climate change

tetelestai · Nov 3, 2014

Selaphiel said:
Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Er, no.

I don't subscribe to the hoax, that would be you.

Accepting scientific facts

I don't call manipulating data from 75 years ago "facts". I call that Junk Science.

I have merely argued for the accuracy of the observations of professional scientists within a specific field.

Which is not what they're doing.

They're manipulating data from over 75 years ago.

These observations demand action unless you are willing to admit that the lives and livelihood of millions of people is of no concern for you.

Another myth.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that mankind has anything to do with the climate changing.

That does not make one a communist. If you think that is the case, the we have also established that you are absolutely clueless about political theory as well.

See my quotes from the UN Climate Chief regarding her love of Communism.

I am afraid that I am no communist.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it ...

You have realized that your profoundly ignorant criticism of climate science has no effect on anyone who is capable of doing 2 minutes of fact checking by themselves, so now you try to deny reality by attempting to correlate accepting scientific fact with holding political stance.

Funny how you ignored what I said about Cap & Trade and the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarian · Nov 3, 2014

It's clear that tet is so wound up in his ideological straitjacket that he can't think for himself at all. He's just chanting slogans.

While there's very little hope of him coming to terms with reality, he serves a useful purpose in helping us demonstrate the issues and reality of climate and man's effect on it.

And of course, the many frauds perpetrated by deniers.

THall · Nov 3, 2014

The Barbarian said:
It's clear that tet is so wound up in his ideological straitjacket that he can't think for himself at all. He's just chanting slogans.

While there's very little hope of him coming to terms with reality, he serves a useful purpose in helping us demonstrate the issues and reality of climate and man's effect on it.

And of course, the many frauds perpetrated by deniers.

Because you know
so much more than
this guy about the
weather?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...annel-founder-man-made-global-warming-baloney

rexlunae · Nov 3, 2014

THall said:
Because you know
so much more than
this guy about the
weather?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...annel-founder-man-made-global-warming-baloney

We're not talking about the weather, but thanks for playing.

voltaire · Nov 3, 2014

The Barbarian said:
Rocket does it again...

You were fooled by another bait and switch. They gave you the record for a part of the United States instead of the entire country, much less the world. Here's the location of record highs and lows for April of this year.

As you can see, worldwide,record highs greatly outnumber record lows.

If you like, I can probably find the other months. Would you like me to do that?

At some point, is that going to make you angry enough to start thinking for yourself?

The above map was achieved by creating a false average. Most of the early years that are part of that average are being adjusted downward whenever the data is "deemed to be faulty ". When you do this, you are always going to get warmer than normal temps. The record highs outpace record lows because of the urban heat island effect. Most of these record highs occur in areas where significant urban growth has occurred. The other reason is that many former record highs are adjusted downward when deemed to be "faulty data". A record high in Kansas in 1934 was replaced by a record high in 2013 because the former high temp was considered faulty data.

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

voltaire said:
whenever the data is "deemed to be faulty

What part of the process that produced that re-evaluation of the old data do you disagree with? What was technically wrong with those decisions?

Or is it only the conclusion you don't like? :idunno:

voltaire · Nov 3, 2014

The Barbarian said:
The Flat Earth Society (also known as the International Flat Earth Society or the International Flat Earth Research Society) is an organization which aims to promote the idea that the Earth is flat instead of an oblate spheroid. The modern organization was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956[1] and was later led by Charles K. Johnson, who based the organization in his home in Lancaster, California. The formal society was inactive after Johnson’s death in 2001 but was resurrected in 2004 by its new president Daniel Shenton.[2]

The ideas of the society are widely seen by accomplished scientists as pseudoscientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Flat_Earth_societies

You guys aren't unique. There are creationists, and UFO buffs, and Birthers, and Geocentrists, and so on. Never underestimate the ability of humans to believe weird things.

So denying that human produced carbon dioxide caused more than ten percent of the greater heat content in the lower troposphere since 1950 is a weird belief and of the same magnitude of weirdness as creationism?

voltaire · Nov 3, 2014

gcthomas said:
What part of the process that produced that re-evaluation of the old data do you disagree with? What was technically wrong with those decisions?

