# 15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2013)

Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior



I'll tell them whats going on. The k00ks are losing.....again!!!!

I damn near split my sides laughing when I saw this posted up on the top of DRUDGE tonight.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2013)




----------



## PMZ (Sep 2, 2013)

Yes sir. Look at all the money being invested in bringing obsolete fossil energy supply up to demand.  All of the new coal plants.  All of the new gas guzzlers coming out.  All of the new oil wells being dried.  

Rush's cult is winning big.


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 2, 2013)

does this mean that the bears there will be headed south to the mainland sooner than expected for the winter? Oh wait, or was it the birds that head south ? I forgot.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 2, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"
> 
> Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior
> 
> ...



Let us guess: just because it&#8217;s &#8216;cold&#8217; in Alaska during the summer you believe that&#8217;s &#8216;proof&#8217; there&#8217;s no GCC. 

Because if &#8216;global warming&#8217; were real, it would be &#8216;warmer&#8217; everywhere, not colder. 

Too funny.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 2, 2013)

As an Alaskan farmer, I would welcome "global warming".  But it ain't happening as advertised...DAMN!~


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2013)

AGWCult responds:

a. you fool! It's climate, it's only weather, er I mean it's weather, not climate

b. you fool! Our models PREDICTED that!

c. you fool! The oceans ate all the Global Warming


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 2, 2013)

Cold in northern Alaska.

What a surprise.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 2, 2013)

One has to feel very sorry for the Dittohead Nation.  Coming at a science issue with no science,  only politics.  

Tough position to be in.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 2, 2013)

It's Alaska, who expects something else?  P.S. It's 60 F here...go figure?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 2, 2013)

Hottest August in Salt Lake City ever and will be the hottest summer ever.


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 2, 2013)

does it ever get so cold that it shuts off electricity there?


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 2, 2013)

I have largely stayed out of such debate, and once claimed a "fence-sitter" attitude with regards to "climate change",  AGW,  Global Warming, etc. 

My entire life has been financed by the production of liquid hydrocarbons. As was my father's life, and his father's life. My children's births, diapers, food, clothing, schooling... all paid for by receipts of sale from liquid hydrocarbons. 

I've personally witnessed every Democrat President after Eisenhower (AND Nixon) attempt to dismantle my family's way of life. We fought through repression and suppression, "Windfall Profit" taxes, $8 oil, public resentment, ridicule, contempt, and outright vilification. 

I am well versed in the science, technology, methodology, practices, and usage of hydrocarbons. 

And I am sick and fucking tired of being the whipping boy. 

Yet here I sit. On the fence. 

Am I contributing to the destruction and degradation of earth's natural balance? Has my father done so? Did his father? 

I think, no more so than anyone else on this planet who has ever lived and consumed. 

And so I am committed to the continual production of a much needed and vital commodity that all of humanity so dearly needs to simply exist in today's world. 

And for that I am proud. Of myself, my father, and his father.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 2, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> As an Alaskan farmer, I would welcome "global warming".  But it ain't happening as advertised...DAMN!~



Pishaw!
My California garden didn't fare too well over the 'hot' summer.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 2, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> It's Alaska, who expects something else?  P.S. It's 60 F here...go figure?



Srsly?
No term dust yet?

Those are tanning temps!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 2, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > As an Alaskan farmer, I would welcome "global warming".  But it ain't happening as advertised...DAMN!~
> ...



Hey!  I have "harvested" a few tomatoes!  They are green house grown, but still...
I have a nice potato harvest, though!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 2, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > It's Alaska, who expects something else?  P.S. It's 60 F here...go figure?
> ...



Right you are...hunting season and no termination dust...you know us too well.  I'll let you know...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 2, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"
> 
> Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior
> I'll tell them whats going on. The k00ks are losing.....again!!!!
> ...



LOLOLOL......oh kookles, you are just so amazingly retarded....

Alaska has been blazing hot all summer, breaking all kinds of records, and now they're having some cooler weather finally and you take that as 'proof' that there is no warming trend.....so, so retarded....

*Fish die as Alaska temperatures continue to break records*
Reuters
By Yereth Rosen
Fri, Aug 2 2013
(excerpts)
*ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska's summer heat wave has been pleasant for humans but punitive for some of its fish. Overheated water has been blamed for large die-offs of hatchery trout and salmon stocks in at least two parts of the state as hot, dry weather has set in, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Hundreds of grayling and rainbow trout died in June after being placed in a Fairbanks lake, the department reported. A similar incident occurred in mid-July at the Crystal Lake Hatchery south of Petersburg in southeast Alaska. An estimated 1,100 hatchery king salmon died while returning to a lake to spawn, local public radio station KFSK reported. Fish and Game sport fish biologist Doug Fleming told the radio station that air temperatures were in the 80s at the time.

Record-breaking heat has also created elevated wildfire risks in Alaska, even in the normally rain-soaked Tongass National Forest in the state's southeastern panhandle. Wildfires have charred more than a million acres across Alaska, according to state and federal wildfire managers, more than the five-year season-total annual average of 952,113 acres. Some 75 active fires were still burning on Friday, with much of the fire season still to come. One blaze that has consumed 85,000 acres near Fairbanks has drawn congressional scrutiny. Numerous heat records have fallen this year around the state throughout the summer. Fairbanks on Thursday set a new record for the total number of summer days with temperatures at 80 degrees or above in that city - 31 straight to beat the previous mark of 30 days set in 2004, the National Weather Service said. Anchorage on Wednesday set a new benchmark for consecutive days with temperatures at 70 degrees or above, with a 14-day run that bested the previous record, set in 2004, by one day. Daily record temperatures have been set over the past week in Anchorage, Valdez, McGrath and King Salmon. Numerous other communities saw record highs earlier in the summer.*


----------



## asterism (Sep 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"
> ...



So no new record highs, just new records of consecutive days above a certain temperature in cities.

Wouldn't that just be the UHI effect?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

asterism said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *Fish die as Alaska temperatures continue to break records*
> ...



