Every time Russtafa posts my point about no reason to debate with such fools is proven.I think I will block his truly primitive abuse from now on.
Printable View
Every time Russtafa posts my point about no reason to debate with such fools is proven.I think I will block his truly primitive abuse from now on.
yeah yah pomie bastard like i think a lot of youQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
If there is a worldwide conspiracy wouldn't the likes of Michele Bachmann and John McCain be in agreement? They're both politicians, in the same Party and represent the same interests.
Michele Bachmann doesn't believe in global warming - YouTube
Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier - YouTube
Please .. do it for the bears .. they're running out of Coke ..
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...r-bear-bbq.jpg
David Suzuki. Not talking about climate change perse. But conservation and our lack of respect for nature. And, too, our selfishness as a species. I mean, we're, as David Suzuki points out, only 1 of 30 million species on the planet.
Dr. David Suzuki on meaning in the land - YouTube
And author and radio host: Thom Hartmann:
Should climate deniers be treated like war criminals? w/ James Hoggan - YouTube
Right wing US think tank and its big funders fuelling opposition to climate change science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...d-leak-climate
fuck climate change ,it rained yesterday and they said it wouldn't
the climate has not warmed in fifteen years so guess these scientist are full of shit
russtafa, you're confusing meteorology with climatology. Here's an analogy: You can't predict a day in advance when each ocean wave will crash and wash up to shore, but you can predict there will be waves and were the activity will be highest. You can't predict when a given air molecule in your room will strike the wall, but you can quantitatively predict within tolerable bounds the air pressure on that wall. Short term vs long. Micro vs macro. It's all scale.
You have a very unusual meteorologist if he or she simply says, “It’s going to rain tomorrow.” Most weather-persons will provide a number between 0 and 100 called the chance of precipitation. In addition they will indicate the type of precipitation expected (e.g. showers, flurries, rains, etc.) If you’re watching on TV or checking out the weather on the internet the prognostication will also be accompanied by an icon (e.g. a smiling sun, a sun with a cloud, streaks of rain, falling snowflakes etc.). Most people don’t process the chance of precipitation and simply take the icon as the prediction. If you interpret the report in that way, expect it to be wrong fairly often. If you keep track of the reported chance of precipitation and keep track of the weather throughout the year, you might find your local meteorologist is pretty accurate; e.g. You may find that 40% (+/- a few percent) of the time she said there was a 40% chance of rain, it rained.
russtafa, I already debunked your claim that warming has stopped. It is not a sufficient rebuttal to simply state your claim over again. The following chart shows the temperature anomaly up to 2005. Notice all the "outliers" (unexpectedly tall and unexpectedly short vertical bars). The data is stochastic. The black curve is a mathematical averaging called a smoothing of the data. It shows the clear trend of warming that has been occurring since the industrial age. The clowns who made the announcement that warming has stopped looked at the data from 1998 on and drew a curve down from the that tall red "outlier" down to the 2005 measurement and cried, “Viola, the planet is cooling!” That’s called cherry picking.
Once again, scale is important. Computer simulations of global warming all included variations on the decade scale. That's because northern and southern climate oscillations have combined effects on climate on that time scale and those effects are superposed upon the steady anthropogenic increases.