Global Warming Models Didn't Predict Last Years Global Cooling.
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 11, 2008 12:15pm CST
Albert Einstein used to teach that if any part of a theory is wrong, the theory istelf is wrong. He also practiced what he preached. If he found a flaw in a theory, he threw out the whole theory.
Today's scientists have apparently forgotten the lesson of Einstein. When they find a flaw in a theory, too many of them simply change the theory accordingly. That is not good science.
Science tells us that the 1 degree (C) increase of the global temperature was very significant, and is often used as evidence of man caused global climate change. However, last year the global temperature dropped by 0.75 degrees (C). So what did the scientists who believe in "man caused global warming" do? They tried to convince us that that didn't matter at all.
The telling part of it all was, all the models and scientists predicted a steady increase in the global temperature. None of them saw a decrease happeing.
Real science uses the scientific method to make predictions. Some predictions are tested in labs but others can only be tested by time and circumstance. In labs, scientists made predictions about global temperature, and used computer models and conjecture to "prove" their predictions... but time has spoken.
Science has used Man Caused Global Warming models and methods to predict everything from temperature changes to the intensity of hurricane seasons. Using those methods... have they ever been right?
One part of the man caused global warming theory has been proven false, so according to the lesson of Einstein... it should be thrown out completely.
4 people like this
7 responses
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
12 Dec 08
Didn't you see the Day After Tomorrow? There is going to be a new ice age, and then all the ice is going to melt, and then all the oceans and land are going to dry up.
In all seriousness, I don't know much about global warming. I have always been terrible at understanding scientific theories. My astronomy teacher told me that global warming wasn't caused by humans, it was caused by natural cycles in the sun, and my environmental science teacher told me that humans are responsible for global warming and didn't even mention the sun. 
My dad is convinced that it's all a political sham and the more CO2 we allow into the atmosphere, the better, because thats what plants want. LOL. I think that if we stop deforestation and planted more trees, most of our man-made problems will be solved, honestly. But then again I'm not a scientist.
My dad is convinced that it's all a political sham and the more CO2 we allow into the atmosphere, the better, because thats what plants want. LOL. I think that if we stop deforestation and planted more trees, most of our man-made problems will be solved, honestly. But then again I'm not a scientist.2 people like this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
12 Dec 08
It IS a political sham and they also use mass lies to SCARE people and then you have all these people running around saying 'I went green, I feel SO good about saving our environment' when they aren't really don't anything of that much value at all. I guess if it makes em feel better, cool. Now that doesn't mean I want them saying anything to ME about it lol.
1 person likes this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
2 Jan 09
Murderistic you think the way they want you to. You don't need to be a scientist to use common sense.
Example. They love to tell us about the whole in the ozone. The problem is they always tell us about it being over the pole. They expect us to believe it's growing and will give us less protection from solar radiation soon. There's only 2 problems with that theory and they both come from my 8th grade science class.
Problem number one is that solar radiation creates stratospheric ozone so I'm not so worried about that sunburn.
Problem number 2 is that Oxygen is a charged atom. We call them Ions and they are characterized by having a magnetic charge. As a result oxygen naturally looks for something to attach to, like more oxygen. That makes O2 which we breathe. In uneven numbers it gets that magnetic charge back ozone is O3.
Like charges attract and opposite charges repel therefore the laws of physics say that the earth has a magnetic pole which will naturally repel ozone from it causing a thinning or whole in the ozone layer no matter what we do.
Anytime you cede the power of knowledge to an "expert" you become their pawn for better or worse. Consider the valid points of the arguments from your 2 teachers and figure out which holds water logically.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
11 Dec 08
That's because science is no longer scientific, it's political. The scientific part of it ended because politicians no longer give money to scientific research, they give it to POLITICAL research. Global warming research is done to promote a political agenda. The best of course were all the morons claiming that the North Pole was going to melt last summer. Funny how they got so much coverage until summer came and went with no change in the poles. Multiple, supposedly reputable, people were making this claim saying they had so much scientific evidence. Despite that there were children who knew it was a load of crap.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-north-pole-is-melting
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=1678441
2 people like this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
12 Dec 08
I predict colder temperatures and higher gas prices because of the global warming advocates stupidity. But they will not believe it. The only they will is if they go outside in minus 40 degree weather, but they will never do that, because all these studies take place in countries near the equator. I doubt if they have ever been that north.
It's just a form of social engineering, the global warmers resent that the economy has shifted from around the equator to North America and Europe and want it back. If they can get the price of oil and gas raised so people in NOrth America and Northern Europe cannot afford to heat their homes and have to move back into tenements and flats, they will be happy.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Yup, and with all other forms of government social engineering, it is based on lies and propaganda.
