Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.
So:
a) Is it true?
b) Isn't cooling the climate pretty dangerous too?
It was partly a question about if it was true, but also about the attitude that if it's true there's nothing to worry about. Surely cooling would have serious effects, just like warming would even if it's not man made, but there seems to be an attitude amongst man made global warming deniers that as we didn't cause it, we don't need to do anything.
The ice this week is fracturing right across the arctic ocean, under the influence of a very ordinary cyclone, and in spite of below normal air temperatures.
JohnB wrote:It was partly a question about if it was true, but also about the attitude that if it's true there's nothing to worry about. Surely cooling would have serious effects, just like warming would even if it's not man made, but there seems to be an attitude amongst man made global warming deniers that as we didn't cause it, we don't need to do anything.
For sure cooling could be a cause for concern. It all depends how much we're talking about! Stable temperatures are what we need but are not what we have.
"Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community"
Hmmm. Someone has an agenda.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
I'd agree with the agenda thing, but the scientific community also has an agenda - more money. Exaggerated results leading to bigger grants. Goes on in all fields on science unfortunately.
Cubes - in your smearing the integrity of scientists as a profession
- without offering anything more than your assertion as evidence -
all you achieve is a clear demonstration of the lack of application of your own integrity.
There are of course scientists who give a damn for the public good and take high salaries for their work - how else would the fossil industry function without its engineers, geologists, petro-chemists etc ? But among them are many who've simply been duped by the propaganda into dismissing the field of climate science - in which they've no training at all - and so honestly believe they're acting for the common good in accelerating the provision of fossil fuels.
The conspiracy theory you promote show a total ignorance of how intensely adversarial the scientific process is - any bright young Phd student who can can put an irrefutable hole in the multi-strand rock-sold evidence for AGW has got himself a name for life, and the prospect of a stellar career.
Tens of thousands of scientists have been checking for any such hole for 25 years, and the evidence that the global scientific consensus is correct continues to mount. So who exactly conned you into spouting such bullshit as 'scientists have an agenda - it's the money' ? You'd be well advised to ignore them in future.
LOL. Read the media - particularly the scientific media, forged results happen more often than you give credit for.
I do find it funny that you immediately took it as a smear against all scientists when, with 2-3s of thinking, you would realise I didn't mean every single scientist ever.
Also, WHAT CONSPIRACY THEORY?? Please read what I posted - tell me where it is please? It was a very broad and general statement that could be taken many ways, you obviously took it in a different way to the one I had intended. Obviously humanity affects the environment, to say otherwise would be ignoring what people can see with their own eyes, let alone from scientific data.
Still, climate science hasn't been without it's 'scandals', take my local university (UEA) for example. I have no doubt that climate science is not immune to people being human at times.
cubes wrote:
Still, climate science hasn't been without it's 'scandals', take my local university (UEA) for example. I have no doubt that climate science is not immune to people being human at times.
Really? Any scandal associated with climate science at UEA was invented by the denialists.
.
