Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[UncleBuck]

peter north pole, circa 1985.

 

[sheskunk]

 

[sheskunk]

 

[heckler73]

peter north pole, circa 1985.

Yah, but is he accelerating towards Russia?

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[Harrekin]

Must be man-made shifting of magnetic north, the planet stays exactly the same without human activity, 97% of us agree.

 

[abandonconflict]

Global warming has no effect upon the earth's rotational axis.

 

[Harrekin]

Global warming has no effect upon the earth's rotational axis.

You sure cos science?

 

[abandonconflict]

You sure cos science?

No, I'm not sure. I think I recall reading that very conclusion in a NASA article but I can't find it.

I would love a citation if you are claiming that global warming does in fact have an effect upon the rotational axis.

 

[heckler73]

No, I'm not sure. I think I recall reading that very conclusion in a NASA article but I can't find it.

I would love a citation if you are claiming that global warming does in fact have an effect upon the rotational axis.

How about turning that question around?
Can you prove the shifting magnetic fields have no effect on the melt rate of Arctic "multi-year" ice?

 

[Harrekin]

No, I'm not sure. I think I recall reading that very conclusion in a NASA article but I can't find it.

I would love a citation if you are claiming that global warming does in fact have an effect upon the rotational axis.

Nope, it's got more to do with the fact you think our rotational axis and magnetic north are the same.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How about turning that question around?
Can you prove the shifting magnetic fields have no effect on the melt rate of Arctic "multi-year" ice?

Can you prove I don't own an invisible fire breathing dragon?

 

[Harrekin]

Can you prove I don't own an invisible fire breathing dragon?

Care to ever answer a question directly with something other than "But...Science!!!" ???

 

[Padawanbater2]

Care to ever answer a question directly with something other than "But...Science!!!" ???

Care to actually learn the science instead of internetting your way to 'science-citizen'?

 

[jahbrudda]

Can you prove I don't own an invisible fire breathing dragon?

I can, I happen to know your parents wouldn't allow it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I can, I happen to know your parents wouldn't allow it.

The correct answer is no, you can't, because you can't prove a negative

 

[jahbrudda]

The correct answer is no, you can't, because you can't prove a negative

You Can Prove a Negative
Can't prove a negative? Sure you can!
Published on September 15, 2011 by Stephen Law, Ph.D. in Believing Bull

"One reason that some people suppose science and reason are incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that certainsupernatural claims—for example, that fairies or angels or spirit beings exist—are false, is that they assume you can't prove a negative. Indeed this is widely supposed to be some sort of "law of logic."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

You just don't understand science!

 

[abandonconflict]

How about turning that question around?
Can you prove the shifting magnetic fields have no effect on the melt rate of Arctic "multi-year" ice?

Now that is a very specific claim and we're going to have to tussle with the burden of proof but I will admit I made the first claim. I would settle for any peer reviewed scientific research article which draws a conclusion one way or the other on it. So let's cooperate and share anything either of us finds which meets the standard.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nope, it's got more to do with the fact you think our rotational axis and magnetic north are the same.

No, I don't.

 

[abandonconflict]

Can you prove I don't own an invisible fire breathing dragon?

He has a point and it is worthy of a thread. There seems to be a dearth of research on it. You should start the thread. Follow the research where ever it goes.