Posted on 03/29/2010 6:58:04 AM PDT by Labour-Watch
“The changes we’re seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle,”
probably part of a natural cycle...........
Go figure.......
LOL!
Oh, in other words, it’s Spring again!
IIRC, this is the eighth “The climate is changing and we’re all gonna die” fraud since the 1890s.
It is a stapel of american journalism and is trotted out every few years to generate newspaper sales. This time they over stepped their bounds and the credibility of the journalism “profession” has been basically wiped out.
“We’re doomed. DOOMED!”
How long do we have?
Laugh about global warming all you want but I predict it’s going to start getting colder in the southern hemisphere.
By the 1960s, the Soviets were using it to subversively attack US industrial and military interests. And it’s remained that way ever since.
Indeed let’s panic now also send all your cash to AlGroe’s weather repair company.
Do you by chance have a link to any source listing those?
We’ve also noticed up here in Alberta considerable and increasing amounts of global lighten-ing that’s been going on since sometime around Christmas. Whatever are we going to do?
No...we wrong...it’s actually TWO DAYS BEFORE THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW!!!
You mistake my sarcasm.
I am in agreement with the natural cycle statement.
Yeah, those things really move!
The Gulf Stream must be racist.
Mine was a sarcastic statement. The seasons are in a different phase in the northern and southern hemispheres.
Enough people had already made “it’s getting warmer” spring comments, figured I’d turn the coin on its head and spin some more GW “scares”.
I’m still waiting for the “experts” to tell me what the OPTIMAL global climate is. The target we are shooting for when we alter the world’s temperature norms. With “Climate change” instead of “global warming” they cover themselves for both warming and cooling temps.
What latitude should have the best growing season? Which deserves to be buried under ice or roasting?
I forgo discussions of “whether” man is at fault (he’s certainly not at fault for global warming on Mars), I need to hear what the “optimal” temperatures are. Write them down. Then we can get to discussions of whether it is even possible to change the temperature (would we seed clouds to snow as the Chicoms have done?). It’s not about the climate, it’s about redistributing wealth and hamstringing the West.
“It’s not about the climate, it’s about redistributing wealth and hamstringing the West.”
Bingo!
When in question,
when in doubt,
run in circles,
scream and shout.
Jump up and down,
soil your pants,
Do the “I don’t get it” dance.
I have to seriously applaud leftist British media outlets like the BBC and the Guardian for having the honesty to publish news that contradicts the Global Warming agenda.
It’s a huge contrast to the complete corruption of the American press, which refuses to publish anything of the sort.
[Please, someone, tell me there’s a good explanation for this scary trend. . .]
What me was the loss of leaves by most trees last fall. By January they were bare. Fortunately some trees seem to be recovering with tiny buds sprouting in the last week or so.
*****************************EXCERPT*********************************
How do you tell a scientist from a non-scientist? Where does science end, and propaganda, politics, and opinion begin? You only need to know one thing:
…
…
Straight away, this sorts the wheat from the weeds. We don’t learn about the natural world by calling people names or hiding data. We don’t learn by chucking out measurements in favor of opinions. We don’t learn by suppressing discussions, or setting up fake rules about which bits of paper count or which people have a licence to speak.
A transparent, competitive system where all views are welcome is the fastest way to advance humanity. The Royal Society is the oldest scientific association in the world. Its motto is essentially, Take No One’s Word For It. In other words, assume nothing; look at the data. When results come in that don’t fit the theory, a scientist chucks out his theory. A non-scientist has “faith”, he “believes” or assumes his theory is right, and tries to make the measurements fit. When measurements disagree, he ignores the awkward news, and “corrects”, or statistically alters, the data–always in the direction that keeps his theory alive.
NOTES: This page was created as part of the booklet Global Bullies Want Your Money (The Skeptics Handbook, vol. II). It was inspired by requests from people who were obviously frustrated. They wanted a formula, a checklist, or a table: a way to know which side was right. The people who normally like to trust authority are the ones most likely to run into a brick wall in this debate. They trust the scientific method, but also trust the institutions, the processes, and the politics that have risen up to supposedly carry this method from it’s pure form into it’s practical output. And the two sides are at loggerheads.
I trust the scientific method, but not the human institutions (they are subject to ambition, personality, money, and conflicts of interest).
In the end, the only real way to decide is to look at the evidence. But, if you have to figure out who to trust, if that’s your chosen short-cut, then at least this is a more systematic approach than trying to weigh up the resumes on each side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.