The whole thing is a display of how the vanity of man has gotten out of hand. The idea that what we do is big enough to affect climate change and to think that we can actually do somethinh about it is obsurd to me.
Complete bullshit. You couldn't prove this if your life depended on it. Continued Rebound in American Belief in Climate Change: Spring 2012 NSAPOCC Findings How many times do I have to prove to you that just because you are unable to understand a thing, it does not mean that nobody can understand it. As far as I can tell you are smart and well read, but an expert in nothing. Experts findings make mincemeat of your guesses and suppositions based on your own peculiar philosphy.
one of the great follies of humankind is what FA hayek likes to call the pretense of knowledge. the things you think you understand about complex systems, you dont. a humble man like martin realizes this. also, how many mentions of warmign did we hear during campaign season? none. those boys are not stupid they know it has no support.
Well, the direction of the thread should turn. Clearly we are in a warming period. Clearly man has a theory. Clearly we should make laws based off a theory while the rest of the developing world dumps C02 in the air and we back track to useful cheep solar power.
What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Do you know what evolution is? So you grabbed the first headline Google brought you to, eh? Did you bother to see just how thoroughly that tabloid article was debunked by all the experts? Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office Flatly wrong global warming denial Sometimes climate change deniers make it all too easy. The UK paper Daily Mail has a long history of courting climate change denial, and apparently it has no wish to change. It recentlyposted an atrocious articlecalled "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it". The article was written by David Rose, who wrote a pretty inaccurate article earlier this year on a similar topic. In fact, this new article was so blatantly wrong that the MET office – the national weather service for the UK –wrote a rebuttal to it detailing the flaws. To start with, they point out they did recently update their global temperature databases, but that’s a very different thing than "quietly releasing a report", as Rose claims. Cue the conspiracy music! It gets worse from there. They take on his points one at a time and take them down. I highly recommend reading them. And if you haven’t gotten your fill of it, or you’re still not convinced, you can check out The Carbon Brief’s article that gives more details on Rose’s denial. There is lots more . . . Discovery Magazine Tamino, the author of Open Mind, shows just how Rose picks and chooses his data to make it look like global warming stopped years ago. In the picture here, the top graph shows what Rose says the temperature looks like: flat across the past 15 years or so. But that’s terribly misleading: the starting point he chose falsely makes the graph look flat. The Mail on Sunday gives David Rose space to repeat old (and wrong) claims that “global warming has stopped”. The graph that Rose should have shown is this one, which shows roughly 0.8 degrees Celcius of warming since the beginning of the 20th Century. This reveals Rose's statements that "efore [1980], temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years" and that "global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference" are extremely short-sighted. As the Met Office explained to Rose: "Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade". Temperature “analysis” by David Rose doesn’t smell so sweet
Another way of restating that you just don't know and thus proclaim that nobody else can know either. You deny the scientific evidence, pure and simple. Dude, the Republicans stopped mentioning it because they were getting killed with their denial of science. It caused the moderates to vote Democratic. They dropped mention of abortion and Intelligent Design, too. It was losing them votes. In any case, political dogma has nothing to do with scientific evidence, other than one party's consistent denial of science.
barry dint mention it either, until today in his news conference. he can mention it now he is aleady elected. i gotta replace the bateries in n tis keyboard tis is ridiculous
