I don't think the issue is whether climate change is real or not, the issue is how much of it is caused by humans and how much of it is just the natural cycle that has gone on since the beginning of time. Global temperatures were much higher around 1200-1300 a.d. even though there were none of the human factors such as factories and cars. Fossil fuel use is a factor but natural fluctuations have shown a much greater change over time.
reliable temperature recording would help the debate http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html
Please stop questioning the instruments, measurements or methods of the government sponsored scientists. Questioning them is ignorant. It's science.
Yes, one other thing of note is that they always bring up Arctic Sea ice but seem to always fail to mention Antarctic Sea ice. That could be due to the fact that as Arctic Sea ice retreated Antarctic Sea ice has increased, showing what could just be the natural cycle of things.
Shits real yo. Take Mt. Kenya for example. This mountain alone accounts for 70% of Kenya's water supply. Due to accelerated melting and climate change, 90% of it's equatorial glaciers have vanished. By 2050, it is predicted that Mt. Kenya's 11 glaciers will be gone. Than what?
While those glaciers melt others increase in size. You can go to Iceagenow.com for a list of hundreds that are growing. First time I went to that site so not sure how often it is updated.
Tests on Scarbrand's meat-flavoured pie fillings had shown that each can might contain up to 7% ergot-impregnated stoat faeces, which had most likely leaked from a farm that specially bred animals and children for pagan rituals.
I kept going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. Ended up with about 15 tabs opened up and a long way from where I started, had to stop myself or I would have been up all night.
Wow! This article starts with fallacies right in the headline! Calling Coleman a "meteorologist" (let alone a "top meteorologist") is about as fanciful as it gets. He has no scientific training. He received a degree in journalism, and parlayed that into a gig as a TV weatherman. That's it. You might as well get Bugs Bunny's perspective on the mideast peace process...
why would someone need a degree to give their opinion on what scientists clearly explain in their report Besides him being called a meteorologist what is a fallacy?
One other point, he was named Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year in 1983 by the American Meteorological Society (seems that would make him a top meteorologist), he has been forecasting weather for over 60 years. While maybe not a meteorologist by literal definition it seems he would have a very good grasp of weather after 60 years. None of this has anything to do with the point at hand though.
Is the point at hand that it's weird how people with no basic scientific training can speak "definitively" about topics they clearly don't understand when it suits their political beliefs?
What is your definition of "no basic scientific training"? What are the definitive statements that you are speaking of and how do they relate to political beliefs?
I think all of those questions can be mostly answered by posts like this: ...and even your own posts: Saying that natural fluctuations have shown a much greater change over time sort of misses the point. It's like saying the body's temperature fluctuates naturally greatly over time (which is true), so it's impossible to ascribe causes to low-grade fevers (not true). Just as how you can parse out where the causes in body temperature are coming from to account for larger fluctuations (e.g. the person was out in the sun, or was exercising heavily, or was in a cold bath), the researchers who gather/analyze/present data on climate change have already accounted for these "questions" that have been alluded to (or explicitly stated) in this thread. Basic scientific training would amount to (at the very least) a decent understanding of the scientific method and an understanding of how to analyze data. Many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of that understanding... but the posters still feel confident enough to make rather bold claims and mock something that they pretty clearly don't understand. Given past comments from some of these posters, I'm highly inclined to believe that much of it is based on political beliefs as opposed to any actual understanding of the topic, although I'm happy to be proven wrong on this matter. I have several friends/colleagues who work in this field. What they do is not easy, nor straightforward. But the observations and conclusions they draw are (for the most part) sound. I'm not familiar with all of the details (my studies took me in other directions), but I have read some of their papers, as well as many of the other more popular papers from the field. I guess if I were to sum it up, I'd expect - at the very least - that people weren't simply satisfying their own confirmation biases when approaching a topic. If you're going to attempt to refute scientific research, at least put in the effort to know what the claims are instead of reacting to how the media reports the findings. (When it comes to climate change, the science is pretty solid -- the dissemination of the message is pretty atrocious, and is rife with opportunities for politicians... on both sides. Nearly all of whom lack the understanding to act on it wisely.)