Jeez, ass-ism, if you're clueless and blind, and you so obviously are, and you don't know squat about it, why do you post? Why do you imagine your lazy uninformed speculations are worth anyone's time. Here's the reality of what was happening in Alaska earlier this summer....

*Alaska sweating through brutal blast of heat*
NBC News
By Sophia Rosenbaum, NBC News
25 Jun 2013
(excerpts)
*Famed for its biting cold, Alaska is now sweating through a brutal heat wave that has gone from an oddball curiosity to a worrisome danger. Temperatures in the 90s -- an extreme rarity -- were preceded by a record-breaking cold snap. That caused rapid snow melts in parts of the state and localized flooding. Now, the above-normal heat has led to parts of Alaska to be placed under a red-flag warning for wildfires. The National Weather Service issued the warning, in effect until Wednesday, because of the dry, windy conditions that could cause wildfires. 

The blast of heat started last week with temperatures in the mid-to-high 80s for most of Alaska. South-central Alaska had four all-time highs on June 17, with temperatures in Talkeetna reaching 94 degrees. In Fairbanks, the near-record temperatures are expected Wednesday and Thursday to clock in at 91 degrees. Temperatures above 90 are extremely rare in Alaska. Fairbanks has only experienced 90 or above 14 times since in 109 years. A large northward bulge in the jet stream is to blame, consensus shows. Some scientists tie the jet stream's odd behavior on climate change. *


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 3, 2013)

well if its 15 degrees now, then can we assume it will be 65 below zero in February? thats almost as cold as Planet Uranus.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2013)

The climate crusaders don't understand what the rest of the world understands: that reality is 95% perception.

People see 15 degrees in August and say to themselves, "WTF? Once again, the warmist people keep getting it wrong!". This is exactly why nobody is talking about climate legislation in this country. Only the OCD climate nutters get all angst about this shit.......which is why the "retards" keep winning. Which is the only thing that matters. The climate k00sk spend their lives falling all over themselves posting up bomb lobbing predictions that never pan out. People are tired of this hyper-hysteria......thus, nobody cares about the science anymore.


When will they care?


When we have front page news that the lakes have melted in Alaska in mid-January and we are seeing 70 degree temperatures for 3 weeks straight.......waterskiing on Alaskan lakes in January. Then people will pay attention.....not a moment sooner. The grim reality for the k00ks.


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 3, 2013)

so what is the weather today in Alaska?


----------



## asterism (Sep 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So a heat wave that followed a record breaking cold snap is proof of what again?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> The climate crusaders don't understand what the rest of the world understands: that reality is 95% perception.
> 
> People see 15 degrees in August and say to themselves, "WTF? Once again, the warmist people keep getting it wrong!". This is exactly why nobody is talking about climate legislation in this country. Only the OCD climate nutters get all angst about this shit.......which is why the "retards" keep winning. Which is the only thing that matters. The climate k00sk spend their lives falling all over themselves posting up bomb lobbing predictions that never pan out. People are tired of this hyper-hysteria......thus, nobody cares about the science anymore.
> 
> ...



In other words,  there are those who start to solve problems in time to avoid catastrophes,  and there are those who do nothing until nothing can be done to avoid catastrophes. I agree.  

Thats the very definition of conservative and liberal.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

asterism said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



It is "_proof_" that the OP from the kookster is a pile of steaming BS. Did you imagine, like a good little denier cultist, that his report of some colder temperatures now in Alaska after a summer of record breaking heat there was "_proof_" of something, like maybe 'global warming is over'? Climate scientists have been predicting weird unusual weather as a result of global warming and specifically the melting of the Arctic ice cap and here we are experiencing some very weird weather, not just in Alaska, but all around the world.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 3, 2013)

I'm not sure how many of you "kooks" debating the issue actually live in Alaska.  I do live here.  The only factual statement that can be made about our weather is, it changes.  Overall, our climate has changed little except for normal cyclic variations.  I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would have such a high opinion of themselves that they actually think they have some kind of effect on global climate.  But then, you probably also think that your "god" made you to look just like him/her/it, don't you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> I'm not sure how many of you "kooks" debating the issue actually live in Alaska.  I do live here.  The only factual statement that can be made about our weather is, it changes.  Overall, our climate has changed little except for normal cyclic variations.  I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would have such a high opinion of themselves that they actually think they have some kind of effect on global climate.  But then, you probably also think that your "god" made you to look just like him/her/it, don't you.



Us civilized people have learned that there are many fields in which we have to rely on people who dedicate their lives to a field, for understanding that is beyond our capability.  The fact that your claim to climate science comes from your experience as an Alaskan farmer is telling.  That's like me declaring myself able to pilot a plane because I once had a bird for a pet.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure how many of you "kooks" debating the issue actually live in Alaska.  I do live here.  The only factual statement that can be made about our weather is, it changes.  Overall, our climate has changed little except for normal cyclic variations.  I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone would have such a high opinion of themselves that they actually think they have some kind of effect on global climate.  But then, you probably also think that your "god" made you to look just like him/her/it, don't you.
> ...



You "civilized" people have learned to mimic the paid shills who vomit the so-called data and "facts" that they are paid to provide in order to support government intrusion into the most minute details of everyday life.  Oh, and if you really want people who have dedicated their lives to something, check out the farmers, fishers, and others who live close to the land and actually live with the cycles that this planet goes through, not your ivory tower priests and priestesses of your new religion, climate-change.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


The usual paranoid conspiracy theory excuse for dismissing the mountains of scientific research and evidence......plus some really idiotic blather. Sorry, Gallingretard, I'll believe the testimony of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who look at the whole picture over the politically determined half-assed opinions of ignorant, narrow minded farmers like yourself who can't see past the end of the next furrow.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



We all have to decide whether to be influenced by those who dedicate their lives to mastering a field,  or those who don't,  but are compelled to act like it,  and hope that if they blabber loud enough,  somebody will not notice their ignorance. 

The second kind make the most dedicated conspiracy theorists,  as that can be part of their disguise as knowing something. 

