Best Place In Argentina For Self Preservation

[steveinbsas]

Clearly, data and evidence are not popular among Pottertarians and other fantasists, but they will pick and choose the occasional isolated anomaly, but the scientific consensus is overwhelming. Consider, for instance, http://tinyurl.com/o3uryo5

A relevant quotation: "With records dating back to 1880, the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces reached a record high for May, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) higher than the 20[sup]th[/sup] century average. This surpassed the previous record high anomaly of 0.72°C (1.30°F) set in 2010. Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past five years: 2010 (second warmest), 2012 (third warmest), 2013 (fifth warmest), and 2014 (warmest); currently, 1998 has the fourth warmest May on record. Additionally, May 2014 marked the 39[sup]th[/sup] consecutive May and 351[sup]st[/sup] consecutive month (more than 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20[sup]th[/sup] century average. The last below-average global temperature for May occurred in 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month occurred in February 1985."

Ah yes, NOAA.

Not all scientists are part of the "consensus" you refer to, Steven Goddard at Real Science is one of them:

“Bottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,” Goddard wrote. “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.” Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.The “adjustment” schemes in the official U.S. dataset are so drastic, according to Goddard’s analysis, that they managed to “turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” he said, suggesting that there may be a “software bug” at work. “Bottom line is that the [NOAA National Climatic Data Center] U.S. temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless,” Goddard concluded. “Adjustments that used to go flat after 1990 now go up exponentially. Adjustments which are documented as positive are implemented as negative.”

Respected climatologist and NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer actually showed evidence of what Goddard described as early as April of 2012, saying that “virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data.” Commenting on the latest findings, Dr. Spencer said that his own examination of the data and corrections to account for urban heat island (UHI) effects “support Steve’s contention that there’s something funny going on in the USHCN data.” He also called the NOAA methodology for adjusting the data “opaque” and said he believes it is prone to serious errors.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17500-u-s-agencies-accused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Ah yes, NOAA.

Not all scientists are part of the "consensus" you refer to, Steven Goddard at Real Science is one of them:

Who? http://tinyurl.com/oelhv8v

And there are "scientists" who claim that vaccines cause autism, too: http://tinyurl.com/poen4h7

 

[scotttswan]

Not all scientists are part of the "consensus" you refer to, Steven Goddard at Real Science is one of them:

http://www.desmogblo...-global-warming

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

and even if the 99% of climate scientists are all wrong most of the climate change measures are good thing

1. Cut down pollution (don't shit where you sleep)
2. Improves power security (easier for countries to produce their own)
3. Improves power stability (people can easier cope with cuts/problems)
4. Stimulates innovation (always good)
5. Create jobs based on all the above
6. Oil, coal and gas are finite.

 

[scotttswan]

And finally the BBC starts to do something good about this.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staff_ordered_to_stop_giving_equal_air_time_to_climate_deniers/

 

[Jaredberryman]

None of those are contemporaneous. Her point remains valid.

No it isn't. Jesus is the most well documented person in antiquity. There are hundreds of gospels written concerning him, as well as a letter written a mere twenty years from the events of his crucifixion that are concerning his crucifixion. What nonsense. Do you know what they call in the scholarly world of biblical historians someone who takes such a position? A loon. And yes, even staunch atheist biblical scholars also call people who say that Jesus didn't exist: a loon. You're welcome to believe whatever you fancy, as I can see this is where the tone of this thread has gone.

 

[Jaredberryman]

Returning to the subject at hand, I think that ejcot basically hit the nail on the head. During high school I was part of a debate team that had to argue over renewable energy, as in, put forth a plan on how to implement it. I had to read hundreds of briefs. Although there is a ton of leeway as to what scientists think and don't think about CO2 and greenhouse emissions, there is no doubt that almost all scientists think they have a negative effect. For instance, no one argues that CO2 emissions are NOT bad for our health. Actually, they are terrible for our health, especially in cities. Just smell the fumes. Do you think it is a good thing that we are spewing that into the air? And not to mention the fact that fossil fuels are going to run out some day. There are too many good reasons to change out fossil fuels, and not enough good ones to keep them as our main source of energy, before the consequences are dire.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

No it isn't. Jesus is the most well documented person in antiquity. There are hundreds of gospels written concerning him, as well as a letter written a mere twenty years from the events of his crucifixion that are concerning his crucifixion. What nonsense. Do you know what they call in the scholarly world of biblical historians someone who takes such a position? A loon. And yes, even staunch atheist biblical scholars also call people who say that Jesus didn't exist: a loon. You're welcome to believe whatever you fancy, as I can see this is where the tone of this thread has gone.

In the days of the so-called "Jesus of Nazareth," there were uncounted loons roaming the Middle Easter deserts proclaiming their divinity. Only one of them, though, was credible:

 

[Hybrid Ambassador]

Tokyo's metropolis inhabits around 13 mill, same as in Bs As. Does the cross walks gets as congested as in the "Shibuya" ward?

https://www.google.c...iw=1146&bih=608

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Tokyo's metropolis inhabits around 13 mill, same as in Bs As. Does the cross walks gets as congested as in the "Shibuya" ward?

https://www.google.c...iw=1146&bih=608

If Buenos Aires crosswalks ever got that congested, there would not be enough body bags nor ambulances to carry all the corpses to the morgue.

 

[steveinbsas]

Returning to the subject at hand, I think that ejcot basically hit the nail on the head. During high school I was part of a debate team that had to argue over renewable energy, as in, put forth a plan on how to implement it. I had to read hundreds of briefs. Although there is a ton of leeway as to what scientists think and don't think about CO2 and greenhouse emissions, there is no doubt that almost all scientists think they have a negative effect. For instance, no one argues that CO2 emissions are NOT bad for our health. Actually, they are terrible for our health, especially in cities. Just smell the fumes. Do you think it is a good thing that we are spewing that into the air? And not to mention the fact that fossil fuels are going to run out some day. There are too many good reasons to change out fossil fuels, and not enough good ones to keep them as our main source of energy, before the consequences are dire.

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner".

http://www.popularte...-pollution.html

PS: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is odorless and you and I are "spewing: it into the air with every breath we take.