Jul 29th 2011, 18:50:12
Haha, ok Detmer.
We have planets all over the solar system, moons included warming. That doesn't strike you as odd? For the first link (national geographic mind you...not a conspiracy website) it shows the data, Mars warming without *gasp* humans, then some saying he is dismissing greenhouse gases and thus his theory isn't correct. So we have the data showing natural warming and some scientists opinions thinking otherwise. To quote the second page you astutely mentioned:
""His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University."
Mainstream...is that what "science" is coming to?
Then, I'll say that Pluto and Jupiter are weak, but Triton is again being warmed by none other than the sun, which turns its nitrogen into a gas, which then increases the total atmosphere.
The MIT study is the big one. I've seen the planets and mainly post that as a support to what is going on here. MIT did that study and found that the outgoing solar radiation levels were undisturbed by the CO2 levels. You can call CO2 what you like, but it seems to have very little if any affect on temperatures per all actual studies done. In fact their findings on CO2 very nearly resemble Grisgoth's post from another source. There are many other claims, including:
"718 scientists from 420 institutions in 41 countries on the co2science.org Medieval Warm Period database say the Middle Ages were warmer than today."
Now...I'm not sure what spurious claims you and your ilk might make, but I've seen the data on the medieval warming period and came to this conclusion well before I ever found this study.
I do like how you dismiss MIT because the institute is led by someone who is a climate change denier lol. Wouldn't that go directly against the claims by anyone the global warming side of the debate? "They are only global warming advocates" Or even better what about all those global warming advocates who are caught falsifying data(Hansen) or as Dibs posted deleting data they used or, per the emails that got out, trying to manipulate peer reviewed journals.
The way I see it, the global warming crowd can never be straight with the public. There is always something they are doing as mentioned above that destroys all credibility. Why would they delete their data? Why would they need to manipulate journals? Why are they falsifying data? Then you have the gall to say I should shut down my own mind and defer to someone who gets paid better if they find evidence of global warming? Give me a break...
We have planets all over the solar system, moons included warming. That doesn't strike you as odd? For the first link (national geographic mind you...not a conspiracy website) it shows the data, Mars warming without *gasp* humans, then some saying he is dismissing greenhouse gases and thus his theory isn't correct. So we have the data showing natural warming and some scientists opinions thinking otherwise. To quote the second page you astutely mentioned:
""His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University."
Mainstream...is that what "science" is coming to?
Then, I'll say that Pluto and Jupiter are weak, but Triton is again being warmed by none other than the sun, which turns its nitrogen into a gas, which then increases the total atmosphere.
The MIT study is the big one. I've seen the planets and mainly post that as a support to what is going on here. MIT did that study and found that the outgoing solar radiation levels were undisturbed by the CO2 levels. You can call CO2 what you like, but it seems to have very little if any affect on temperatures per all actual studies done. In fact their findings on CO2 very nearly resemble Grisgoth's post from another source. There are many other claims, including:
"718 scientists from 420 institutions in 41 countries on the co2science.org Medieval Warm Period database say the Middle Ages were warmer than today."
Now...I'm not sure what spurious claims you and your ilk might make, but I've seen the data on the medieval warming period and came to this conclusion well before I ever found this study.
I do like how you dismiss MIT because the institute is led by someone who is a climate change denier lol. Wouldn't that go directly against the claims by anyone the global warming side of the debate? "They are only global warming advocates" Or even better what about all those global warming advocates who are caught falsifying data(Hansen) or as Dibs posted deleting data they used or, per the emails that got out, trying to manipulate peer reviewed journals.
The way I see it, the global warming crowd can never be straight with the public. There is always something they are doing as mentioned above that destroys all credibility. Why would they delete their data? Why would they need to manipulate journals? Why are they falsifying data? Then you have the gall to say I should shut down my own mind and defer to someone who gets paid better if they find evidence of global warming? Give me a break...