Your problem here is that you can't get away with what works at the feed store and local bars. 

Except maybe the part of making an ass of yourself.


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 3, 2013)

well lets see what happens when its 15 degrees in Canada come November.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> well lets see what happens when its 15 degrees in Canada come November.



So you still can't quite grasp the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

BTW, do you really consider it surprising that it might be cold in Canada in the winter?


----------



## asterism (Sep 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> TheSeventhTiger said:
> 
> 
> > well lets see what happens when its 15 degrees in Canada come November.
> ...



A few record highs on some days this year is climate?

Hmmmm..........


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

asterism said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > TheSeventhTiger said:
> ...



The fact of AGW is a scientific given.  The more GHG molecules there are in the atmosphere,  the less of earth's radiation escapes the system.  When out is less than in,  the only response possible is warming until balance is restored. 

What's not known yet is how our landmass,  water mass,  ice mass,  and atmosphere dynamically react to the warming imperative.  

It seems impossible for that transitory process to not involve the components of and contributors to climate and therefore weather.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"
> ...



Every time there's a heat wave, all you AGW nutburgers come out of the woodwork to shout "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" 

Why do you object to others using your own means of determining the facts?


----------



## asterism (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



The more people I have seen that say things such as "the fact of AGW is a scientific given," the more I have come to realize that they never actually took a look at the processes used to glean these trends.  Since the raw data from historic GHCN temperature readings are now gone, the fix is in.

Since you claim that "the only response possible is warming," why have there not been record highs every day?  Why has the warming paused while the GHG concentrations have shot up continuously?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Mental cases like RT cant connect the dots. Its a thinking processing issue.

15 degrees in August in Alaska doesn't prove shit. Neither does the hot summer. THATS the whole fucking point.

Reality is 95% perception......clearly a fact.

Why do you think climate change legislation is in the shitter in America? Because nobody cares about the "consensus" science except the OCD social invalids like RT et. al. who eat, sleep and breath this shit. Nobody else does. So.......they see 15 degrees in August and some green asshole shows up at their door to sign a petition and people split their sides laughing. NOBODY is calling their representative demanding carbon restrictions except the handful of nutters like people on this board. 

Think about it......on this board.......how many people check into the ENVIRONMENT forum consistently? Half a dozen? Maybe? Nobody cares about this nonsense.


Climate science in 2013 is nothing but a fucking internet hobby. Show me *one* link that proves otherwise!! Good luck.........


*When the "consensus" science doesn't move the goalposts an inch on energy production, its a fucking hobby s0ns!!!!!!*


Bottom line >>>>>>>>>>>>








Those with connect the dots abilities are >>>>>


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 3, 2013)

ok, got a question. did "Global Warming" cause any of the ice-ages over the last 70 Million years?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

asterism said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > TheSeventhTiger said:
> ...



That's not what I said. To demonstrate how bogus the kookster's OP was, I cited the facts about how Alaska was having a really hot, record breaking hot summer just a little earlier this year. 

Although there are still many natural factors at work in the Arctic that can make the weather either hotter or colder for a time, the reality is that both the unusually hot weather earlier in June and July and the unusually cold weather up there in some places in late August, that kookles cited, are symptomatic of the overall long term pattern of climate changes taking place in the Arctic due to the rapidly rising temperatures and the melting icecap. The jet stream is moving in unusual ways because of the already slightly changed climate up north, helping to create some of the wacky unusual weather we've experienced here in America these last two years (and longer). The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the temperate zones.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2013)

lmao....that's the new ruse....the jet stream is moving due to global warming!!! These mental cases come up with new BS every day. But its still not mattering in the real world


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



If you don't understand college level physics and chemistry, there is no way for you to understand what I said. 

What's good for the world is that whether you do or not doesn't matter. Responsible people who do, will solve the problem no matter what you know or think.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Reality is 100% reality to people who understand science. Many don't, but they don't matter. The ones that do will provide the solutions. The ones that don't will do what they always do. Whine.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


_...that I don't understand science at all"_. At least, that's what you should be realizing. Gosh darn that old Dunning-Kruger Effect.






asterism said:


> that they never actually took a look at the processes used to glean these trends.


-- Wrong. That's a very ignorant and naive assumption. Plus you seem to assume that the scientists who do the research are either idiots or crooks, which is another very foolish assumption.







asterism said:


> Since the raw data from historic GHCN temperature readings are now gone,


Total denier cult BS. 





asterism said:


> the fix is in.


More delusional BS and crackpot conspiracy theory nonsense.






asterism said:


> Since you claim that "the only response possible is warming," why have there not been record highs every day?


Natural factors still modulate local weather patterns within an overall trend of rising average temperatures. He was talking about "the only response possible is warming" in relation to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and their effect on the whole planet. Local weather is still quite variable. There are still going to be some record cold days. Only now there are many more record hot days every year compared to the number of record cold days. Which is another indicator of the rising temperature trend.





asterism said:


> Why has the warming paused while the GHG concentrations have shot up continuously?


The warming of the Earth as a whole has not "_paused_" at all; in fact it has accelerated. The rate at which the surface layer of air on our planet had been warming over the three previous decades slowed down somewhat this last decade or so and the rate at which the oceans have been warming increased over that same period. Over the next five or six years, we will very probably see surface temperature rapidly spike again as some of that stored ocean heat is brought back to the surface by the next strong El Niño event in the Pacific.


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 3, 2013)

I don't know how anyone can live up there in the winter. whats there to do when u live on an ice-cube?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> ok, got a question. did "Global Warming" cause any of the ice-ages over the last 70 Million years?



No. But it helped to end them.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One has to feel very sorry for the Dittohead Nation.  Coming at a science issue with no science,  only politics.



Because that's not what the warming cultists are doing, right?


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 3, 2013)

This just shows that Global Warming is real........


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 3, 2013)

I would pay to go to a global warming summit hosted by Beavis and Butthead. {answering all of the questions} lol, wouldn't be much difference if it was Al Gore taking the questions.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One has to feel very sorry for the Dittohead Nation.  Coming at a science issue with no science,  only politics.
> ...