2 people like this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
2 Jan 09
You can see how much the proponents of global warming favor the people around the equator and between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. They have all their meetings in places where it is warm all year round. Of course, they think we are in global warming. They never have been anywhere cold. It's a conspiracy all right.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Dec 08
Shame on you Ted. Did I just see you introduce LOGIC in to this debate? SHAME SHAME! Your as bad as a hollicost denier.
/sarcasm
Despite the fact that all the science that supports it is junk, this swindle is still being pushed on the world and people, not wanting to seem heartless or politicly current, are eating it right up, including candidates and activist groups. Despite the fact the for every 1 scientist that asserts the man made global warming theory, there are 10 that call it for the bunk that it is, there is still the pervasive belief perpetuated in the world that the earth is warning and it is our fault.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
11 Dec 08
Yup, and our next president is looking to the biggest Con Artist in US History for advise on Global Warming and the envinronment.
1 person likes this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
2 Jan 09
nice pic but shouldn't he say "oh my goddess"? I thought he worshiped Gaia. He talks about her all the time. She's also known as mother earth.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
12 Dec 08
This is an excellent point, and post. Although I have sparred with you over other things, I fully agree with you here. I do not believe in 'global warming' itself as an actual threat, and I also do not believe (nor will I ever believe) that something as insignificant as man CAUSED it. Despite the fact that there are billions of us on the planet, it does not mean that we are supreme beings or anything and what we do or don't do is of little consequence to the big picture.
How in the world (no pun intended) did we manage to get so cocky as to think that all sorts of awful things could somehow be OUR FAULT? That would mean that we are indeed uber-powerful creatures. We do have a pretty good grasp of modern technology, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for changing our own climate, natural disasters, etc. I do think we are to blame for our economic issue, but that stems back to how we poorly manage things.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Exactly, this ol' earth has survived pole shifts, continental drift, ice ages, heat waves, jungles have become deserts, major lakes have dried up, cities have been swollowed by the desert and earthquakes... and here we have a group of people who actually thing we can compete with all that.
Glad we can agree on a few things and looking forward to more sparring on others. :~D
1 person likes this
@celticrogue (450)
• United States
11 Dec 08
While I do believe that the earth is on a global warming trend, I have yet to be convinced that man has anything to do with it. I believe that we are in a period of time in which the earth starts to warm up. I have seen data that does point out the amounts of greenhouse gases (some of which are human produced, some produced by tectonic processes) are at an all-time high.
IMHO, we as humans do need to take better care of the environment. Humans seem to be the only animal that is content to defecate right where they live!
I am a clinical lab scientist, and I do know of chemical reactions that do not happen slowly, but once a specific concentration is reached, the reaction happens rather suddenly. Could this be an anology of our environment? If it is, and there are naysayers out there trying to down-play our contribution, what is going to happen when they are proven wrong, and the environment suddenly becomes life-threatening?
To me, it makes better sense to take care of the environemnt and try to leave the least amount of pollution possible.
Oh, yes, science has become too politicized, have too much junk science, to be of much good nowadays.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
I have to agree with Taskr here. We as humans seem to be one of the FEW animals who don't want to defecate where they live... or at least want the crap to stay where we live very long.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
11 Dec 08
"IMHO, we as humans do need to take better care of the environment. Humans seem to be the only animal that is content to defecate right where they live!"
That's just not true. By saying that you show that you know absolutely nothing about animals. I've had enough animals in my life that I can assure you, most are more than happy to defecate where they live. I have 7 birds right now and they don't mind defecating wherever whenever. My lovebird defecates in his happy hut so much that we can only clean it so many times before buying him a new one. The only place birds won't defecate is in their nest when they have babies.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
12 Dec 08
Exactly. We have things like plumbing and dump sites and trash bins in order to keep the crap away from us. Yes, I know, it still exists somewhere but not right 'where I live' which is generally what people care about. I also think too many people are too worried about eventual (unproven) what ifs and they allow that to control their lives now before any threat even happens. That's sad, it's a big waste of time and happiness.
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
2 Jan 09
Well, I'm not sure that I side with either Einstein or the people who are so concerned about global warming. I don't know enough one way or another. Certainly the late Michael Crichton made some pretty compelling arguments that global warming was not a threat and he made them as a scientist as well as a novelist..
I think a lot of people feel that they can use global warming to scare folks into conservation. I don't even see why the two have to be connected. We need to conserve because we only have one earth and as a secondary benefit, we need to get away from our dependence on Arab oil. I like the old American Indian motto" "Take what you need and leave the land as you found it." Makes more sense to me than the most erudite argument for or against global warming.
