When the first built the new Guangdong Intl. Airport, they had a little trouble with the English translations. The Information counter had a big sign reading “Question Authority’.

Or, as the USMC Drill Instructor said,”…when I want to hear your opinion, I’ll issue you one.”

And did in the past, and still do support;
– Creationism.
– That AIDS doesn’t exist.

Just because an idea or theory is popular or prevalent doesn’t make it correct.

“All these things have to coincidentally be happening at the same time, or it’s the sun.”

“Yeah, amazing all those coincidences happen at once, isn’t it?”

no, maybe half, but not vast majority

you cant say “only serious peer reviewed published scientists” when you get editors fired for printing the “wrong” thing, or cheery pick peer reviewers who already agree (which defeats the purpose of peer review)

You see the same thing in physics with string theory. If you don’t believe in String theory, you don’t get tenure, you don’t get published, you can’t get government grants, and finally find yourself out of a job.

Kuhn wrote about this a long time ago. I don’t know why some people contnue to subscribe to their ideology instead of admit scientsts are flawed, not just scientists who believe the “other” side.

Anyone who thinks only corporate money corrupts does not understand how vast the amount of money government grants provide, and how they are assigned. In 92 Gore made sure ZERO dollars would be handed out to scientists exploring IF AGW is true, only to ones who were proving it IS true. When you have that amount of money, it is of course corrupting and influential. It is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago: mixing government and scientific research.

Who cares which of the many sides is right, what we should care about is science and the preservation of independence of scientists from outside influences, and the scientific method: which is peer review by SKEPTICS, sharing raw data so others can recreate your results. Without those two, your paper is not worth what it is printed on, no matter how reputable you are.

Thousands of scientists over decades have been involved in a vast scheme to achieve nebulous aims.

Follow the money.

And just who are these “thousands of scientists” any way? Are we supposed to be impressed?

No you posted data about Central Chile, which happens to be a very very tiny percentage of “the Earth”.

“And you can’t refute the warming of the bodies cited.”

I didn’t try to. I gave you an explanation for Mars, just to get you going.

‘There’s this thing called Occam’s Razor. … It means the simplest answer is most often the correct one.”

Actually, no it doesn’t. Occam’s Razor is the principle that the simplest hypothesis should be preferred, all else being equal. Its because simpler explanations are more powerful. Being simpler means they are more general, and that they therefore explain more things. There is no expectation that they are necessarily more correct because they are simpler. One always will prefer the complex explanation, if it is correct, than a simpler explanation that is wrong.

FINIALLY the fundlemental flaw in the conservative mindset is revealed.

Its not the DNC but the vast majority of scientists on planet earth.
Get that through the thickness of your partisin brian.
Not liberal v conservative.

But Science.

thanks for clearing that up for us Bruce.

Heh

“Almost certainly the earth is flat.”

“Almost certainly polar bears are dying”

“Almost certainly there’s man made global warming.”

Try reading this, yell upstairs to ask your mom to help you with the big words.

You said that we were warmer than the MCA. I posted data showing that we (meaning the earth) weren’t.

Do you remember that little blue ball with all the splotches on it? It’s called a globe if you look, you can see that South America is on the globe. So again. You’re wrong.

And you can’t refute the warming of the bodies cited. I even gave the therories given that require 5 different events to be happening at once.

There’s this thing called Occam’s Razor. No it’s not what you’ve watched your dad shave with. It means the simplest answer is most often the correct one.

So we have five different coincidental events, or the big glowing ball of plasma.

Livewire,
Why do you play these stupid games. You give us a report on a study of the climate of Central Chile, and, of course, you don’t label it as such, and try to con people into thinking that this is data relevant to global temperature?

You are such a typical rightwinger. I know, I have spent years arguing with creationists too. Same MO – constantly distorting, cherry picking, doing everything they can to avoid confronting reality.

No I havent. If ever I write GW in the course of these discussions, you can assume I mean AGW.

If you ever want to get past the level of loony talking points and actually understand such “issues” as “global warming” on Mars, well here is a start…LINK

“So the libs lied about global warming”
Since when is global warming a lib vs conservative issue?
Its SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS who are talking about global warming.

Its not a left wing issue. Its a SCIENCE issue.

Good gravy…you guys have lost it….

Oh look, Tano’s wrong, again.

“Looking at the graph of their data, the peak warmth of the Medieval Climate Anomaly appears to be about 0.7°C warmer than the last decade or so of the 20th century, but only about 0.25°C warmer than the peak warmth of the 20th century, which occurred in the late 1940s for both their reconstructed temperatures and their instrumental data, which are essentially identical over most of the 1900s”

Oh here’s some other reference to book cooking link.

That is not true. We are currently at or above the high of the MWP. The claims to the contrary are based on making averages of the global temperature for the 20th century and claiming that that is where we are now. The early part of the 20th century was cool, and the rise was rapid – so the average is below the MWP, but the actual current temp is above.

“Meanwhile, the evidence for CO2 as the causal agent is weak.”

It is not weak at all. The greenhouse effect is one of the least controversial aspects of this issue.

‘CO2 increase has *lagged* Earth temperature increases by several hundred years. ”

In one series of ice core data. Which demonstrates what? That CO2 is not the only factor that can ever cause warming? Well, duh…
Here is an explanation” LINK

“Whatever greenhouse influence it has on temperatures is tiny and trivial, as it is vastly outclassed by other greenhouse gases such as water vapor.”

First of all, CO2 effects are NOT trivial relative to water vapor. And, to state the obvious, we are not digging up water from fossilized reserves, and then vaporizing it into the atmosphere. In other words, we are NOT adding to the levels of water vapor that already exist in the natural water cycle. We ARE adding carbon from fossilized deposits – carbon that has not been part of the surface-atmosphere carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. In other words, it is “new’ carbon being pumped into the cycle. If we were somehow manufacturing “new” water vapor and pumping it into the atmosphere, then it would be a problem too. But the water we use is water that is already in the surface-atmosphere system.

“Arctic Ice is still with us and if anything, getting thicker”

No it aint. LINK

Finally, I must congratulate you on a new theory. The blame-Margaret Thatcher argument. Wow. Just wow.

Suddenly you’ve gone from AGW to just plain GW. And suddenly it’s that the climate is changing faster than we can adapt. Funny, it’s been warming for the past 200 years (according to Jody) and we’ve been adapting just fine. Then again, you must believe that Mars’ warming is the result of humans for AGW to be true, Or maybe it’s the sun? Got sunspots?

“Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

So in Tano land (and some crazy scientists):

different events are causing Mars (wobbly orbit) Jupiter (storm activity) Pluto (sudden volcanos popping from nowhere) Titan (another wobly orbit) and Terra (those pesky humans) simultaniously.

Or it’s that big glowing ball of plasma.

Since we now know scientists bury data, try to hide it, and delete it, I’m going with the glowing ball of plasma.

I’ll say it again. Hush Tano, adults are speaking (and eating meat)