We have all the science on our side. You have a minority political position. The first and biggest issue is the science. You lost that big time. The second issue is politics. By making yourself so unpopular that you won't be elected to any major office for decades, you've sealed your fate on that too.

All that's left is the whining and we're used to that. We'll just have to carry you and your whining and crying over the finish line like we always have.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> I would pay to go to a global warming summit hosted by Beavis and Butthead. {answering all of the questions} lol, wouldn't be much difference if it was Al Gore taking the questions.



One things for sure. You'll never go to a denier summit.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 3, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> I don't know how anyone can live up there in the winter. whats there to do when u live on an* ice-cube*?



Skate and ice fishing come to mind


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 3, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> I don't know how anyone can live up there in the winter. whats there to do when u live on an ice-cube?



Play cribbage and drink beer!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Great.......well I hope the scientists stand up and take a bow!! And those who idolize them......take a bow......take a bow!!!

But nobody cares......*the science is ineffectual*. And that's all that matters to me and all of the other non-religion people on this forum and everywhere else. And the solutions? Please.....take another bow. Solar and wind!!! Very impressive......but only to the k00ks impressed with growth stats that are measured against themselves. Together.......3% of energy output and ANY projection 30 years hence has renewables at less than 10%. The scientists can take a bow.......evidently, nobody is noticing. The reality s0n!!


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I understand it fairly well, which is why your statement "the only response possible is warming," is wrong.

As for saying that "responsible people who do, will solve the problem," how is that working out so far?  Your side is losing.  It appears to me that this group of "experts" is almost as good at PR and policy as they are at data analysis and software development.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You don't know that much of the raw data is gone do you?  That's not crackpot nonsense, it's fact.  That's been my issue for about 10 years now, that the data has not been handled correctly.  Even data that is called "raw" is adjusted, averaged, and "homogenized."  Raw station data (temperature readings, dates, times, locations) are not available for many time periods and stations.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Do what no other denier has never done here before. Show us some science that theorizes a different response. 

How much is being invested now in obsolete energy? New oil wells? Coal mines? Fossil power plants? Gas guzzler cars?

The debate is over. You have never had any science on your side. Your shut down of Congress has made you virtually unelectable for decades. There term conservative investor is an oxymoron. What exactly are you winning? You still have Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on your side?


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

My error.  I used the term GHCN when I was talking about climate data in general.  CRU data is referenced in these articles.

Climate Change Scandal: Raw Data Tossed

Global Warming ate my data ? The Register

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online


----------



## Surfer (Sep 4, 2013)

Damn global warming...


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"Obsolete energy?"  

A graph illustrating the fallacy of your claim has already been posted by someone else here:






I generally support alternative energy because it's more sustainable and when properly developed it will be much less expensive and more efficient than fossil fuels.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that any of that is going to happen soon.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



We determine how rapidly the transition will occur. I agree that there is an economic sweet spot between too rapidly and too slowly. Mostly that will be explored by investors including the taxpayer through government. 

The biggest opportunity at the present is just to slow down throwing good energy away for no benefit, just because we remember it as so cheap. Waste is rampant in our obsolete energy system.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





Fascinating.......guy references Bertrand Russell in his sig and states "we determine how rapidly the transition will occur."


As I have noted many times in this forum, the hyper-progressives never, ever factor "costs" into their thinking on virtually any subject, but most notably on the issue of global warming/energy production. Last year the UN calculated the cost of going green: 71 trillion dollars. Only hyperprogressives look at that number and say "meh".......


Fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for decades and decades.....100% certainty. The only thing that may change that is a discovery of an energy form we currently do not posses......but anybody who thinks that solar/wind will ever be anything more than a fringe market is somebody who will be on 10 North of the local hospital sooner or later.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So, please share your proposed solution to the problem.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

These assholes don't have a solution that works in the real world......which is why ultimately, nobody takes them seriously. Not my opinion......verified with facts. Just look at the slug-like pace of the growth of solar and wind in the past 10 years ( stats compared to fossil fuels.....not against themselves which is total BS). It laughable......and investment in both have fallen like a stone in water in the past 3 years!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)




----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


No, ass-ism, you don't understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect. You've made that very clear. Your delusion that you do understand it all, even better than the professional scientists too, is a common one among ignorant retards like yourself and it is a product of the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*. 

A simple summery of the physics that makes PMZ's statement correct and your delusions wrong.

*Greenhouse effect*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]*


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



You don't know much...period. Your denier cult myth about the "_raw data_" being "_thrown out_" or "_gone_" is indeed crackpot nonsense, you poor gullible fool. Your denier cult delusions about how the data has supposedly been mis-handled are also crackpot nonsense. You've been duped by the clever propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry.






asterism said:


> My error.  I used the term GHCN when I was talking about climate data in general.  CRU data is referenced in these articles.
> 
> Climate Change Scandal: Raw Data Tossed
> 
> ...



LOLOLOLOL....oh, ass-ism, you are soooo gullible...

*Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data*
Media Matters
December 1, 2009
(excerpts)
*Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words of the New York Post, echoing a recent London Times article that said it is "now impossible" to examine how the CRU made its conclusions. In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it -- director Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its original station data" in its database because those "stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends."

CRU scientist: "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there." According to an October 14 Greenwire article, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center." The article said that Jones' statement came after the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) "blasted the research unit for the 'suspicious destruction of its original data.' " The article further noted that Jones "said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all" and that "[t]he research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said."

At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies. Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency. The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. "When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world." Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."*


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 4, 2013)

well look at the good side of a "Frozen Alaskla" at least the skaters will never have to worry about falling thru cracked ice and have to fight off those "Shark-Nados".


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> well look at the good side of a "Frozen Alaskla" at least the skaters will never have to worry about falling thru cracked ice and have to fight off those "Shark-Nados".



It won't be long before we're all going to be wishing that Alaska was still frozen...

