climate change

[rexlunae]

No, mine is more an epistemological dispute.

Is that so?

Well, lets see if you can come up with anything that actually reflects an understanding of what global warming is and what is predicted. Or, failing that, at least an understanding of the word 'epistemological'...

I saw the Great Lakes frozen with my own eyes, and know this is the first time it's happened in a long time.

I go to the Chesapeake Bay and I can't catch as many Blue Crabs as I would like because 33% of them didn't make it through the winter because last winter was the coldest the Chesapeake Bay was since they have kept track.

I saw a lot of my plants die at my home on the Outer Banks, North Carolina because there were record low temperatures last winter.

This past summer in Pittsburgh, PA was the first time in over 125 years that the temperature never reached 90 degrees at any time during the summer.

This fall I raked leaves in September because the leaves started falling earlier than ever in my life due to how cold it was.

As you should know by now, and as I know you have been told many times, that is all local weather. There is nothing in global warming theory that precludes cold weather. Global warming is a change in the climate. It leads to changes in the average temperature over the surface of the planet. So you can have a cold day, a cold season, or even a cold few years, and it doesn't actually say anything, in isolation, about global warming theory.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather. And you haven't in any way integrated the fact that 2014 is clearly, measurably a warm year, maybe the warmest yet, even despite the cold local conditions in certain places.

Yet, Progressive Liberals keep telling me about global warming.

Maybe if you try tackling the theory on its own terms rather than trying to rewrite it in order to defeat it.

 

[tetelestai]

Can "tetelestai" produce documented proof to support his assertion that most scientists are "atheists?"

Most of them work at universities. Have you been to a university lately?

Can he provide the policy statement from one recognized scientific organization that denies the existence of God?

Sure.

See the following:

List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design

Scientific organizations are not in the business of determining the existence of God - they are in the business of promoting scientific inquiry.

See above.

Unless "tetelestai" is currently living a stone age existence in a cave, then he is enjoying the scientific advances and receiving his information about life from sources he would characterize as "atheist."

I am typing this post from a MacBook Pro, and I have an Iphone 5. Both were from Steve Jobs, an atheist.

 

[jgarden]

..... I have posted charts and graphs showing how NOAA/NASA dramatically altered historical data.

Here it is again.

The animation below shows how NASA (after the year 2000) cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.

Is it "tetelestai's" contention that NASA along with 100's of scientific organizations, not to mention 1000's of scientists, are all actively involved in an international conspiracy to deceive the public!

 

[Ktoyou]

And for that, you have my sincere respect. However, I would not give a geographer much credibility in the area of climatology.

And an engineer or physicist even less, unless they happened to have the necessary training and experience to know what they were talking about.

My decorate is in psychology, and I also read the law.

I have a lit of respect for physics, you see, I was a hot-shot math student in HS, but at college, I met some, women, as it turns out, not just men, who were light years ahead of me. That higher math and physics is the bases for all the hard science, that and chemistry, and you can do it all. So, I say, if one is a physicist Ph.D, they are able to learn any science subject, outside practical surgical medicine, which takes hand coordination.

 

[PhilipJames]

Tim Ball got himself in a bit of legal trouble, presenting himself as a professor of climatology

That's a big conclusion to draw out of the link you posted...

regardless, he is in an expert in his field and clearly shows that the science is NOT settled regardless of the propaganda you hear.

PJ

 

[tetelestai]

There is nothing in global warming theory that precludes cold weather.

The website "Skeptical Science" is a favorite of the hoax believers such as yourself.

Let's look back at what Skeptical Science said in 2010:

"So far, in 2010 there have been 337 warm records versus 13 cool records." HERE

Do you see what they were doing back in 2010?

Let's continue with the article:

In 2009, the ratio was 80 (warm) to 15 (cool).

In 2008, it was 40 (warm) to 18 (cool).

In 2007, it was 133 (warm) to 9 (cool). And so on...

Now do you see what they were doing?

But then in 2013 when we started having more record lows than record highs, Skeptical Science didn't have anything to say about it.

2013 marked the first year where there were more record lows than highs.

So far in 2014, it's not even close, as the record lows will be drastically more than the record highs.

However, I doubt you'll hear a word about it from Skeptical Science.

 

[tetelestai]

Is it "tetelestai's" contention that NASA along with 100's of scientific organizations, not to mention 1000's of scientists, are all actively involved in an international conspiracy to deceive the public!

BINGO

They did it in an attempt to get Cap & Trade implemented.

Cap & Trade would have led to the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange

The Chicago Climate Exchange would have made a lot of people billionaires, and given the UN power over the USA to "spread the wealth".

 

[tetelestai]

Is it "tetelestai's" contention that NASA along with 100's of scientific organizations, not to mention 1000's of scientists, are all actively involved in an international conspiracy to deceive the public!

Both of those charts are from NOAA.

One is before they changed the historical data, and the other is after they changed the historical data.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's a big conclusion to draw out of the link you posted...

He clearly misrepresented his degree and expertise. He has about five articles to his name, and none of them have anything to do with global climate change.

regardless, he is in an expert in his field

Apparently not. For example, the Cato Institute dropped Ball as one of their experts after his lawsuit. He's no longer on their list of climatologists.

and clearly shows that the science is NOT settled regardless of the propaganda you hear.

It's over. And even many former deniers are now accepting that it's a fact.

 

[tetelestai]

My decorate is in psychology

Can you tell us why the American Psychiatric Association in 1974 changed homosexuality from being a mental disorder that was treatable to being completely normal when there was no new data, evidence, breakthrough, discovery, etc.?

 

[rexlunae]

Ok, if so, then why does your side constantly go on and on about 97%?

Because your side keeps claiming that there is no consensus. But it isn't degree that rule, in the end. It is the truth. You disqualify yourself from having a part in the discussion by failing to deal with global warming theory.

