Global Warming

[ResinRat2]

Damn emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU who heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118432

He must be a crackpot, Ron Paul Cult, Big Oil Supporter, Militia, Black Helicopter, Right Wing, Republican, Slave Trade lover, Racist, Evil, Nazi, Anti-Environmental Supporter. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH MY WORD!!! Not another Conspiracy NUT!!!!!!

[Azorus]

I actually sat in on one of his presentations at UCCS.  he is not a crack pot, and he is very well respected in his field.

[PaulLowrance]

As stated many times, global warming data is not contained at just one location. Those bad scientists did not originate the data, but the data was taken from measurements from scientists around the world.

It is wishful thinking to even think that a few bad scientists is a reflection on the entire science community.

Furthermore, as stated, you never find 100% of scientists agreeing on just about anything. Wikipedia states that ~ 75% of such scientists believe that humanity is the cause of global warming. Nearly 100% of scientists believe there is global warming.

It is silly to even suggest that because one can do a google search and find a few so-called scientists who agree with their beliefs that it's suddenly correct. That is not being objective. That is not being scientific.

Again, it is silly to even try and find a trend in the global temperature over a span of a few years. That is called bad science, and yes there are a lot of ding dong scientists out there. That's life, and we just have to agree to disagree, but in the end it's data that will tell the truth. Take a look at the graph of global temperature I posted a day or so ago. Look at how the temperature fluctuates over short periods of time. That is perfectly normal. Gee, look at this year how temperature dropped, that must be global cooling. And look at it a few years later, gee it must now be global warming. Gee, look at the a few years later, must be global cooling. LOL, come on, please be serious and objective.

As for references, I've posted them too many times in this thread already. References & graphs up the yin yang. 

Paul

[PaulLowrance]

I actually sat in on one of his presentations at UCCS.  he is not a crack pot, and he is very well respected in his field.

Hi,
 
I've already seen numerous debates on the email topic on television from climatologist. What is being portrayed in this thread against most of these scientists is sad, very sad lies. Some of those scientists are bad scientists, no doubt, if we can trust the Internet as showing their correct emails. The issues with some of the other scientists is merely a point of view on how to handle the data, as some call it cherry picking. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you can prove the method improves the accuracy, and that method is used consistently.

Anyhow, the bad emails is just a very small group of scientists, and has no reflection on the entire world of climatologist.

Paul

[Azorus]

Ya to pual

even though human made global warming is still not proven.

If they want to pass anything at the summit it should be what a countries says it will do then hold it to them by making it legally binding.  Since we still don't have solid proof lets stick to trying to clean up the coal and gas of current powerplants and look at the future to get the solid facts we need for human cuased global warming.  Like i have said before I am against human cuased global warming but not against cleaning up the earth, after all we only have one.

Also green house gases repersent such a small amount of the atmosphere that it is not a significant player in Global warming and for the EPA to ban them is stupid.