Hey, alarmists...

[Bricktop]

Did you seriously just post some woman's opinion column as a rebuttal?



*facepalm*

 I also added a link to his findings...



Hmmm... ac_umm

[RW]

Did you seriously just post some woman's opinion column as a rebuttal?



*facepalm*

 I also added a link to his findings...



Hmmm... ac_umm

Thanks for what one scientist thinks.  I guess that's a start.

[Bricktop]

http://www.examiner.com/article/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine">http://www.examiner.com/article/former- ... g-doctrine">http://www.examiner.com/article/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine



An interview with him.



He has proved, using data, that the Earth's atmosphere is self regulating and that Reel's "greenhouse effect" does not, in fact exist. What I find amazing is the rabid and shrill denying of his PUBLISHED research by alarmists, to the extent that they have embarked on a strident and demented program of public spite to destroy his credibility.



That, I contend, is the real issue of global warming; the mindless adherence to theory and the utter rejection of alternative views. The myth of the "10,000 scientists can't be wrong". The myth that the earth is getting warmer. The myth that our climate will become more violent and unpredictable.



In fact...can anyone point to ONE of their predictions that has yet to come true?

[Frood]

One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

Its called "socialism".



They lost their previous cause when "the worker's paradise" collapsed.



Equal rights for the environment was the next best option.

Socialism, perhaps. At least in some instances. Overall, I put it down to a psychological defect with or without the Socialism.

[Romero]

http://www.examiner.com/article/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine">http://www.examiner.com/article/former- ... g-doctrine">http://www.examiner.com/article/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine



An interview with him.



He has proved, using data, that the Earth's atmosphere is self regulating and that Reel's "greenhouse effect" does not, in fact exist. What I find amazing is the rabid and shrill denying of his PUBLISHED research by alarmists, to the extent that they have embarked on a strident and demented program of public spite to destroy his credibility.



That, I contend, is the real issue of global warming; the mindless adherence to theory and the utter rejection of alternative views. The myth of the "10,000 scientists can't be wrong". The myth that the earth is getting warmer. The myth that our climate will become more violent and unpredictable.



In fact...can anyone point to ONE of their predictions that has yet to come true?

Sure. The Earth is warming as predicted.



You call Miskolczi's theory proof? It's just one guy claiming it and you wanting to believe it. The idea that the atmosphere is self-regulating is absurd. It didn't self-regulate the CFCs harming the ozone layer.



The greenhouse effect does exist. The Earth's surface temperature would be about 33°C cooler without it. The less greenhouse gases, the cooler it would be. The more, the warmer. We know for fact that in the past the world temperature has gone up when there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. Gone down when there's less. We know for a fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation.



"The myth that the earth is getting warmer."



Yet your own link and Miskolczi himself says "no one is denying that global warming has taken place".



Oops.

[Bricktop]

I am going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you are not a scientist.



Thus, will you please cite the source of your opinion?



No-one is denying the earth is getting warmer. In the middle ages, no-one would argue the earth was getting cooler. What's your point?



Is there a time in history where the earth experienced, say, 200 years of stable temperature?



Anyhoo...unless you are a recognised authority, please cite your source.

[Anonymous]

I am going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you are not a scientist.



Thus, will you please cite the source of your opinion?



No-one is denying the earth is getting warmer. In the middle ages, no-one would argue the earth was getting cooler. What's your point?



Is there a time in history where the earth experienced, say, 200 years of stable temperature?



Anyhoo...unless you are a recognised authority, please cite your source.

Any change in temperatures we have experienced in the last 150 years is not out of the ordinary in the earth's history.

[Bricktop]

The alarmists think otherwise.



Even the American President has been duped.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067



"I'm convinced no challenge provides a greater threat to the future of the planet," Mr Obama said. "There is such a thing as being too late."



Convinced by whom?

[Anonymous]

The alarmists think otherwise.



Even the American President has been duped.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067



"I'm convinced no challenge provides a greater threat to the future of the planet," Mr Obama said. "There is such a thing as being too late."



Convinced by whom?

I like the plan. The language he used is for his alarmist supporters.

[RW]

There is science and there is the politics of science.

[Bricktop]

And there is just plain politics.



Who can argue with a cleaner planet?



Its just the rationale that is awry.

[RW]

I don't know why we are cleaning up so hard when China isn't going to.

[Anonymous]

And there is just plain politics.



Who can argue with a cleaner planet?



Its just the rationale that is awry.

The first step is telling people they are in grave danger. The second is convincing them you can save them. The last step is to give them a bill in perpetuity.

[Bricktop]

Politics 101.

[RW]

And there is just plain politics.



Who can argue with a cleaner planet?



Its just the rationale that is awry.

The first step is telling people they are in grave danger. The second is convincing them you can save them. The last step is to give them a bill in perpetuity.

You've got it figured out :)