Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Anthropogenic Global Warming (Read 197962 times)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #50 –
Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #52 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Macallan on

Quote from: rjhowie on

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

You expected William Howie Wallace to actually back up his claims?   :eyes:     :faint:

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #54 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

Quote from: Macallan on

Quote from: rjhowie on

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

You expected William Howie Wallace to actually back up his claims?   :eyes:     :faint:

Absolutely not, I'm just setting him up for another round of point & laugh :right:
Don't tell him though :sst:

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #55 –
Scientists years ago were telling us that we were heading for a new Ice Age or is that something the science lovers here choose to suitably forget. Indeed they were just as strong on that as they are now on us sweltering now. The one who is laughing is I  What an about face that is as another mirth did clever clogs not know this?
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #56 –
RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #58 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Scientists years ago were telling us that we were heading for a new Ice Age or is that something the science lovers here choose to suitably forget.

You don't seem to know what 'backing up your claims' means.

Quote from: rjhowie on

Indeed they were just as strong on that as they are now on us sweltering now. The one who is laughing is I  What an about face that is as another mirth did clever clogs not know this?

Evidence? Who needs evidence if you can just bloviate the same crap again.
Even if your claim was true, how does that invalidate anything?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #59 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling

In other words, holy crap we know more now than we did in the 1970s. Well, except the Howies of this world.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #60 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling


Yea. And in the 60's before that there was talk of detonating nukes over the poles to melt ice and warm the planet. Of course then that was seen as a good thing.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #61 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
Do experts ever disagree?


I'll answer your question with 2 other questions.

If you were a scientist, & knew that disagreeing with the so called 'consensus' would subject you to scorn, famine, & economic grief if you disagreed ...... would you disagree?

If you were a scientist, & knew that agreeing with the so called 'consensus' would place you in the harmonious  mainstream flow of grants & various other forms of funding to further investigate you life's work & pet theories, & added to that be given the ability to have your journals favorably fast-tracked thru peer-review as long as you join in their so called 'consensus' ....... would you agree?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #62 –
Your haughty self-importance Macallan has not diminished here as in Opera. Scientists were pro active in stating we would end up in a global freezer and with just as much gusto as they do now with warming. However you instead fall back on being ignorant as is your norm. With your sneering and automatic rubbishing says much about you more than you realise. And that you are a Mod here is head shaking. Would never have happened on Opera.   :P
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #63 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Your haughty self-importance Macallan has not diminished here as in Opera. Scientists were pro active in stating we would end up in a global freezer and with just as much gusto as they do now with warming. However you instead fall back on being ignorant as is your norm. With your sneering and automatic rubbishing says much about you more than you realise. And that you are a Mod here is head shaking. Would never have happened on Opera.   :P

Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Even if that claim had any credibility ( it was a prediction from a short term trend, which was dubious even at the time,  and there was no consent on it either ) - how on earth does the fact that some scientists were wrong 40 years ago have any bearing on what' happening now?
Do you finally understand the question or do I need to dumb it down even more?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #65 –
Quote
This graphic summarizes data that refutes a related myth that publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming due to increased carbon dioxide were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.
What's wrong with this picture?
Who can undertake a syntactical dissection of that pearl?
 

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #66 –
Quote from: Josh on
What's wrong with this picture?
Who can undertake a syntactical dissection of that pearl?

Grammatically, perhaps somewhat surprisingly given the monstrous size, nothing. I went into enough detail to show that everything lines up, but no further.

http://ironcreek.net/phpsyntaxtree/
Code: [Select]
[S [NP This graphic][VP [V summarizes][NP [N data][that-clause [Subord that] [VP [V refutes] [NP a related myth[that-clause [Subord that] [NP publications now supporting the scientific consensus [that-clause [Subord that] [NP the world][VP is warming due to increased carbon dioxide]]] [VP were predicting in the 1970s [that-clause that the world would cool.]]]]]]]]]



Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #67 –
Well, I guessed on that. (Dude, the dissection looks even more unbearable!:lol:)
Anyway, people who use such constructions should be shot on sight.:D

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #68 –
Nah, they should hire editors (and pay them properly). Even something as simple as splitting it up in two works wonders:

This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #70 –
Quote
This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.
Maybe the thought behind that monster phrase was to shift the actual semantic accent grammatically off the "cooling" - as being deemed of a false idea.
Noteworthy, Russian rules for much more commas in order to separate clauses and stuff, which makes it easier to read.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #71 –
That's my fault. I inadvertently added some duplication. I was just trying to show how much you can potentially achieve without rewriting. I actually meant to write something more like this:

Quote
This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting the opposite in the 1970s.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #73 –
I left it out on purpose.