republicans v climate change

I don't have to, I know people actually researching this.

Do you have any idea how insanely complicated trying to figure out climate change is? Its a massive amount of research and they don't even know the proper questions to ask yet.

First of all, before you even delve into anything, you need to find out what "normal" climate is. What are normal weather patterns?

Do you look at the last 10 years? The last 100? The last 1000? Do you go as far back as we have data for? There is a huge debate about what normal even is. Without knowing that how can you tell if we are living in abnormal climate or normal climate? People are debating this question.

I live in the desert but this used to be a tropical environment a few million years ago so which is the normal climate?

After that you have literally hundreds more question that need to be answered and each one takes years and years of research.

Exactly what gases or other variables would affect the climate your looking at and to what degree? How long would it take, how much is required, how much is human made compared to natural? You know that the crap we spew into the air eventually dissapates so how much over how long and how does this affect the climate? ON and ON and ON

Nobody has come even close to beginning to answer these questions yet so you cannot say what is affecting what and to what degree.

 

You really shouldn't judge a country based on a mob's mentality let alone by one side of the country.

 

actually people have been answering these questions for over 20 years, you just dont like the answers so bury your head in the sand.

 

thats a presidential candidate at an official appearance, hardly the mob is it. those people run your country half the time.

 

and when you think about it absolutely disgraceful that romney didnt shout them down and tell them to be civil and act like mature adults he just stood there grinning. thats not a president, do you think jfk would have done that ?

 

Full of (*)(*)(*)(*) post is full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I have a standard response for anyone who pulls Al Gore out as part of the climate science argument I counter with "Lord" Monkton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

And invite you to compare the two

BTW - the pic? It is a nice depiction of what denialists THINK is behind the "conspiracy". In reality Gore is an ex-politician from America with no influence outside of his country

 

And yet even though the global climate alarmists clamor for more time for their theories to play out, somehow oddly they want immediate and draconian changes in social policy before the proof arrives. Very convenient. Suspiciously so.

Hmm....Aside from the whole Nobel Peace Prize thing, I'm sure you're right.

 

Science doesn't have proof. There is no proof in science. What there is is an ever decreasing amount of doubt in a theory but that doubt can never reach zero.

That's where your side comes in with their, "Oh, you're only 99.999% sure? Come back when it's at 100%."

 

Translation "I know some people (probably in a pub) who said that they read something somewhere

Do you realise how much research has already been done? Why not just look at the reference lists for the IPCC AR4 - take a guess at how many papers were referenced? And THAT is only a fraction of the papers on the subject

First of all you should find out what "Paleoclimatology" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
Do you look at the last 10 years? The last 100? The last 1000? Do you go as far back as we have data for? There is a huge debate about what normal even is. Without knowing that how can you tell if we are living in abnormal climate or normal climate? People are debating this question.

Duh!!! Don't you think scientists know that? Hint hint - who do you think found that out in the first place

Which has been done and is easily available through Google Scholar if any denialist ever bothered

I love how people claim this in the light of mountains of research on the subject

It is the internet equivalent of claiming that "No warm blooded animal on earth lays eggs"

 

Funny because I did a search through the University system which is far superior to google scholar and still haven't found any research data that has a general consensus as to what normal climate is.

I basically have access to every paper ever published or put into the University system for the last 20 years and nothing shows up. Plenty of isolated research but nothing overall conclusive. Perhaps you can help me out and link this "proof" you have.

So here is the question.

What is the normal climate that scientist use as a basis to determine if the climate is changing?

Ready, set, go....I await your response.

 

Heard of "GIGO" Garbage In Garbage Out?" - ask a silly question and you get rubbish answers

And are you asking the right questions?

Nope!! No idea of what sort of question to ask. This is the academic equivalent of asking "where is God" It shows a complete misunderstanding of a) academic thinking b) How to frame research questions and c) what the bloody hell a hypothesis is

 

There are no questions to ask. According to Al Gore, the debate is over.

Uh, sounds like a dodge. A set point is a reasonable requirement from which to project a warming trend. It's kinda like going on a diet but not knowing what weight you started out at.

 

Jesus Christ on a stick.

No one in the scientific community gives a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) what Gore says. Your side constantly bringing up Gore, as if he's a climate scientist, is nothing but an idiotic red herring.

 

And Christopher Monkton says it is not happening - so????