Global warming???

[tslust]

You're absolutely right, scientists believe climate change is real.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

You're absolutely right, scientists believe climate change is real.

Imagine, that ... scientists changing their minds based on EVIDENCE and the testing of hypotheses employing the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Note that nearly all scientists agree that calling the phenomenon "global warming" was a huge mistake that simply gave the nay-sayers the ability to pooh-pooh what scientists acknowledge should have been called "global climate change" from the beginning. (Remember the big snow storms in the U.S. South in the winter of 2010-2011. It gave morons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity an opportunity to say there was no global warming if there could be so much snow in unusual places.)

Of course, the picture on right is PhotoShopped (not).

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

Imagine, that ... scientists changing their minds based on EVIDENCE and the testing of hypotheses employing the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Note that nearly all scientists agree that calling the phenomenon "global warming" was a huge mistake that simply gave the nay-sayers the ability to pooh-pooh what scientists acknowledge should have been called "global climate change" from the beginning. (Remember the big snow storms in the U.S. South in the winter of 2010-2011. It gave morons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity an opportunity to say there was no global warming if there could be so much snow in unusual places.)

Of course, the picture on right is PhotoShopped (not).

other than observational measurements, what new found proof of global warming is out there? Remembering that very few things in science are absolute proofs.. even darwins THEORY of natural selection is only part of what we consider "evolution", and there are many other conflicting processes that are occuring (i.e sexual selection), and possibly that we havent found yet.

and the name "global warming" had to be changed because there is no longer and global warming. global temperatures have stopped rising for about the past 7 years. Proponents of the global warming THEORY have failed to explain why this has happened.
your arguments, although with some merit, are about 7 years too late. Research has moved on from then.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

other than observational measurements, what new found proof of global warming is out there? Remembering that very few things in science are absolute proofs.. even darwins THEORY of natural selection is only part of what we consider "evolution", and there are many other conflicting processes that are occuring (i.e sexual selection), and possibly that we havent found yet.

and the name "global warming" had to be changed because there is no longer and global warming. global temperatures have stopped rising for about the past 7 years. Proponents of the global warming THEORY have failed to explain why this has happened.
your arguments, although with some merit, are about 7 years too late. Research has moved on from then.

Some thoughtful comments, Aussiepride.
Here in California the warming trend started in the mid 1970s and stopped in the mid 1990s, since then the climate has stabilized at about one degree above the long term average. If the warming is directly correlated with increasing CO2, then one would expect the climate to continue to warm. That has not happened, at least in California. The cooling that occured after WWII was probably the result of massive industrialization and the production of large quantities of sulfurous aerosols that reflect sunlight. The warming that began in the 1970s may have been the result of widespread industrial expansion. Smokestack sleanup and the installation of catalytic converters on automobiles reduced smoke and smog. Unfortunately, this supprression of smoke and aerosols did not effect the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, consequently temperatures began to rise. In the 1980s China bagan it's massive industrial development energized by coal with huge releases of smoke, smog and carbon dioxide. It is quite likely that the huge quantities of aerosols released into the atmosphere by chinese power generators has counteracted the rise in CO2. Hence, temperatures have ceased to rise. The risks of warming continue. Our best bet is to focus on energy efficiency and moderating the endless quest of more stuff. We are not going to stop using fossil energy until it is all gone so it behooves us to find viable alternatives.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

Imagine, that ... scientists changing their minds based on EVIDENCE and the testing of hypotheses employing the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Note that nearly all scientists agree that calling the phenomenon "global warming" was a huge mistake that simply gave the nay-sayers the ability to pooh-pooh what scientists acknowledge should have been called "global climate change" from the beginning. (Remember the big snow storms in the U.S. South in the winter of 2010-2011. It gave morons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity an opportunity to say there was no global warming if there could be so much snow in unusual places.)

Of course, the picture on right is PhotoShopped (not).

People have to remember that planet Earth has been around for millions of years. We've only been keeping records for a little over one hundred years. Also, the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past and it's been a lot cooler too. So, it's hard, if not impossible, to say what the weather "average" should be.

[cwjakesteel]

Originally Posted by tslust

People have to remember that planet Earth has been around for millions of years. We've only been keeping records for a little over one hundred years. Also, the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past and it's been a lot cooler too. So, it's hard, if not impossible, to say what the weather "average" should be.

Or instead of a constant, there could be a cycle? If we want any solid evidence the fractal nature of macroscopic temperature cycles need to be mapped, because who knows what a temperature map is 'supposed' to look like.