I have.

I have posted charts and graphs showing how NOAA/NASA dramatically altered historical data.

Rather, they've released different revisions of calculated values to bring historical calculations up to current standards. You can read about it here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Important to note, the old versions, while they are not still being updated, are still available from their FTP server. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/

If there were a huge conspiracy of rewriting the past, don't you think they'd maybe, I dunno, delete the old data? Or at least take it off of their public FTP site?

Here it is again.

The animation below shows how NASA (after the year 2000) cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.

Just so you know, moving a single year cannot change a climate trend. Both of these years were outliers, which means that they aren't representative of the climate at the time in either case.

 

[tetelestai]

to bring historical calculations up to current standards.

Don't you realize how ridiculous you sound?

You're trying to tell us that they took the temperatures from 1934 and somehow "revised" them 70 years later.

This is why NOAA is a joke, and everyone who believes in man made global warming is a fool.

 

[Ktoyou]

No, mine is more an epistemological dispute.

I saw the Great Lakes frozen with my own eyes last year, and know this is the first time it's happened in a long time.

This summer I went to the Chesapeake Bay and I couldn't catch as many Blue Crabs as I would have liked because 33% of them didn't make it through the winter because last winter was the coldest the Chesapeake Bay was since they have kept track.

I saw a lot of my plants die at my home on the Outer Banks, North Carolina because there were record low temperatures last winter.

This past summer in Pittsburgh, PA was the first time in over 125 years that the temperature never reached 90 degrees at any time during the summer.

This fall I raked leaves in September because the leaves started falling earlier than ever in my life due to how cold it was.

Yet, Progressive Liberals keep telling me about global warming.

My case mine on the same. When I had to move to Missouri, it was too cold, but the first year, 2003 and last year were way colder than any other. I think weather goes in cycles and bigger cycles over time. I do not think humans have much effect on weather, water yes, pollution yes, but the CO2 and all seems not a consensus.

I also see the movie star types all going in for this climate advocacy, but few other rich business types who go for other causes, but this one seems to be the big liberal cause.

 

[PhilipJames]

It's over. And even many former deniers are now accepting that it's a fact.

ah yes, the cry of the UNskeptical... nothing tells me that the issue has gone from being a scientific theory to a propaganda campaign more than that.

That unfortunately is the kind of junk science that leads to all kinds of political abuses of power in the name of said 'science'...
Eugenics anyone?


I have demonstrated a theory that is at LEAST as plausible for climate change than man made global warming, and you have not even considered it thoroughly before affirming that the scientific debate is over... this despite that all the IPCC temperature 'forecasts' since 1990 have been wrong...



we are indeed in the endgame, here is my conclusion:

The idea that man can affect the climate of the Earth more than marginally is nothing more than the usual human hubris, that we are masters of our domain...

in fact it is the large nuclear furnace in the sky that drives our climate and there is nothing that we can do about it, except to adapt to current conditions.

The diversion of huge amounts of resources to try and stop 'climate change' is wasteful at best and could much better be used dealing with real problems and real pollutants other than Co2


PhilipJames

 

[jgarden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

 

[Ktoyou]

Can you tell us why the American Psychiatric Association in 1974 changed homosexuality from being a mental disorder that was treatable to being completely normal when there was no new data, evidence, breakthrough, discovery, etc.?

OK. This is from Reuben Fine, "History of Psychoanalysis" which is mnay years beyond medical degree, or Ph.D psychology.

"'THE BIZARRE RECLASSIFICATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISTURBANCE', AND THE EFFORT TO EXCLUDE LONG TERM ANALYSIS FROM THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE:

It was dropped by DSM 3 to ego-diatonic disorder for those who disliked being homosexual.

 

[tetelestai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

So now you're going to attempt to compare the man made global warming hoax to Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism?

 

[tetelestai]

OK. This is from Reuben Fine, "History of Psychoanalysis" which is mnay years beyond medical degree, or Ph.D psychology.

"'THE BIZARRE RECLASSIFICATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISTURBANCE', AND THE EFFORT TO EXCLUDE LONG TERM ANALYSIS FROM THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE:

It was dropped by DSM 3 to ego-diatonic disorder for those who disliked be homosexual.

Which proves that thousands of people with PhD's changed their position on something with absolutely no new evidence, new data, new discoveries, etc.

It proves that thousands of people with PhD's changed their position on something based solely on politics and ideology, and not facts.

 

[rexlunae]

The website "Skeptical Science" is a favorite of the hoax believers such as yourself.

Sounds like a start.

Let's look back at what Skeptical Science said in 2010:

"So far, in 2010 there have been 337 warm records versus 13 cool records." HERE

Do you see what they were doing back in 2010?

Demonstrating that, while some places were cold in 2010, a lot more places were warm.

Let's continue with the article:

In 2009, the ratio was 80 (warm) to 15 (cool).

In 2008, it was 40 (warm) to 18 (cool).

In 2007, it was 133 (warm) to 9 (cool). And so on...

Now do you see what they were doing?

Establishing a multi-year pattern?

But then in 2013 when we started having more record lows than record highs, Skeptical Science didn't have anything to say about it.

2013 marked the first year where there were more record lows than highs.

The unusual thing is that despite the number of record lows in 2013 exceeded the number of record highs, and yet, it was still one of the warmest on records. The number of record highs and lows can be a useful and concrete thing to point to, but it isn't decisive about the underlying theory which is about the average mean surface temperature, not the nature of the anomalies.

 

[tetelestai]

it was still one of the warmest on records.

Only because NOAA/NASA changed the historical records.

The number of record highs and lows can be a useful and concrete thing to point to,

You hoax proponents only do it when there are record highs.

When there are record lows, you dismiss it.