Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

Let's see who should an intelligent believe an inbred such as yourself or NASA???????????????????????????

Evidence of global warming!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

trucksterbud

No intelligent data from NASA Raylan. Did you and them factor in the geoengineering chemtrails to all this and how that factor has contributed to the "Global Warming Hype..."?????? No evidence from that link to REAL global warming. In fact, the earth has cooled 2 deg celcius in 25,000 years... Ooops, hate to fracture your liberal left wing derangement....

ghostgotcha Loc: The Florida swamps

OMG. Can liberals not read and interpolate a simple chart which indicates only eight tenths of a degree rise in temperature since 1880.

Ah, What was I thinking. This is a prime opportunity to start up a new sun screen product. What should I call it? "Chicken Little?"

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

Lets see who should I believe an inbred such as yourself or NASA????????????????????????

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

Who should I believe an inbred or NASA!

NASA: Scientific Consensus: Earth's climate is warming!

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/





https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Before you set yourself up as an authority on the history of science and scientific research, maybe you should study the subject. Find some sources that haven't undergone political revisionism, sources in which the theories and research has not been politicized.

The discovery of the atom and its sub-particles and the work that led scientists and engineers to developing the atomic piles, the reactors, and the bombs was in no way the result of consensus, it was long and arduous independent research and experiments by scientists all over the world--in Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Canada and USA. These scientists, primarily physicists and chemists, took the premises of Dalton's atomic theories and developed their own hypotheses, engineered their own unique experiments--including building their own apparatus, soldering circuits, manufacturing test equipment and containment units, even did their own precision glass blowing. In some cases, scientists worked in teams of two or three to approach a problem. And, although these scientists shared the results of successful experiments with others--mostly through publications and letters, they did not all get together and come to a consensus.

I guess the best way to explain this is, a group of scientists can get together and come to a consensus on a hypothesis, but they have no control over the results. They agree on a hypothesis, set up and conduct the experiment, and then let the process lead them where it goes. The experiment either proved the hypothesis or it didn't. There was no scientific consensus on the outcome.

The best example is the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. Many of the brightest scientific minds in the world, including Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and Hans Bethe, were assembled there under the authority of the US Army, commanded by General Groves. Groves demanded the research teams be isolated, under heavy security, and compartmentalized, each team of scientists and engineers had a specific problem to solve. Even the explosives and gunnery engineers were separated from all other elements of the project. Oppenheimer finally convinced Groves that free discussion was necessary. These meetings (free discussions) did not result in any scientific conclusions, the scientists merely came to an agreement on how best to approach a specific problem, how to best frame a hypothesis that would lead to a positive result. IOW, the "consensus" came before the outcome.

And, it is interesting to note that, once the first atomic bomb was assembled on the tower at Alamagordo, and the countdown had begun, there was no consensus among the scientists and engineers on the outcome. They were even making bets on what would happen when the bomb detonated--some said it would probably fizzle, others thought it would create a chain reaction in the atmosphere. None of them were 100% convinced the thing would work.

The scientific method does not allow for a preconceived result, it does not assume that any hypothesis is proven before the experiment has proven that the observations and data are valid. Put simply you ask a question, do the background research, construct a hypothesis, then test with an experiment. If the procedure is not working, you troubleshoot the procedure, carefully check all stages and set-up, and run it again. If the procedure is works, you analyze the resulting data and draw conclusions. If the results align with or prove the hypothesis, you publish the results. If the results align only partially or fail to prove the hypothesis, you go back to the beginning, check the data and background research, ask a new question, construct a new hypothesis, reset the experiment and try again.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists did not do this.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists concluded that global warming is a fact and that mankind is the cause, so they reverse engineered the entire thing. The bulk of their work relied on computer models into which they fed selected observations and data in hopes of a positive confirmation that mankind was f*cking up the atmosphere and destroying the planet. They manipulated their data, tweaked their observations, altered their computer program and modeled it so it would prove their hypothesis. The common term for this sort of subterfuge is called JUNK SCIENCE.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You should believe whatever the hell you want to believe, NASA or the tooth fairy, makes no difference.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

That volcano foolishness has been tossed out of relevancy even by Watts cooking..

Those other thing you claim.. To argue I need a link, source, origin or at least date and location

They are not true but with some more info i can tell you the why and how..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Truck, Not true... this is an interesting article. about more then temp.. But give it a try if you wish..

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-climate-change-spurred-a-10000-year-ice-age-journey/

The climate 25,000 years ago was cold, very cold. It was the height of the last ice age, and survival required desperate measures -- especially from those in Eurasia, where food and wood fuel ran low. Some chose to migrate, but distances and directions among groups varied.

One faction ended up on the now-submerged Bering land bridge, a place where they would live in isolation for 10,000 years. They were the first Native Americans, according to a recent column in the journal Science.

RETW Loc: Washington

Can't answer a simple question ha?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

They'll become land lubbers. They usta be y'know.

Seals will become land lubbers too, like the ones in California.

D'ya think the bears will figure out stairs?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Here's a coincidence...an assumption that empirical evidence is casting doubt on.

Date: February 6, 2018

Source: University of Arizona

Summary: The Toba supereruption on the island of Sumatra about 74,000 years ago did not cause a six-year-long 'volcanic winter' in East Africa and thereby cause the human population in the region to plummet, according to new research based on an analysis of ancient plant remains from lake cores. The new findings disagree with the Toba catastrophe hypothesis, which says the eruption and its aftermath caused drastic, multi-year cooling and severe ecological disruption in East Africa...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206151850.htm

zillaorange

It's a terrible thing, that the polar bears are starving !!! However it seems it doesn't matter that the Pacific ocean is dying ????? With the OCEANS DYING < NONE OF US WILL SURVIVE !!!???

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

that seems to be a site I should add to my news page.. good one.. Thanks..

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

Science Daily right????????????? Uses Nasa and NOAA data for sources and also agrees with global warming!

https://screenshots.firefox.com/lJ9QfB8Kq2wWtHLS/www.sciencedaily.com

Science Daily!