*Study finds permafrost thaw, glacier melt releasing methane*
Reuters
By Yereth Rosen
May 21, 2012
(excerpts)
*ANCHORAGE, Alaska - (Reuters) - Methane from underground reservoirs is streaming from thawing permafrost and receding glaciers, contributing to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere, a study led by scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has found. The study, published online on Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first to document leakage of deep geologic methane from warming permafrost and receding glaciers, said its lead author, Katey Walter Anthony. Release of methane into the atmosphere from any source is troubling because methane has far more potent greenhouse powers than carbon dioxide, climate scientists say. Methane has more than 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide, University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers said. Scientists have speculated about such methane releases and modeling has predicted that it would happen as the cryosphere - the earth's layer of ice and frozen ground - softens and melts, Walter Anthony said in a telephone news conference on Monday. "But no one had ever shown that it was occurring or that it was a widespread phenomenon," she said. "This paper really is the first time that we see with field evidence that this type of geologic methane is escaping as the cryosphere retreats."

The leaking geologic methane identified by Walter Anthony and her colleagues comes from such sources as underground coal beds and conventional natural gas reservoirs. Those are fossil fuels that energy companies target in drilling operations. It differs from the methane streaming from decaying plant and animal matter at the bottom of warming Alaska lakes, a phenomenon that Walter Anthony has studied for about a decade.*


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 4, 2013)

Next summer will be the second "Warmer Than Usual Summer" test. if they have back to back warmer summers, then we can all buy stock in fans and air-conditioning units.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



This should be an easy proof.

Post the data.  Don't post statements from someone else, post the actual raw data.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> This should be an easy proof.
> 
> Post the data.  Don't post statements from someone else, post the actual raw data.



OK, here you go - *CRU Data - Temperature*

and

*Land surface climate station records
Download a subset of the full HadCRUT3 record of global temperatures.*

Now we come to the amusing place where we all realize that you wouldn't know what to do with "_raw data_" if it bit you.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > This should be an easy proof.
> ...



So explain this:

Temperature station data



> Station data file
> 
> Header file - as above
> Year followed by 12 monthly temperatures in degrees and tenths (with -999 being missing)



Are you aware that a monthly temperature is not raw data, it is in fact some type of average?  That's not raw data.  As I have posted previously, the methods used are not sound and the raw data doesn't exist.

Show some actual raw data.


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 4, 2013)

and remember when their version of wal-mart ran out of fans in july?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I like the conservative approach to problem solving.  Ignore them and believe that that's cheaper than solving them.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."



How long before someone repeats the claim that CRU destroyed data?  A week?  A day? An hour?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

You have no idea what you're talking about, ass-ism. You just endlessly parrot long since debunked denier cult myths and misinformation.


*OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted*
New Scientist
by Andy Coghlan
28 July 2011 
(excerpts)
*Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public. "We released [the dataset] to dispel the myths that the data have been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says Trevor Davies, the university's pro-vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we've released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing." The university were ordered to release data by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, following a freedom-of-information request for the raw data from researchers Jonathan Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, UK. Davies says that the university initially refused on the grounds that the data is not owned by the CRU but by the national meteorological organisations that collect the data and share it with the CRU. When the CRU's refusal was overruled by the information commissioner, the UK Met Office was recruited to act as a go-between and obtain permission to release all the data. Poland refused, and the information commissioner overruled Trinidad and Tobago's wish for the data it supplied on latitudes between 30 degrees north and 40 degrees south to be withheld, as it had been specifically requested by Jones and Keiller in their FOI request and previously shared with other academics. The end result is that all the records are there, except for Poland's. 

Davies is confident that genuine and proper analysis of the raw data will reproduce the same incontrovertible conclusion  that global temperatures are rising. "The conclusion is very robust," he says, explaining that the CRU's dataset of land temperatures tally with those from other independent research groups around the world, including those generated by the NOAA and NASA. "Should people undertake analyses and come up with different conclusions, the way to present them is through publication in peer-reviewed journals, so we know it's been through scientific quality control," says Davies.*


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

Here is where the raw data is supposedly kept:

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

The problem is that none of the actual raw data is there.  They have all been adjusted, averaged, and normalized.  

This archive:  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/zip/e/0/station_files.20110720.zip  has invidividual files for each of the stations.  Inside each of the station files are the entire history for that station expressed only as monthly average anomalies.

That's the problem, most of the "science is settled" crowd hasn't looked at the raw data used to create these average anomalies.  They take it as true.  As the climategate emails have shown, the programs used to process this data are severely lacking in skill and education on the part of the programmers.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about, ass-ism. You just endlessly parrot long since debunked denier cult myths and misinformation.
> 
> 
> *OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted*
> ...



I already found my way there following your other link.  There's no raw data there.  The data is adjusted and averaged.  There are no raw temperature readings in any of those files.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> Here is where the raw data is supposedly kept:
> 
> Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
> 
> ...


Actually the raw data is there. You're just too stupid and brainwashed to be competent to recognize it, ass-ism.







asterism said:


> As the climategate emails have shown, the programs used to process this data are severely lacking in skill and education on the part of the programmers.


Wrong again. You're just a clueless ignorant f-khead parroting the lies you've been fed by propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Here is where the raw data is supposedly kept:
> ...



This should be easy to prove.  Tell us which station for which series has actual temperature readings, and which archive it's in.  A monthly average anomaly is not a temperature reading.


----------



## Toro (Sep 4, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"
> 
> Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior
> 
> ...



Why?

In the 1980s, it snowed in August a couple hundred miles north of where I lived in Saskatchewan.  It also snowed in June in my hometown.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

Apparently deniers are of the opinion that every time we dump another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, the high temperature for that day, and at every place on earth,  increases by the same amount. 

And with that stunning logic in hand, they declare themselves better equipped to understand AGW than the IPCC. 

Given that disconnect from reality, there is really no reason at all for anyone to pay the slightest attention to any of them.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Apparently deniers are of the opinion that every time we dump another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, the high temperature for that day, and at every place on earth,  increases by the same amount.
> 
> And with that stunning logic in hand, they declare themselves better equipped to understand AGW than the IPCC.
> 
> Given that disconnect from reality, there is really no reason at all for anyone to pay the slightest attention to any of them.



