3 ms·

I agree with the sentiment, but not the assumption that "we" can do anything about a celestial phenomenon. Humans cannot change the oscillating output of a cer

I agree with the sentiment, but not the assumption that "we" can do anything about a celestial phenomenon. Humans cannot change the oscillating output of a certain nearby star. That is the source of the minuscule changes to the Earth's temperature underway, not human behavior. Contrary to the hysterics of so-called climate scientists (who have been shown, time and time again, to have cherry-picked their data or invented it entirely; aka "data fraud") there is no evidence humans are changing the temperature of the planet. That being said, China seems to have no regard whatsoever for gross pollution of the earth, skies, and seas. A separate issue but worth addressing. [edit: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+data+fraud http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+data+fraud NASA has fiddled with the data: `From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”` If you're not willing to trust data, that makes you religious, not scientific.

coldpie 10y ago
Your post is factually wrong. Please read the latest IPCC report. Edit for specific suggestion, the synthesis report for policymakers is short, easy to read, and extremely illuminating. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_S...
Rooster61 10y ago
You criticize your opponent by saying that they are dogmatic for ignoring data, while yourself totally ignoring the evidence they have just posted. You then pour salt on the wound by using lmgtfy for someone who actually went to the trouble of finding a document that refutes your claim. This might not be the forum for you, friend.
- coldpie 10y ago
  Conspiracy theorists are generally beyond help. It's not worth arguing with them. But if you leave it unchallenged, it might lead an uninformed observer to think, "maybe the truth is in the middle." These kinds of posts are best used as a springboard to point impressionable observers to reliable sources of information to help prevent the spread of nonsense.
  - jackhack 10y ago
    One simple question: Did NASA-GISS alter datasets to create a trend that is the opposite of that shown by the unmodified data?
    - coldpie 10y ago
      If they had, and such modification was relevant to the topic at hand, I suspect there would be a discussion about that in the relevant research papers. If the conclusion was as dramatic as you claim it is, it would be mentioned prominently in the IPCC report. It isn't.
- jackhack 10y ago
  There is no "opponent" here. Is that how you see this, as some sort of confrontation? You're taking this way too personally. There is no opponent, it is just a discussion. I read the document. it is not trustworthy because it uses NASA data, proven to be fraudulent. That is my point.
  - Rooster61 10y ago
    In academic vernacular, it is and has been for centuries common for a person who is criticizing a given work or statement to be referred to as an opponent. It implies not malice, but an indication that that person is presenting a view or idea that differs from the original idea of the work or statement presented in a way that questions its validity or veracity. When one is giving a defense of a thesis or dissertation, the professors who hear the defense are referred to as opponents. To suggest that the very professors who one studies and works with throughout ones degree as actually hostile simply because their job is to find flaws in and oppose the points presented is absurd.
  - SamPhillips 10y ago
    Why is it then, that there are now cruise ships going through the Northwest passage, roadways built on permafrost melting in Alaska, coral reefs dying worldwide? NASA invented the concept of global warming 40 years ago for political purposes, secretly recruited every other scientific agency-worldwide to collaborate AND coincidentally, unrelated to the billions of tons of greenhouse gasses we release, the world got warmer?

coldpie 10y ago

Your post is factually wrong. Please read the latest IPCC report. Edit for specific suggestion, the synthesis report for policymakers is short, easy to read, and extremely illuminating. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_S...

Rooster61 10y ago

You criticize your opponent by saying that they are dogmatic for ignoring data, while yourself totally ignoring the evidence they have just posted. You then pour salt on the wound by using lmgtfy for someone who actually went to the trouble of finding a document that refutes your claim. This might not be the forum for you, friend.

coldpie 10y ago
Conspiracy theorists are generally beyond help. It's not worth arguing with them. But if you leave it unchallenged, it might lead an uninformed observer to think, "maybe the truth is in the middle." These kinds of posts are best used as a springboard to point impressionable observers to reliable sources of information to help prevent the spread of nonsense.
- jackhack 10y ago
  One simple question: Did NASA-GISS alter datasets to create a trend that is the opposite of that shown by the unmodified data?
  - coldpie 10y ago
    If they had, and such modification was relevant to the topic at hand, I suspect there would be a discussion about that in the relevant research papers. If the conclusion was as dramatic as you claim it is, it would be mentioned prominently in the IPCC report. It isn't.
jackhack 10y ago
There is no "opponent" here. Is that how you see this, as some sort of confrontation? You're taking this way too personally. There is no opponent, it is just a discussion. I read the document. it is not trustworthy because it uses NASA data, proven to be fraudulent. That is my point.
- Rooster61 10y ago
  In academic vernacular, it is and has been for centuries common for a person who is criticizing a given work or statement to be referred to as an opponent. It implies not malice, but an indication that that person is presenting a view or idea that differs from the original idea of the work or statement presented in a way that questions its validity or veracity. When one is giving a defense of a thesis or dissertation, the professors who hear the defense are referred to as opponents. To suggest that the very professors who one studies and works with throughout ones degree as actually hostile simply because their job is to find flaws in and oppose the points presented is absurd.
- SamPhillips 10y ago
  Why is it then, that there are now cruise ships going through the Northwest passage, roadways built on permafrost melting in Alaska, coral reefs dying worldwide? NASA invented the concept of global warming 40 years ago for political purposes, secretly recruited every other scientific agency-worldwide to collaborate AND coincidentally, unrelated to the billions of tons of greenhouse gasses we release, the world got warmer?