Maybe it has to do with where the official weather recording stations are placed? http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

 

There's all sorts of stories right now. 25 USSR stations shut down when the wall fell - gee, what do we know about Russia's climate, it's cold. NASA miscalculated the temps in the 90's, when they fixed their error, 98 was no longer the hottest year, 1934 was and 7 of the 10 hottest were pre WWII.

Global warming is junk "science". Every time I hear someone say it is "a concensus of scientists" that came up with the "theory" (oh yes, even Al Gore admits it is a theory), I wonder when science moved from fact to opinion. If you can't prove it (which they can't) then it is a theory and not science - science is about proving, not opinions.

 

I've been hearing about that on the Neil Boortz show for a while now.

 

I posted on a previous topic similar to this about the multitude of climate monitoring stations that are inappropriately setup. The data collected from these CMS's is inevitably skewed and should not be used when calculating averages.

You should have paid more attention in your high school science classes. I'll explain. In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. You may have also heard this term kicked around in a court of law during proceedings. However, this is not the case in the realm of scientific research and discovery. Here, a scientific theory represents an hypothesis (suggested explanation), or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. A few classic theories you may have heard of:
Quantum theory
The atomic theory
Sir Issac Newton's theory of universal gravity.
Einstein's theory of relativity
Darwin's Theory of evolution.

How do I know? I am a science teacher.

 

If that is the case, then global warming isn't even a theory, it is a guess. And a bad one to boot.

Interesting footnote in the Washington Times about an article from the Washington Post talking about melting glaciers, receding ice packs etc. Date, 1922.

 

The causes of Global Warming are still in Hypothesis stage at this point anyway.

 

I personally throw it in the same basket as the Flat Earth theroy and Hollow Earth theroy and other mind numbing displays of ignorance.

If the asnwers to the questions I ask is yes then you might get my attention.

If the temperature of the earth has increased one degree over the last 100 years......

Did they even use the same thermometer(s)?
Did the same person calibrate them both times?
Did they use the same equipment to calibrate them?
Was the calibration equipment tested each time?

If one thing changed that would be your 1º.... you'll have to wait another 100 years to make the claim.

It's funny that it has raised 1º in 100 years how ever 40 years ago, they were claiming we were going into another ice age......

 

Agreed. The consensus amongst many scientist who study such things is that the earth is going through a warming period. The breakdown in the scientific community is the root cause of this warming trend and whether or not man's activities have contributed to its development.

I wasn't coming down on either side of this issue. The data collected suggest a period of increased temperature. However the manner in which the data has been collected is rather suspect.

My contribution to this thread was to clarify the misnomer that a scientific theory is an opinion. It is not. Most scientist take painstaking measures to ensure that personal bias is removed from research and that their findings stand up to the scrutiny of peers and rivals. Those in the scientific community understand that the word "theory" is not synonymous with guess, opinion, conjecture, speculation, etc.. Thats all.

 

But the treehuggers will tell you otherwise.

 

Well if this story is true, the Theory of Relativity may be busted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cispeed116.xml

 

Can anyone tell me what exactly was confirmed through repeated experimental tests with regards to Mr. Darwin's evolution "theory" ?

Following your statement above, I think it qualifies as a hypothesis, not a theory...

 

i put my flame suit on before i started typing

 

While we do contribute..... the earth it's self emiits more of the same harmfull gases into the atmosphere and many others from well beneath the surface through cracks in the earths crust than we produce or have produced. It also has been doing it a few billion years longer than us.

My theroy would be that as the atomsphere becomes saturated, it begins to sweel like a balloon, when the outer liner (Ozone) stretches to thin, it tears (aka pops) and releases these gases into outerspace. As the gases escape the Ozone shrinks like a deflating balloon and as it shrinks the hole gets smaller.

The only thing that we have really done to have interupted the cycle is removing plants that we needed to naturally balance the oxygen level in the atmosphere. Since the oxygen level is less because we removed the oxygen factories... thats why our skies arent as clear........


ETA
The result can only be one thing, as earths thicker gases are a greater percent and block the needed radiation from the sun the earths temperature will drop, as the temperature drops, these gases get heavier than the oxygen and fall to the surface (may require an ice age, i'm not talking over a coupe hundred years, I'm talking million of billions of years) which they are then absorbed by the oceans. Possiably pushed to the depths, captured by platonics and pushed beneath the surface again, only to find cracks in the crust again and get released into the atomsphere, the whole cycle starts over again.

 

So the "intelligent designer" isn't smart enough to make our Savior? That's pretty funny stuff, man.

No ruffled feathers here, just a good laugh.

 

As a scientist once said, "A bacteria breeds a bacteria breeds a bacteria." I hope you all realize that scientists re-formulate and re-write their theories every year. If evolution truly happens, humans would have A LOT more knowledge now than we do. We can only estimate that we currently have less than 1% of all knowledge. Hell, we can't even cure a pesky disease called Cancer.