Couldn't find any raw data could you?

Yeah, that's what I thought.  The interesting thing is that I have not been critical of anyone on a personal level discussing this topic.  The science actually matters to me.  I've been skeptical of many things before, and given the proper research I've been corrected.  

The easiest thing for me to do is break from typical conservative views (like I have on gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, prison privatization, gays in the military, and defense spending) as long as I can see enough to sway me.  Something simple like scientific data should be a no-brainer.  

So why the silly name-calling and the childish attitudes?  Is your position that weak?


(Oh and you may wish to research your vaunted IPCC a little - apparently you don't know that they aren't all that good about sticking to the science.)


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

And Im still laughing!!! Fcukers up there have their goretex and thermal parka's on in summer.....middle of the so called age of global warming!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Apparently deniers are of the opinion that every time we dump another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, the high temperature for that day, and at every place on earth,  increases by the same amount.
> 
> And with that stunning logic in hand, they declare themselves better equipped to understand AGW than the IPCC.
> 
> Given that disconnect from reality, there is really no reason at all for anyone to pay the slightest attention to any of them.







Reality in Realville is a hoot s0n!!! Death of Cap and Trade........green energy investment drops like a stone in water.......coal boom in Europe!!!! Its called winning!!!






Kim Strassel: Cap and Trade Is Dead - WSJ.com


http://www.thegwpf.org/coal-boom-germany-open-coal-power-stations-2013/


http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-03-21/germany-plans-boom-in-coal-power-plantsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/03/business/europe-shale-gas-revival



http://www.qando.net/?p=8481



http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/November/Spains-Green-Disaster-a-Lesson-for-America/


http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/221183-report-us-political-and-policy-uncertainty-drives-down-green-investment


Because winning......is the greatest feeling in the world!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kedOQhty8gc]Sunoco "City of Victory w/Jimmie Johnson" Big Science Music - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently deniers are of the opinion that every time we dump another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, the high temperature for that day, and at every place on earth,  increases by the same amount.
> ...



So,  tell us about your and Rush's scientific accomplishments and credentials.  Also the resources that you have at your disposal for data gathering,  climate modeling,  and experimentation.  Then,  while you're at it,  your theoretical work on how increased atmospheric GHG concentrations do not lead to AGW. 


You have my full attention.


----------



## asterism (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I've already listed my credentials.  You can do a search of my posts to find them (the important ones are recent).  

I have no resources at my disposal for data gathering, that's why I want the raw data from all the other cited sources - or at least the 1878-1996 station data.


Are you honestly saying that the science is so settled that it's not something you and I should be able to scrutinize?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> Are you honestly saying that the science is so settled that it's not something you and I should be able to scrutinize?



Scrutinize all you want, but you have no justification for opposing mainstream findings while you do so.  AGW is real and is a threat.  Humanity needs to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Are you honestly saying that the science is so settled that it's not something you and I should be able to scrutinize?
> ...



Let me know when the AGW Cult orders you to stop posting online because that burns up "Fossil Fuels"


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And you have my full attention, what is your suggested solution to the warming trends?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



You may not scrutinize, you must accept the gospel of global warming on faith alone.  To gainsay or question is heresy.


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Are you honestly saying that the science is so settled that it's not something you and I should be able to scrutinize?
> ...



Then why aren't the raw data sets released?


----------



## editec (Sep 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



If you are the scientist you seem to be claiming you are, you ought to have no problem getting hold of that raw data.


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

editec said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Couldn't find any either, could you?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The solution is to do what we have to do anyway. Get off of obsolete fuels and stop dumping consequential waste into the atmosphere of the only home that we have. We don't need to anymore. We've learned the consequences. We're starting to see the cost implications of rapidly rising international demand against failing supply. We have the technology to move on.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

It's interesting to see folks who have demonstrated clearly their inability to understand climate science asking for raw data. It's clear what they are capable of doing with it.

Absolutely nothing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

It's interesting to see folks who want to Detrotify the USA based upon a some vague and phony "theory" that never gets tested so can never be falsified. It's clear what their real goals are


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How do you propose we "get off obsolete fuels and stop dumping consequential waste"?  It's fine to say all those nice words but that's all they are, words with little meaning unless there's a workable, viable plan to execute those thoughts.  What technology will enable us to "move on"?  Move on to what?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting to see folks who have demonstrated clearly their inability to understand climate science asking for raw data. It's clear what they are capable of doing with it.
> 
> Absolutely nothing.



You're not fooling anyone with this attempt to weasel out of providing the raw data.  Only a scientific ignoramus or a fraud would dispute the importance of having the raw data available.


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to see folks who have demonstrated clearly their inability to understand climate science asking for raw data. It's clear what they are capable of doing with it.
> ...



I think it's starting to bother him that he didn't understand the difference between temperature readings and monthly averages of temperature anomalies.

Imagine if an astronomer told an amateur that he couldn't look through his telescope because he wouldn't how to use it.  Imagine if a lawyer refused to cite a statute or case law when talking to his client because he wouldn't know how to read it.  Imagine if a physician refused to show a patient the MRI because he wouldn't know what he's looking at.

It appears climatology is a special science, one that only insiders can understand, and one only becomes an insider if they agree with AGW.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yep, we can't look at the actual numbers because we just wouldn't understand!

Meanwhile, they don't understand the difference between a temperature reading and a monthly average.


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yup, they are just repeating talking points.  I say the raw data was destroyed and the name-callers post a link to someone saying that the data is curated at a meteorological office.  Since I don't accept that as fact, I'm called more names and given a cut and paste from an article.  Then when I actually went to every place referenced and found that there wasn't any raw data, I was again called names and told I'm too stupid to see it.  Then when I posed a direct and easily proven query, more name-calling.

No proof, nothing to refute my claim, just childish language.  

