Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Real Science By Real Scientists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Science By Real Scientists

    Wow... this is a change. Of course, it's not what many here claim to be truth and it will cause, in their words: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

    CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

    The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

    This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
    To many of us, this comes as no surprise:

    Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.
    Sun caused, not man caused. Like I said, no surprise here, but bond to disappoint many here. Thus it being a 'politically sensitive topic'

    Which points to the left as the ones politicizing science... but we all knew that too.

    Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

    "[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.
    "substantially revised" - as in 'not correct' as in 'wrong'

    So to sum things up... 60 scientists in 17 countries say that:

    The science is not settled.
    That climate models will need to be substantially revised
    That nearly half of any rise in temperature can be traced to sources outside of the planet and beyond the control of man.

    Meanwhile proving once again that AGW to have little to do with climate and everything to do with far left control of the western economies.

    Thoughts?

    CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register

  • #2
    Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

    Their data pertains to mechanisms behind cloud formation, which neither proves nor disproves either global warming or man-caused global warming. Cloud formation is one small but important factor in determining the earth's climate. There are many other mechanisms at work as well.

    I'm glad you think particle physicists are real scientists, because particle physicists are in the process of finding out whether global warming is actually happening. Their preliminary findings show that .... global warming appears to be happening.

    Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

      Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
      Their data pertains to mechanisms behind cloud formation, which neither proves nor disproves either global warming or man-caused global warming. Cloud formation is one small but important factor in determining the earth's climate. There are many other mechanisms at work as well.

      I'm glad you think particle physicists are real scientists, because particle physicists are in the process of finding out whether global warming is actually happening. Their preliminary findings show that .... global warming appears to be happening.

      Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times
      My position has remained that I am unsure of warming taking place... that the science was not settled, and more to the point even if shown to be happening, I'm not at all convinced that it was being caused by man. When CERN says: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' looks like I'm closer to being correct than not.

      AND

      Since every suggested 'solution' was a political one that did little to actually solve the problem and served only to penalize western economies, and excluded many of the most polluting folks (like China), it is very easy to dismiss the AGW folks as strictly political.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

        Originally posted by tsquare View Post
        Wow... this is a change. Of course, it's not what many here claim to be truth and it will cause, in their words: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'



        To many of us, this comes as no surprise:



        Sun caused, not man caused. Like I said, no surprise here, but bond to disappoint many here. Thus it being a 'politically sensitive topic'

        Which points to the left as the ones politicizing science... but we all knew that too.



        "substantially revised" - as in 'not correct' as in 'wrong'

        So to sum things up... 60 scientists in 17 countries say that:

        The science is not settled.
        That climate models will need to be substantially revised
        That nearly half of any rise in temperature can be traced to sources outside of the planet and beyond the control of man.

        Meanwhile proving once again that AGW to have little to do with climate and everything to do with far left control of the western economies.

        Thoughts?

        CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register
        Interesting. What this does is confirm experimentally what climate "denier" Dr. Fred Singer theorized in a paper about 5 years ago.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

          Originally posted by hairballxavier View Post
          Interesting. What this does is confirm experimentally what climate "denier" Dr. Fred Singer theorized in a paper about 5 years ago.
          "According to Peter Montague of the Environmental Research Foundation, S. Fred Singer 'is now an "independent" consultant for companies including ARCO, Exxon Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Sun Oil Company & Unocal Corporation. Rather than conducting research, Singer 'spends his time writing letters to the editor and testifying before Congress." Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) was originally set up by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, a frequent patron of conservative political causes. Although SEPP is no longer affiliated with Moon's cult, Singer's editorials frequently appear in the pages of the Unification Church-owned Washington Times newspaper."

          - Trust us, we're experts! How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future - Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber, Tarcher/Putnam, NY c 2001, p. 273. Singer is an easy fly to swat, & he's featured throughout the book. The book is excellent reading, & traces the history of the assault on science related to climate, tobacco, fossil fuels, GMOs ...