Or is it only the conclusion you don't like? :idunno:

If most of your adjustments are done to past data with the greatest a adjustments being done to the very oldest data and the vast majority are adjusted downward, you are going to create an average that is lower than it would be unadjusted. That is undeniable. The fact that there is very little unadjusted warming and even some cooling in places with little urban growth should tell you something is amiss in the adjustment process.

voltaire · Nov 3, 2014

gcthomas said:
What part of the process that produced that re-evaluation of the old data do you disagree with? What was technically wrong with those decisions?

Or is it only the conclusion you don't like? :idunno:

You cannot estimate what a temperature should have been much less arbitrarily decide the old temperature was false. Temperature is a measurement of heat. Any adjustment to temperature is cumulatively larger than the error in accurately measuring that heat.

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

voltaire said:
If most of your adjustments are done to past data with the greatest a adjustments being done to the very oldest data and the vast majority are adjusted downward, you are going to create an average that is lower than it would be unadjusted. That is undeniable. The fact that there is very little unadjusted warming and even some cooling in places with little urban growth should tell you something is amiss in the adjustment process.

That is what you'd expect from systematic errors. If you can't tell me what they did wrong, then how do you know it was wrong?

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

voltaire said:
You cannot estimate what a temperature should have been much less arbitrarily decide the old temperature was false. Temperature is a measurement of heat. Any adjustment to temperature is cumulatively larger than the error in accurately measuring that heat.

Hardly arbitrarily - that is a serious charge for scientist analysing long period time series data.

Most observing stations have moved over the last century, sometimes two or three times. Towns have grown along with the heat island effect. Virtually all stations have changed from LiG thermometers to MMTS and ASOS types. Observation times have changed from evening to morning over the last half century. All these change the bias of the measurements and will seriously skew any long term trends.

Do you really mean to suggest that no account of these changes should be made, even though they all introduce step changes in the measurements they produce?

tetelestai · Nov 3, 2014

The Barbarian said:
It's clear that tet is so wound up in his ideological straitjacket that he can't think for himself at all.

I agree with the WeatherChannel founder.

Man Made Global Warming is a HOAX that is politically motivated.

I have shown the manipulated data that is false, and the politics behind the hoax.

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

tetelestai said:
I agree with the WeatherChannel founder.

The guy who hasn't been with the channel for three decades? The guy who isn't a researcher or climatologist?

The one who The Weather Channel has distanced itself from?

“We’re grateful that he got us started 32 years ago,” David Kenny, the current CEO of The Weather Company which own The Weather Channel, told CNN. “But he hasn’t been with us in 31 years. So he’s not really speaking for The Weather Channel in any way today.”

tetelestai · Nov 3, 2014

gcthomas said:
“We’re grateful that he got us started 32 years ago,” David Kenny, the current CEO of The Weather Company which own The Weather Channel, told CNN. “But he hasn’t been with us in 31 years. So he’s not really speaking for The Weather Channel in any way today.”

John Coleman spanked the CNN host:

Weather Channel CEO Goes off on CNN:

journey · Nov 3, 2014

Here's what God has to say:

Genesis 8:21-22 KJV And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

tetelestai said:
John Coleman spanked the CNN host:

Weatherman spanks TV newsperson? Forgive me if I say that doesn't sound like convincing science.

I'd better call the Nature journal to reserve a spot to publish the results of that ...

tetelestai · Nov 3, 2014

gcthomas said:
The guy who isn't a researcher or climatologist?

Al Gore referenced researchers and climatologists.

Let's see how accurate they were in 2009:

Al Gore Warns Polar Ice May Be Gone in Five Years

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

tetelestai said:
Al Gore referenced researchers and climatologists.

Let's see how accurate they were in 2009:

Let's see how accurate your claim about Gore's claim is ...

"May be completely ice free in the Summer months in five to seven years, ... used the figure 2030."

Seven years takes us to 2016, not this year. Did you not watch the clip yourself?

'May be' sounds like he was presenting the lowest estimate of a number of teams,

Or by 2030, which hasn't happened yet, from another team.

tetelestai · Nov 3, 2014

gcthomas said:
Seven years takes us to 2016, not this year. Did you not watch the clip yourself?

He said "Five to seven years" in 2009 that the Arctic ice could be ice-free in the summer months.

Considering the Arctic ice has grown over 1.4 million square kilometers since 2012, and it's been 5 years since Al Gore's speech, do you really think there is a remote chance the Arctic is going to be ice-free in less than two years from now?

gcthomas · Nov 3, 2014

And the 2030 date he mentions on the next breath to give a range?

climate change

LIFETIME MEMBER

BANNED

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

New member

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member