The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Climate Change, it's whats for DINNER!

So you're saying the magnetic poles don't do anything? And did you really use the U.N. as a source? LMAO

How about NASA anyone? Or is that a commy pinko organization too?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

How about Scientific American?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm

How about the union of concerned scientists?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

I mean your guys flat denial with so much evidence is really calling your general ability to reason into question.

Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Abstract:
Many natural mechanisms have been proposed for climate change during the past millennia, however, none of these appears to have accounted for the change in global temperature seen over the second half of the last century. As such the rise in temperature has been attributed to man made mechanisms. Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate. Links between changes in the Earth's magnetic field and climate change, have been proposed previously although the exact mechanism is disputed. These include: The Earth's magnetic field affects the energy transfer rates from the solar wind to the Earth's atmosphere which in turn affects the North Atlantic Oscillation. Movement of the poles changes the geographic distribution of galactic and solar cosmic rays, moving them to particularly climate sensitive areas. Changes in distribution of ultraviolet rays resulting from the movement of the magnetic field, may result in increases in the death rates of carbon sinking oceanic plant life such as phytoplankton.
Author: Kerton, Adrian K.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd

Keywords: MAGNETIC POLES; DRIFT; CLIMATE; COSMIC RAYS
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689286

Ok I answered, now you answer, all this evidence is just bullshit? Come on, really?

Of those thousands of researchers, only a couple dozen would have a large enough scope in their own research to form a valid opinion.

Lets put it in tersm Jet should understand.

Its like if you went to an IT trade show 10 years ago, and polled 2000 people on the best way to implement the database than runs EVE Online or something.

1950 of the people polled probably would have nothing but the vaguest idea, maybe 50 would have a smidgeon of a clue because they work on or have at least coded for and are familiar with that scale of problem.

Climate change and human activity is still in the hypothesis stage, because no model is even close to existing that accounts for or can predict climate activity.

Therein lies the rub. The scientific method does not allow for "consensus."



No two climate models agree on anything...

Objectivity flies straight out the window when people start yelling about "consensus." Consensus smacks of collaboration or shared bias rather than contemplative study of measurable data, as demonstrated by the email string from the U.N. cats and the quack at NASA who were sharing info with each other on how to propagate their misinformation.

Before you jump down my throat the cat at NASA admitted to using September's data for making the statement that October was showing the highest temperatures ever. His reason was that the October numbers weren't readily available. If this is what passes for scientific research at NASA then I'd rather my tax dollars go elsewhere.

So you're saying Global Warming is as real as the Ice Age that was coming in the 70's?
Since we're in global warming, some glaciers seem to be growing not shrinking. Kinda odd, since we're WARMING!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html

I think the highlighted is the KEY phrase here...

So I need to quote 1000 scientist to make you think something.
Those are real scientist and you just blow them off cause it doesn't fit in your talking points. Good job on staying keeping the blinders on.

Jet is a true Socialist. Keep repeating something till it becomes fact even it its wrong.

Consensus--An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, the French are the rudest people on Earth, who doesn't believe that. The world was flat, that was once a consensus.

scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. Jet is a socialist. The world is round, we saw it from the Moon.


The fact that the world has been frozen solid and hot as a Asian hookers snatch is fact, and the facts show that it changes all the time even when no humans were around.

Jet you need to bury the dead hooker and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Well gentleman, I'll go with the vast majority of scientists instead of you.



This picture is pretty fucking telling. I don't hear any of you explaining it. Keep your heads in the sand, I dont have any kids, so I don't really give a fucx. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. Based on two independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.

Believing in climate change has nothing to do with socialism. I don't even know why I try with you thick headed brainwashed conservatives. Lets chill with the name calling shall we. I can certainly think of a couple for you that are far more accurate than calling me a socialist.

I keep getting sucked in, but I determined a long time ago, that no amount of fact can convince you people, so I am not even going to try anymore.

May the best ideology win, and in our republic, majority rules (well sort of).

I am checking out of this forum as this is obviously a waste of all of our time.

A lot of politic of the anthropogenic climate field is to show that the human activity is the root cause of a dangerous climate warming.
The problem, is a lot of those studies are mainly dealing with trying to find a statistical proof that multiple data are not just going in the same way by chance. And well, hiding data and not getting those papers reviewed by real statisticians who know what the fuck they're doing with their formulas is not a good sign.

But you may have to download and read some of those papers before you start understanding how crazy those are and how full of "as said in X other paper blablabla, which makes total consensus even if no one can reproduce it" they are.

Where is your picture coming from and what data is it based on? I mean, if the old part is based on some data (ice core samples) and the recent is based on other data (measurement at Hawaï) I call bullshit.