You can almost convince me: 
The average high in January for Raleigh, North Carolina is 49. The average low is 30.
THE AUTHOR
PAGES
Recent Comments
- JimS on Climate Cult Scientists Have Idea To Spread Diamond Dust To Stop Global Boiling: “Somehow, the notion of spewing all that abrasive diamond dust into the environment doesn’t sound like a good idea. Especially…” Dec 19, 22:04
- drowningpuppies on If All You See…: “What sort of person continues in a bold faced lie, when the truth is evident? Well Rimjob for one and…” Dec 19, 19:30
- Professor Hale on If All You See…: “It wasn’t just the staff since it was obvious to everyone else from the beginning. You just have to wonder…” Dec 19, 18:44
- James Lewis on Climate Cult Scientists Have Idea To Spread Diamond Dust To Stop Global Boiling: “The same people who have never accurately predicted anything related to climate change want us to put something in the…” Dec 19, 17:32
- drowningpuppies on If All You See…: “Best headline òf the day so far: #Sweetdicked!: Perjurious Town Pump Fani Willis Disqualified from Trump Case Her ravening sexmaw…” Dec 19, 16:15
It’s a little warmer than in Raleigh this time of year in Ga/Alabama but not this warm–holy smokes–it’s in the 70’s…
It’s amazing, isn’t it? almost 11pm and I still have the windows open.
Global averages are all that really count. All else is local variation, and is normal. This is no more evidence of global warming than a blizzard in March is evidence against it, you know.
In fact, colder winters are predicted to accompany global warming, not necessarily warmer ones. The reason being that the other, warmer, areas in tend to draw the jet stream further south.
“Extremes” are what to expect. Bigger, more numerous hurricanes, more tornados, more ice storms, greater rainfall, drier droughts, etc. The reasoning is simple: if you put more energy into a total system, you will get more energy out of it.
Ah, I see now. When there’s a blizzard, that means there is global warming. And I always thought it was cold during a blizzard.
There’s almost no scientific facts regarding global warming. I want someone to show me the thermometer that was used in 32,471 B.C. to measure the temperature.
It’s right next to the x-ray machine used to measure T-Rex bones 65 million years ago, Ogre. Hey, don’t look now, but your ignorance is showing. But who needs evidence when you’ve got ideology, right? Obviously what you don’t want to be true can’t be.
Go learn something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Anyway, Teach, you may be interested in this item I read today:
http://www.newsisfree.com/iclick/i,67104189,1472,f/
Obviously nothing conclusive there, but interesting nonetheless.
Just because your beliefs are different from mine, Pusillanimous, doesn’t make them any more valid. You have zero scientific proof behind you.
“You have zero scientific proof behind you.”
Did you even read that article?? It was VERY balanced.
FYI . . . nothing in science is ever proven. Nothing. That is not how science works. You can only ever “prove” the null equation . . . in other words, things can only ever be disproven.
Now, if you are trying to say that “you have zero scientific EVIDENCE behind you”, you are quite clearly mistaken. To you, it may not be enough to be conclusive, and how much man contributes to it is still an open question, but to assert that there is “zero evidence” that it is even occurring is just ignorant. Willfully so.
Again. Go read up. Open a frigging textbook or something. Try the link above, or try some of these:
http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+global+warming&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Of course, you’ll just assume that the experts opinions . . . based on years of education and research . . . are just as valid as your guess. Me? I think talking out of your a$$ only gets you bad breath.
I studied science and the history of the earth for 4 years in a major college. I think I have a clue. I know that all of “science” is based on one, singular belief. If you refuse that belief, of which there can be no evidence, all science related to earth’s history is gone.
Oh holy crap. You just told me you are a young-earther, didn’t you? Noah and the global flood, all animals created on the same day, that kind of stuff? Tell me, did you go to Bob Jones by any chance?
“I know that all of ‘science’ is based on one, singular belief”
Do tell, Ogre. What is that one belief that all science (that you inexplicably put in quotes)? ‘Cause, I don’t see it in here:
sci·ence
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
That’s why it was put in quotes — to imply that it was not the dictionary definition. All of science that is related to the earth’s history is based on the belief in uniformitarianism. There is no possible way to ever prove or disprove the theory of uniformitarianism. Either you believe it or you don’t. There’s nothing that can ever exist that will provide any evidence of it being true or not. So everyone just has to choose.