The $270m mission was launched on a Taurus XL -

HOW CAN IT BE THE SMALLEST IF THEY CALL IT XL X(X(X(X(X(

CONSPERITY!

fact is - is global warming/climate change however you wanna call it is natural ! -  these scientists crying about warming are the same ones that where 99.9% certain that we where entering another ice age in the 1970's....    having studied environmental science to university level i know for a fact you can prove whatever you like through science wherever your agender is - oil company sponsored scientists prove its natural - government sponsored scientists prove its people - because its the governments agender to do this - both to collect tax through the guilt related 'green taxes' and like obama said his 'green industry' will get use threw this recession.....  yeah right.....

I bet the North-Koreans shot it down.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Pseudoscience, like economics.  They measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and then say "oh when CO2 is present at so many ppm then we know there tend to be such and such an effect"  But CO2 is not equally distributed around the world, there are bands of CO2 density. <

And you think nobody but you knew this because...

> Yet the EFFECTS of CO2 are held to be global. <

Yep. You know why? Of course you don't, that's why you're waving this around like it's some kind of doomday device when all you actually have is a service-station spoon.

> This is the clearest sign that "Global warming" fails to explain a physical process.  It attempts to equate statistical anamolies by hypothesizing such a process might be ongoing but fails to propose ANY clear empirical test of the process. <

How brave you are, attacking climate change now that you can be certain that the emirical testing is years away once again.

> Lower temperatures? Well that doesn't signify, because we know global warming is real. <

Actually it does "signify". Ever heard of the gulf-stream? The "winter" we just had here in the UK is related. Not that you'll think about this...

> Ice buildup on the poles?  Doesn't signify. <

Each year the Arctic ice receeds further than ever before, anyone who watches the news can tell you this.

> The problem with science by statistical anamoly is that if you developed broader and more complete data sets, your anomaly might vanish. <

The only truth you have written here...
__________

> thisyearsmostopen wrote:
> fact is - is global warming/climate change however you wanna call it is natural ! <

Thankyou for partially accepting our acceptance that Global Warming was a misnomer and the resulting shift thereafter.

> these scientists crying about warming are the same ones that where 99.9% certain that we where entering another ice age in the 1970's.... <

I still can't understand how they could have thought that with such low levels of supporting evidence, and such limited evidence gathering ability.

> having studied environmental science to university level i know for a fact you can prove whatever you like through science wherever your agender [...] <

You seriously expect me to believe you have been to University when you cannot even spell properly, let alone punctuate? <

> is - oil company sponsored scientists prove its natural - government sponsored scientists prove its people - because its the governments agender to do this - both to collect tax through the guilt related 'green taxes' and like obama said his 'green industry' will get use threw this recession.....  yeah right..... <

So your only real problem with Climate Change is that you shitty excuse for a government (they're both the same dimwits!) is using it as yet another excuse tou gouge your bank accounts? Sad...
__________

>>> Pseudoscience, like economics.  They measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and then say "oh when CO2 is present at so many ppm then we know there tend to be such and such an effect"  But CO2 is not equally distributed around the world, there are bands of CO2 density. <

And you think nobody but you knew this because...<<

...they want a great global be-in?

>> Yet the EFFECTS of CO2 are held to be global. <

Yep. You know why? Of course you don't, that's why you're waving this around like it's some kind of doomday device when all you actually have is a service-station spoon.<<

I said why: AGW hopefuls demand we believe first and seek proof second.  We must accept CO2 CAUSES effects, then we go out and catalogue whatever we think might be an effect.  Then we might get around to some weather process.

>>> This is the clearest sign that "Global warming" fails to explain a physical process.  It attempts to equate statistical anamolies by hypothesizing such a process might be ongoing but fails to propose ANY clear empirical test of the process. <

How brave you are, attacking climate change now that you can be certain that the emirical testing is years away once again.<<

So the burden is not on global warming to provide empirical proof; the burden is on me to have the moral integrity not to beat up on the fledgling global warming n00blet until it can defend itself.

>> Lower temperatures? Well that doesn't signify, because we know global warming is real. <

Actually it does "signify". Ever heard of the gulf-stream? The "winter" we just had here in the UK is related. Not that you'll think about this...<<

Yeah I heard of the Gulf Stream.  It's about 2000 miles from the Great Lakes, which have had a horrible winter.

>>> Ice buildup on the poles?  Doesn't signify. <

Each year the Arctic ice receeds further than ever before, anyone who watches the news can tell you this.<<

Guess you hadn't heard:

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

By Alex Morales

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called

> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> ...they want a great global be-in? <

That's probably hysterical to an American.

> I said why: AGW hopefuls demand we believe first and seek proof second.  We must accept CO2 CAUSES effects, then we go out and catalogue whatever we think might be an effect.  Then we might get around to some weather process. <

Well whoever they are if they truly operate like that then you are right to question them, but to assume that all Climate Change data/proof/whtever comes from them, to assume they speak for us all... It's like a black man giving me grief because of the actions of the KKK.

> So the burden is not on global warming to provide empirical proof; the burden is on me to have the moral integrity not to beat up on the fledgling global warming n00blet until it can defend itself. <

Climate change has already been proven: The climate is changing.
The believed cause, thanks to this mishap with the rocket, will not be studied or empirically tested for years. And like it or not, you demanding, or making snide remarks about, proof when the proof gathering device has just broken... well let us just say that is the kind of behaviour I expect from certain racist Scandinavians, ok.

> Yeah I heard of the Gulf Stream.  It's about 2000 miles from the Great Lakes, which have had a horrible winter. <

Now how did I know you wouldn't think about this? Why, surely I must be God!

> Guess you hadn't heard:

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

By Alex Morales

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
  The error, due to a problem called

Climate change we can believe in?

I went and posted a gigantic post about it, with more evidence than anything ever before and was told "FFS IT'S TO LONG!" and previously I focused on one aspect, and was told "That does not contradict Global Warming". I have posted left and right on this topic about deliberate lies by the activists, and was ignored. Now more evidence comes against them and they still say "it proves nothing!!!!"

Question for the disbelievers.

Can you name the 10 strongest claims which brought out the Kyoto Accord and which of those claims have come true?

"NASA

"Can you name the 10 strongest claims which brought out the Kyoto Accord and which of those claims have come true?"

It's cause it's a long-term plan, I know you may not be familiar with the concept. The true effects of global warming will no be truly felt for all for decades. Even if global warming was a big conspiracy theory by the evi...Democratic Party, what's wrong with reducing emissions and investing in green, sustainable energy? In 50-70 years all of our oil reserves will be gone, we need an alternative anways by then.

He  cannot name rising water predictions, crops burned predictions, new and significantly increased cases of skin cancer, 5 degree average around the globe temp gains, or anything else from the Kyoto Accord.

Because none of their 'will happens' has nor will happen