and behave accordingly, ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue and dispense with the nonsense. There are a number of knowledgeable people here who can help you understand the science. I myself have an M.S. in Earth Science with a concentration in paleoclimatology. Let's discuss science, Okay?
MODERATORS, if any of you are looking in, please help to keep this thread on topic, civil and non-political. Thanks.
Upvote
0
idscience
Regular Member
Real constructive argumentation herelooks like we've got a lot to learn from you.
No, really, stop that. You're not making anyone look good by writing this, especially not yourself.
you guys are hilarious. I take poundings all day long over on my thead, nothing is said. Making a few jokes here and suddenly everyone gets all sensitive.
Lighten up boys and girls, it wasn't malicious like the comments I receive that you say nothing about.
Upvote
0
It is not beyond measurable. Here is quite a bit of data on heat ocean content, especially looking below the well documented 700 meter level.
Global ocean heat and salt content
As I have previously stated, the oceans have heated more than the atmosphere. And again, NO! NASA does not say the excess heat is going to space.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
