Quote:

---

Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:
Arkansas had snow in May, first time in recorded history.

---

Quote:

---

March was pretty cold this year, and you know what that means: Global warming is a hoax!

OK, that isn’t actually what it means. But for a depressingly significant number of Americans, the nippy weather was apparently reason enough to decide that climate change isn’t a real thing after all. Yale’s latest survey of public opinion on climate change found that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped to 63 percent from 70 percent just last fall. This is the unfortunate corollary to the post I wrote last July, when tornados and scorching temperatures were driving belief in climate change to the highest levels since 2008.

Some of it is just seasonal variation: Unscientific as it may be, people are more likely to worry about climate change when it's warm outside than when there's a chill in the air. But the 63 percent figure is also lower than the proportion of Americans who believed in climate change at the same time a year ago, at the conclusion of an unusually mild winter. That 3 percent difference is right at the survey's margin of error, but it may suggest that an unusually snowy March has changed at least some people's minds about the underlying phenomena.

This is all very frustrating for those of us whose belief that the climate is changing is based largely on the overwhelming consensus of scientists who spend their lives studying exactly that.

But I'd submit that we should stop worrying so much about the minority of Americans who don't believe global warming is happening. After all, most of us aren't really qualified to make that judgment on our own, especially since the trend is so gradual as to be impossible to observe on a day-to-day or even year-to-year basis. Instead, we should worry more about the stunning 58-percent majority who don't agree that "most scientists think global warming is happening." That is demonstrably false, and testifies to a fundamental failure of communication on the part of the media coupled with widespread scientific illiteracy among the public.

On the other hand, it's a great triumph for the ideological hacks who run the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'll say it.

Niki is the Left's equivalent to a young Earth Creationist, who rabidly refuses to believe dinosaurs existed, or that if they did, they lived w/ Adam and Eve and were ALL vegetarians.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, because rappy doesn't understand that climate is not judged by what happens in one place for one month, that climate means what happens over decades and centuries around the globe. But, yes, polar ice (both poles) is still melting, as is the GReenland ice shield and most glaciers.... ice which hasn't melted for millenia.

Rappy will never, ever accept fact when it crosses his beliefs. For a guy who claims not to be religious, he sure has a blinding belief structure!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact."

And here we have little rappy, once again failing to distinguish between facts and opinions. And once again failing to have a real debate with research results, cites, links and all that stuff - due exclusively to his idiocy, stupidity, laziness and extreme ignorance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.

---

Quote:

---

You've never needed evidence or proof before!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You've never needed evidence or proof before!

---

Well, like I said, rappy is a very religious person. He believes in Iraqi WMD, that making the wealthy even wealthier is (somehow) good for the economy, and that all of that carbon dioxide in the air has absolutely no effect on energy absorption (despite being incontrovertibly demonstrated by robust lab experimentsto be a greenhouse gas). There is absolutely no reason to talk to him, or jongsstraw.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.

---

No global warming? How can you say that? Twenty years ago when you went to a 7-11 you could buy a snow cone, but today they're selling slushies. Explain that Mr. Smartypants. And if you cannot, then I suggest you watch Al Gore's climate movie 'An Inconvenience Store Truth'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact."

And here we have little rappy, once again failing to distinguish between facts and opinions. And once again failing to have a real debate with research results, cites, links and all that stuff - due exclusively to his idiocy, stupidity, laziness and extreme ignorance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

And there's no evidence or proof of any Benghazi cover-up either, but don't let that stop you. You've never needed evidence or proof before!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.

---

Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly"...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:

And I don't think people are so terribly divided on the evolution thing being that it is totally compatible with religion and the Bible in general, but that is your sense of things?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.

---

Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly", and of course the numbers favor the global warming argument - so let's simply dismiss anything anybody else might have to present, evidence or opinion.

And of course you didn't bother to read the rest of the post! You are the classic and perfect embodiment of one with a preconceived notion of your own moral and intellectual superiority that creates a stunningly blinding subjectiveness and the most pitiful "holier than thou" complex so easily associated with your kind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.

---

Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly", and of course the numbers favor the global warming argument - so let's simply dismiss anything anybody else might have to present, evidence or opinion.

---

Quote:

---

And of course you didn't bother to read the rest of the post! You are the classic and perfect embodiment of one with a preconceived notion of your own moral and intellectual superiority that creates a stunningly blinding subjectiveness and the most pitiful "holier than thou" complex so easily associated with your kind.

---

Quote:

---

Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model
Caspar M. Ammann*, Fortunat Joos*†‡, David S. Schimel*, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner*, and Robert A. Tomas*

There is an ongoing debate on the role of the sun in recent observed warming. Century-scale solar irradiance variations have been proposed as cause for past climatic changes (e.g.,refs. 18 and 19). The latest summaries of the various uncertainties can be found in two recent reviews (20, 21). Satellite data since 1979 quantify the irradiance variations associated with the 11-year Schwabe sunspot cycle to ?0.08 – 0.1% of the ?1,367 Wm?2 solar radiation reaching the top of our atmosphere (21). This variation translates into a radiative forcing of
?0.2– 0.3 W m?2, roughly a factor of 10 smaller than the radiative forcing by well mixed greenhouse gases (2.4 W m?2 in 2000 AD relative to 1750 AD). Although direct measurements of solar irradiance are limited to the satellite period
(21), tentative correlations with records of sunspots (22, 23),aurora histories, geomagnetic indices, or the production rates of cosmogenic nuclei such as 10-Beryllium (10Be) and radio carbon (14C) (3, 24) in conjunction with magnetic behavior of sunspot numbers, and the sun’s closed magnetic field or its total energy output is not fully understood (27). Nevertheless, the temporal evolution of the different proxy series, particularly in certain well defined frequencies (?11-year Schwabe Cycle, ?80- to 85-year Gleissberg Cycle, and ?207-year deVries Cycle), is in reasonable agreement across most solar proxies (20, 28), and comparisons between proxies suggest significant modulation consistent with deduced solar cycles (20). However, the scaling required to translate a proxy record of sunspot number, or production rate of 10Be, into actual solar
irradiance anomalies is highly uncertain, and published estimates of multidecadal solar irradiance changes vary by more than a factor of five (3, 21). Recently, astronomical evidence has been used to suggest that low-frequency variability of solar irradiance might be very low, possibly restricted to the range of the observed high-frequency variability (29, 30). These new
estimates are lower by a factor of five or more than the upper end of previously used values (25, 31). Such low forcing from solar irradiance changes has even led to suggestions that low frequency paleoclimatic variability was not forced by solar variability.

---

Quote:

---

At times the public presentations of climate science descend into outrageous advocacy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'll say it.

Niki is the Left's equivalent to a young Earth Creationist, who rabidly refuses to believe dinosaurs existed, or that if they did, they lived w/ Adam and Eve and were ALL vegetarians.

---

Your stupidity knows no bounds. You're the one denying science, fuckwit - not her.

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, as morons like you continue to deny - the world passed a big threshold today, as Carbon in the air has reached 400 parts per million - the highest its been since humanity has existed.

---