Of course this is the same set of people who say that professional programmers can't critique software written by geologists, while at the same time saying that people who aren't climatologists are unqualified to speak about climate.  Except for the ones who agree with AGW, then they don't even need a degree to be considered knowledgeable.

Funny stuff.  But no actual data yet.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Absolutely.  Because AGW has been established by science as the current reality.  You will not be accepted as a climate science expert if you don't know climate science which says that AGW is current reality.  

Somehow the worlds Dittoheads think that there is a place at some table for them when they continuously demonstrate that current climate science is beyond them.  Why would you think that?  

Would you go to a witch doctor for a cancer cure?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



ROFL!  So anyone who isn't in this exclusive club is not allowed to question what goes on there?   Those who do not accept the word of Gol are not "of the body."  They are heretics who will be eliminated.

The stupidity is mind blowing!



PMZ said:


> Somehow the worlds Dittoheads think that there is a place at some table for them when they continuously demonstrate that current climate science is beyond them.  Why would you think that?



What we demonstrate is that AGW is a cult, not science.  The people you call "climate scientists" are the high priests of this cult.  Dupes like you mindlessly accept whatever the priesthood tells you because you don't really understand it.



PMZ said:


> Would you go to a witch doctor for a cancer cure?



The irony of that is precious.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

When you ask the astronomer to look through is telescope, you're taking up his valuable viewing time.  When you demand that climate scientists save every bit of data, uncompressed, just so you can demand to see it as a spot check on their integrity and - more likely - harassment, you take up their time and resources.  If denialists had their way, no climate scientist could get ANY work done as they'd spend 12 hours a day answering bullshit FOIA requests.

Just because a man is being paid with taxpayer dollars doesn't mean he has an obligation to satisfy the demands of every single taxpayer.  Your taxes pay a tiny, completely insignificant portion of his pay.  He has a responsibility to do the job for which he was hired on behalf of ALL the taxpayers, not just you.

BTW, I found the daily, unaveraged records.  Did you miss that?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




LOL......who cant love the most naïve of the naïve?


There are tens of thousands of these across the United States, an investment by railroads in the HUNDREDS of billions.







Without them, the east coast starves pretty much overnight. Only the real bonafide nutters think you throw a switch and put these babbies on solar power next year!!! Most have a 30 year career and there is no replacement. 2.5 million / unit. It is one of dozens and dozens of examples of how deep into a fantasy world the green k00ks are.


They think we can move freight ( OVER 10 million freight car units) using these guys >>>>>








And forget electricification........far too costly, although, that is NEVER a consideration to any good progressive!!!

http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-freight-will-never-electrify.html


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> When you ask the astronomer to look through is telescope, you're taking up his valuable viewing time.  When you demand that climate scientists save every bit of data, uncompressed, just so you can demand to see it as a spot check on their integrity and - more likely - harassment, you take up their time and resources.  If denialists had their way, no climate scientist could get ANY work done as they'd spend 12 hours a day answering bullshit FOIA requests.
> 
> Just because a man is being paid with taxpayer dollars doesn't mean he has an obligation to satisfy the demands of every single taxpayer.  Your taxes pay a tiny, completely insignificant portion of his pay.  He has a responsibility to do the job for which he was hired on behalf of ALL the taxpayers, not just you.
> 
> BTW, I found the daily, unaveraged records.  Did you miss that?



You're actually trying to justify scientists on the public dime refusing to make their data available to other scientists. 

Truly amazing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

Skooks is on a roll!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

"Batshit crazy kooks _still_ babbling that they win because Alaska is cold. Film at 11."


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



If someone came up to you and said that he was starting a campaign to get 6+8 changed to 11, how would you treat him?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If someone tried to tell me that being skeptical of the AGW abracadabra was the same as saying 6+8=11, I would just call him a deluded imbecile.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > When you ask the astronomer to look through is telescope, you're taking up his valuable viewing time.  When you demand that climate scientists save every bit of data, uncompressed, just so you can demand to see it as a spot check on their integrity and - more likely - harassment, you take up their time and resources.  If denialists had their way, no climate scientist could get ANY work done as they'd spend 12 hours a day answering bullshit FOIA requests.
> ...



You're asking scientists on the public dime to provide their data to people who have neither the training nor resources to evaluate it. 

You should be working on getting the training and resources to meaningfully interpret the data. Why aren't you?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What you'd call him is completely irrelevant. AGW is only abracadabra if you are not able to understand it. That has nothing to do with AGW, only to do with you. It's possible that you are capable of learning what you don't know about climate science. You'll never know until you try.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...




While you are telling us that you are unable to even imagine any solution, we'll go ahead and get it done. Your limitations are not ours. If we were all as limited as conservative imaginations are, we'd still be in the caves.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 5, 2013)

yuk.....yuk......knock yourself out s0n!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I understand the claims of the high priests of the AGW cult perfectly well.  That's why I call it abracadabra.

I doubt it's possible for you to learn that you're being suckered by a colossal con.  That's why you make such a beautiful liberal.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



How difficult is it for these "scientists" to make their data available on a website?  What difference does it make who has access to it?  It would only matter to people who are afraid that faults in their work might be discovered.  Honest competent scientists wouldn't have any concerns.



PMZ said:


> You should be working on getting the training and resources to meaningfully interpret the data. Why aren't you?



You should work on not being such a pathetic gullible drone who swallows without question every scheme and con the government priesthood dispenses.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

Most people can distinguish between science and politics, but not all. That fact should amaze everyone here. The explanation for that are the entertainers whose business plans are based on victimization of DKs (Dunning-Kruger). They work their plan and the DKs line up and do what they're told blindly. Reliably. Unquestionably. 

What a business.


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Probably not now, that previous alternative treatments have made it into mainstream medicine.

However, I'm not talking about witch-doctor stuff.  I'm talking about data, a basis for my career and my education.  That's the funny thing about data, it's very cut and dry.


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> When you ask the astronomer to look through is telescope, you're taking up his valuable viewing time.



And yet almost every research telescope allocates time for public viewings.  Why is that do you suppose?



