Shock poll: most in Alabama and Mississippi falsely believe Obama is a Muslim

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

He is right actually, since the convenient adoption of the more generic "Global Climate Change" has replaced "Global Warming". Once people realized that it might just be a change in climate.

No, Santorum is a scientific idiot, and what he said about CO2 and plants in relation to global warming/climate change is wrong and completely ignorant of fact.

Santorum having a national platform to spew his false crap about science is dangerous for this country.

Global climate change has always been the scientific use, and global warming the public use to try and get Americans, mostly ignorant of science, aware of what is happening. "global warming" is the more generic term, "climate change" is not.

Your implication, that one term is based in human causality and the other is not, is false. "Climate change" is not synonymous with "weather", either.

No more stupid on the national stage. Sarah Palin was enough for anyone's lifetime.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, Santorum is a scientific idiot, and what he said about CO2 and plants in relation to global warming/climate change is wrong and completely ignorant of fact.

Santorum having a national platform to spew his false crap about science is dangerous for this country.

Global climate change has always been the scientific use, and global warming the public use to try and get Americans, mostly ignorant of science, aware of what is happening. "global warming" is the more generic term, "climate change" is not.

Your implication, that one term is based in human causality and the other is not, is false. "Climate change" is not synonymous with "weather".

Climate means the weather for a specific area, not much else. If that area is the planet Earth, the climate has been known to change for some time now.
Not sure what he said but if he was using the terminology "global warming" anything might be true.
If you know about geology it is easy to tell how the earth's temperature has altered since it's inception, as opposed to freaking out over comparing 200 years or so of likely inaccurate weather data to our very accurate current data.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Climate means the weather for a specific area, not much else. If that area is the planet Earth, the climate has been known to change for some time now.
Not sure what he said but if he was using the terminology "global warming" anything might be true.
If you know about geology it is easy to tell how the earth's temperature has altered since it's inception, as opposed to freaking out over comparing 200 years or so of likely inaccurate weather data to our very accurate current data.

Here's some information, at odds with what you have said, for your review:

http://environment.nationalgeographi...lobal-warming/

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's some information, at odds with what you have said, for your review:

http://environment.nationalgeographi...lobal-warming/

A little too "sky is falling" for my tastes.
The article, while interesting and informative, still relies too much potentially inaccurate data and loads of speculation to be written about as absolute fact the way climate change (as caused by man) is currently discussed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

A little too "sky is falling" for my tastes.
The article, while interesting and informative, still relies too much potentially inaccurate data and loads of speculation to be written about as absolute fact the way climate change (as caused by man) is currently discussed.

I don't know what one "article" you read, that you are dismissing out of hand with blanket unsubstantiated claims of "inaccurate data and loads of speculation".

The page I linked has multiple long articles with well-referenced and accurate research as the basis, on cause and effects of global warming.

I'll guess you didn't click on the page at all, let alone read any of the several articles. Just dismissed it out of hand blindly.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't know what one "article" you read, that you are dismissing out of hand with blanket unsubstantiated claims of "inaccurate data and loads of speculation".

The page I linked has multiple long articles with well-referenced and accurate research as the basis, on cause and effects of global warming.

I'll guess you didn't click on the page at all, let alone read any of the several articles. Just dismissed it out of hand blindly.

It is NatGeo, a magazine, online or not it is an article.
"are expected", "could happen", "are likely", "may become" this many disclaimers in just one segment says it all. Inaccurate data referencing the weather data that has been collected throughout time and what a short period it is in the complete scale.
"He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming."
Wow, really a whole 100 years!?
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006."
So with 'accuracy' dating all the way back to 1724 they were able to say that this data is useful in the scope of hundreds of thousands of years.
I read your article, you cannot dismiss the scientific method because the data you want suits the result you need.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

It is NatGeo, a magazine, online or not it is an article.

No. This is not the NatGeo magazine site. There is no article on the page I linked.

You have to find a topic regarding global warming and click on through to get to any scientific articles, of which there are many.

"are expected", "could happen", "are likely", "may become" this many disclaimers in just one segment says it all. Inaccurate data referencing the weather data that has been collected throughout time and what a short period it is in the complete scale.
"He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming."
Wow, really a whole 100 years!?
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006."
So with 'accuracy' dating all the way back to 1724 they were able to say that this data is useful in the scope of hundreds of thousands of years.
I read your article, you cannot dismiss the scientific method because the data you want suits the result you need.

Yeah. Which article specifically did you read?

Oh - and we scientists let the results tell us what to think. We don't make up our minds, then try to justify or dismiss it, as you are doing.