Global warming LOL

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

The only such "studies" are been written by curent global warming alarmists, and all of their assertions go directly against all the documented evidence from the 1970s including the CIA summaries, media articles (Time, etc.), school curriculum information, and the majority of papers from scientists during the decade.

You are free to have your own opinions, you are not free to invent your own facts.

And you are free to believe a myth perpetuated by the GW denier apparatus.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.

So The American Meteorological Society are alarmists?
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The National Academy of Sciences in 1975 and 1979 are current alarmists?

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html

 

[fhl]

Quote from futurecurrents:

And you are free to believe a myth perpetuated by the GW denier apparatus.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.

So The American Meteorological Society are alarmists?
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The National Academy of Sciences in 1975 and 1979 are current alarmists?

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html

Yeah, i see, gothcha.

What you're saying is that the reason we're supposed to believe you now is because you were just lying to us in the 70's.

Yeah, ok.

rofl

 

[gwb-trading]

You posted this nonsense about 68 studies in the 1970s previously. Why don't you reference the earlier response from a poster with a link to over 1000 global cooling papers and studies from the 1970s.

Quote from futurecurrents:

And you are free to believe a myth perpetuated by the GW denier apparatus.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.

So The American Meteorological Society are alarmists?
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The National Academy of Sciences in 1975 and 1979 are current alarmists?

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html

 

[Ricter]

You're condemning science's uncertainty, yet offer no alternative strategy. If you default to "wait and see" you will still need to rely on science for the seeing part, but you elevate the risk of delayed (and more expensive) action.

 

[John_Wensink]

Wow, 68 whole survey participants. I would say that's not exactly a full sample.

Amusing, computers actually started to be used in the 50's.

So some scientists made some mistakes and some of those scientists that made mistakes then are the same ones who are crying global warming now, how do you know they aren't wrong again?

Didn't your messiah, Al Gore say if we didn't act immediately (a few years ago) the damage was irreversible? So if Al private jet Gore is right then why should we bother?

You also like to point out how infallible models are. Let me explain something to you. Models are only as good as 1. the person that made them and 2. the data that is used. As we know from the East Anglia scandal that scientists can, as the "global warming experts" said, "trick" the data. What that means is they can plug in whatever numbers they want to get the outcome they want.

Your posts get dumber and dumber. I knew when you started the name calling you didn't have much else to offer.

Quote from futurecurrents:

You are a special kind of right-wing brainwashed stupid aren't you?

Most of the scientists predicted warming in the seventies.

Who cares anyhow? That was then this is now and an awful lot has changed, a big one being computers. Are you saying that because once in a while some scientists make mistakes that science as a whole cannot be trusted? Is that what you think?

Oh I forgot. You don't think. You just thoughtlessly regurgitate right wing GW denier disinformation. IOW, lies and fraud.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from John_Wensink:

Wow, 68 whole survey participants. I would say that's not exactly a full sample.

68 is probably closer to the whole population, not a sample.

 

[John_Wensink]

in two minutes I found over 30 articles written predicting global cooling so I doubt 68 was very many.

Quote from Ricter:

68 is probably closer to the whole population, not a sample.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from John_Wensink:

in two minutes I found over 30 articles written predicting global cooling so I doubt 68 was very many.

Those 30 articles would be part of the meta-analysis, not the meta-analysis itself?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from John_Wensink:

Wow, 68 whole survey participants. I would say that's not exactly a full sample.

Amusing, computers actually started to be used in the 50's.

So some scientists made some mistakes and some of those scientists that made mistakes then are the same ones who are crying global warming now, how do you know they aren't wrong again?

Didn't your messiah, Al Gore say if we didn't act immediately (a few years ago) the damage was irreversible? So if Al private jet Gore is right then why should we bother?

You also like to point out how infallible models are. Let me explain something to you. Models are only as good as 1. the person that made them and 2. the data that is used. As we know from the East Anglia scandal that scientists can, as the "global warming experts" said, "trick" the data. What that means is they can plug in whatever numbers they want to get the outcome they want.

Your posts get dumber and dumber. I knew when you started the name calling you didn't have much else to offer.

So these guys are lying? ....Why would they do that? And why would every other comprehensive review of the science back then agree it?

You have been deluded. It's OK many have. Huge huge money is behind the denier movement.

The American Meteorological Society

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then."

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf.../2008BAMS2370.1

 

[jem]

We should note.. .that fraudulent survey FC likes to quote... is old. The science of agw has now failed. The new surveys show its closer to 50 50.