          Surreal science, more like. & you can research Singer et al. @ Center for Media & Democracy - Activism | Center for Media and Democracy - set up by the authors

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

            Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
            I'm glad you think particle physicists are real scientists, because particle physicists are in the process of finding out whether global warming is actually happening. Their preliminary findings show that .... global warming appears to be happening.

            Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times
            Again, we have an example of a posted link where the link was apparently not read.

            "Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined."

            Also, I find it funny that people always say that we don't believe the Earth is warming. It's like a discussion on illegal immigration where people say "oh, you're against immigration, when we're all immigrants?" Uh ...yeah ......

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

              Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
              Their data pertains to mechanisms behind cloud formation, which neither proves nor disproves either global warming or man-caused global warming. Cloud formation is one small but important factor in determining the earth's climate. There are many other mechanisms at work as well.
              Exactly. AGW is yet another instance where complexity is underestimated by scientists. Or by some of them, at least.

              Originally posted by Disillusioned
              I'm glad you think particle physicists are real scientists, because particle physicists are in the process of finding out whether global warming is actually happening. Their preliminary findings show that .... global warming appears to be happening.

              Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times
              Well, the fact it's happening doesn't tell us much because, as the link attests, they don't have a handle on the variables. The fact they are forced by the data to 'substantially revise' their models tells us that they don't know the exact mechanisms behind it.

              And I agree with whoever said 'substantially revise' is a euphemism for junking them and starting over.

              Yet, like a cat with nine lives, AGW lives on.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                My position has remained that I am unsure of warming taking place... that the science was not settled, and more to the point even if shown to be happening, I'm not at all convinced that it was being caused by man. When CERN says: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' looks like I'm closer to being correct than not.

                AND

                Since every suggested 'solution' was a political one that did little to actually solve the problem and served only to penalize western economies, and excluded many of the most polluting folks (like China), it is very easy to dismiss the AGW folks as strictly political.
                You're closer to being correct about being unsure warming is taking place?

                Being unsure is not being certain warming is NOT taking place.

                As I point out, the relevant findings in the article you posted don't suggest whether warming is taking place or not. It does suggest that people trying to model all of the thousands of factors involved in making the earth's climate have a very difficult job. There are undoubtedly dozens of other problems with their models as well, ignoring secondary effects, etc.

                Originally posted by C-B-M View Post
                Again, we have an example of a posted link where the link was apparently not read.

                "Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined."

                Also, I find it funny that people always say that we don't believe the Earth is warming. It's like a discussion on illegal immigration where people say "oh, you're against immigration, when we're all immigrants?" Uh ...yeah ......
                Um, that's why I used the term "preliminary findings", and "are in the process of finding out whether global warming is happening". I'm glad to see you apparently read the link.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                  Originally posted by darth omar View Post
                  Well, the fact it's happening doesn't tell us much because, as the link attests, they don't have a handle on the variables. The fact they are forced by the data to 'substantially revise' their models tells us that they don't know the exact mechanisms behind it.
                  Yes, but as in the case of a truck careening down a hill without brakes, once you know its happening you at least have a chance to possibly mitigate some of the upcoming disaster. It doesn't mean you'll not make a mistake or avert disaster. It just means you might stand a small chance of coming out ok.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                    Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                    Wow... this is a change. Of course, it's not what many here claim to be truth and it will cause, in their words: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'



                    To many of us, this comes as no surprise:



                    Sun caused, not man caused. Like I said, no surprise here, but bond to disappoint many here. Thus it being a 'politically sensitive topic'

                    Which points to the left as the ones politicizing science... but we all knew that too.



                    "substantially revised" - as in 'not correct' as in 'wrong'

                    So to sum things up... 60 scientists in 17 countries say that:

                    The science is not settled.
                    That climate models will need to be substantially revised
                    That nearly half of any rise in temperature can be traced to sources outside of the planet and beyond the control of man.

                    Meanwhile proving once again that AGW to have little to do with climate and everything to do with far left control of the western economies.

                    Thoughts?

                    CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register
                    The main problem I have with many people here that claim global warming is a hoax is that they jump all over explanations that seem to support their views which have very little data to support them, yet ask for exhaustive proof for explanations that don't. It's hypocritical, biased and ignorant.

                    I see nothing different here. I have occasionally looked into what CLOUD has been studying over the years, and I think there is a lot of value in what they are doing. Climate is comprised of many variables, and how clouds play a role in that is something that has vexed researchers for awhile. But, all the yammering that this research proves anthropogenic warming doesn't are vastly overreaching the current evidence.

                    So far, CLOUD is showing that cosmic rays play a bigger role in cloud formation than previously understood, which would expand the forcing of SOME clouds. Not all clouds trap more heat than they reflect. And there is no strong trend in cloud formation with warming global temperatures found to date despite 50 years of data. This will change variables in models, but I see nothing here or in other peer-reviewed research that suggest in the slightest that cosmic rays could be responsible for the warming measured over the past ~150 years.

                    Read what they wrote. No one from CLOUD is claiming in the least that these findings in any way blow the current explanation of anthropogenic warming out of the water:

                    "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                      Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
                      Being unsure is not being certain warming is NOT taking place.
                      Is it warming or cooling?

                      That depends on the time frame you use.

                      ~1000 years ago during the medieval climatic optimum the climate was warmer than today, so since then the overall trend is cooling.

                      However, 400 years ago during the little ice age the climate was cooler than today, so since then the overall trend is warming.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                        Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
                        Their data pertains to mechanisms behind cloud formation, which neither proves nor disproves either global warming or man-caused global warming. Cloud formation is one small but important factor in determining the earth's climate. There are many other mechanisms at work as well.
                        This is what you get when facts get in the way of the warmist cultists - "Cloud formation is one small but important factor in determining the earth's climate. There are many other mechanisms at work as well."

                        Small but important - wtf? We're not talking about your Johnson. The article states clearly that water vapor and clouds are large factors in global climate, so a faulty assumption in the formation of those is incredibly important and certainly not a small factor. The whole model is corrupt. Deal with some facts now and then.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                          The sun and its luminosity is the most important factor determining the earth's climate. The distance of the earth from the sun is a very important factor. Radiation heating by the earth's radioactive core adds to the temperature of the earth. Absorption of solar radiation by debris between the sun and the earth could potentially be important (and undoubtedly was in the early solar system). The angle of the surface of the earth relative to the ecliptic also is important for local climates and weather patterns. The reflectivity of the earth (either because of clouds or the color of the surface) is also important. Clouds and water vapor are also important. CO2 is also important. Etc, etc.

                          Maybe your Johnson is the smallest most important thing in your life, but for the temperature of the earth, clouds are just one among many factors. That's the problem with you science deniers, you think you understand all science about everything when nothing could be further from the truth.
                          Last edited by Disillusioned_1; 08-26-2011, 09:02 PM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                            Originally posted by hairballxavier View Post
                            Is it warming or cooling?

                            That depends on the time frame you use.

                            ~1000 years ago during the medieval climatic optimum the climate was warmer than today, so since then the overall trend is cooling.

                            However, 400 years ago during the little ice age the climate was cooler than today, so since then the overall trend is warming.
                            Almost all evidence is consistently showing that the average global temperature is on the rise relative to where it was 50 and 100 years ago. Your point is that it may not be unusual, to which I say ... yes, you could be correct. Global cooling could be just as problematic for mankind as global warming. Another ice-age would be a pretty tough thing even with all of our technology.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Real Science By Real Scientists

                              Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
                              Almost all evidence is consistently showing that the average global temperature is on the rise relative to where it was 50 and 100 years ago. Your point is that it may not be unusual, to which I say ... yes, you could be correct. Global cooling could be just as problematic for mankind as global warming. Another ice-age would be a pretty tough thing even with all of our technology.
                              So, if you acknowledge that the climate is more than capable of making our lives miserable no matter what we do, why isn't the goal energy independence?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X