Abraham3 said:


> Is that how you think science actually works?  Don't save the data because it's inconvenient?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



What training and resources do you think is required to process a few million temperature readings?


----------



## asterism (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What's this "we'll go ahead and get it done?"  What do you do?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




_Current_ climate science?  As opposed to past climate science, or future climate science?  You're probably too young and are definitely too close-minded and ignorant to remember when we were told to prepare for another ice age.  Your "science" has failed miserably to explain previous periods of global warming or cooling.  Fact is, climate change is cyclic and has little relation to human activities.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Most people can distinguish between science and politics, but not all. That fact should amaze everyone here. The explanation for that are the entertainers whose business plans are based on victimization of DKs (Dunning-Kruger). They work their plan and the DKs line up and do what they're told blindly. Reliably. Unquestionably.
> 
> What a business.



You would know.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

More conservative crap.  Avoid solutions.  Hide from problems.  Dis the educated,  worship ignorance. Science is evil.  Politics is religion. Political entertainers rule.  Government is just the never poor enough poor robbing the never rich enough rich. Wealth,  not work, creates wealth. America is a cess pool.  Democracy is evil. 

Incessant winning. 

While that's going on the educated,  the visionary,  the innovative,  the leaders,  the progressives, the responsible move forward and tomorrows are better than todays.


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 6, 2013)

Cold in Northern Alaska and hot in Southern California.

What are the chances of that happening?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> More conservative crap.  Avoid solutions.  Hide from problems.  Dis the educated,  worship ignorance. Science is evil.  Politics is religion. Political entertainers rule.  Government is just the never poor enough poor robbing the never rich enough rich. Wealth,  not work, creates wealth. America is a cess pool.  Democracy is evil.
> 
> Incessant winning.
> 
> While that's going on the educated,  the visionary,  the innovative,  the leaders,  the progressives, the responsible move forward and tomorrows are better than todays.



I haven't noticed you posting your proposed solutions yet.  Lots of blah, blah, blah, but no solutions.  
I'll be waiting.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> I have largely stayed out of such debate, and once claimed a "fence-sitter" attitude with regards to "climate change",  AGW,  Global Warming, etc.
> 
> My entire life has been financed by the production of liquid hydrocarbons. As was my father's life, and his father's life. My children's births, diapers, food, clothing, schooling... all paid for by receipts of sale from liquid hydrocarbons.
> 
> ...



Do you feel as sorry for the folks who lost their careers when the IC engine replaced the horse as you do your family? How about when Walmart replaced Sears? When digital photography replaced film. When plumes and beaver fur on hats went out of fashion and hunters had to find other work? When airplanes displaced passenger trains? When computers replaced clerks?

The past is gone forever for everyone. Do a 180 and face the future. How much human trauma do you think should be endured by others in service of your family memories?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > More conservative crap.  Avoid solutions.  Hide from problems.  Dis the educated,  worship ignorance. Science is evil.  Politics is religion. Political entertainers rule.  Government is just the never poor enough poor robbing the never rich enough rich. Wealth,  not work, creates wealth. America is a cess pool.  Democracy is evil.
> ...



As far as you and I are concerned? Stay out of the way. There are millions of IPCC staff, engineers, scientists, investors, builders of things, regulators, politicians, etc who will make a good living building the future for upcoming generations. Now that we understand the consequences of doing nothing, and how unaffordable that is, we have armies of well prepared workers in the businesses that will provide solutions. More than enough jobs to provide those who will lose their jobs in the transition who choose to learn new skills. 

Opportunity abounds as well as a viable future. 

What hampers everything are the naysayers. The nattering nabobs of negativity. 

Don't be one.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...




What's failed miserably is your choice of who to get educated by and what to get educated in. What you do know is wrong. What you don't know is legion.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



By "naysayers" you mean the intended victims who people like you intend to loot for trillions of dollars.  Sorry, turd, but if you think we're going to lay down and allow ourselves to be robbed, you are in for a rude shock. 

I'm doing everything in my power to "hamper" idiots like you.

Tough shit if you don't like it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > I have largely stayed out of such debate, and once claimed a "fence-sitter" attitude with regards to "climate change",  AGW,  Global Warming, etc.
> ...



The difference is that the successors were all big improvements over what they replace.  People adopted the new technology voluntarily.  They didn't need some bureaucrat pointing a gun at them and shaking them down for the cash to pay for the "new and improved" technology.



PMZ said:


> The past is gone forever for everyone. Do a 180 and face the future.



That's what the Communists told the Kulaks in 1917.



PMZ said:


> How much human trauma do you think should be endured by others in service of your family memories?



You're the imbecile causing the trauma.  If your "solutions" are so great, then whey do they need to be imposed on us at gunpoint?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



You've already lost that war.  The future is going to come no matter what you want,  and we're going to be prepared for it. 

We are not going to let it have its way with us because we followed the ignorant. 

You have one choice left.  The degree to which ignorance excludes you from participating in our preparation for the inevitable future.  

Choose ignorance if you want.  It simply is of no concern for me.  You are irrelevant now and we'll just keep you on that list. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2013)

Update:

Number of repeatable lab experiments showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is still 0

Sent from my Encryption defeating NSA Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Update:
> 
> Number of repeatable lab experiments showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is still 0
> 
> Sent from my Encryption defeating NSA Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese using Tapatalk 2



What's at zero is your understanding of all of the theories, models and data that taken together, are the body of scientific knowledge that the IPCC has assembled and published in accordance to what they were given the international responsibility for. 

You won't get any of that from the school of conservative bullshit that you've chosen to invest your time in. 

No matter. Nobody expects anything from you. And you have delivered magnificently against that expectation. 

If you set the bar low enough, even conservatives will be successful.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 6, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > As an Alaskan farmer, I would welcome "global warming".  But it ain't happening as advertised...DAMN!~
> ...



My Oklahoma garden did great this year with the mild winter and summer we've had and above normal rainfall.  I love this "climate change"!!!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Still just platitudes and mumbo-jumbo talking points.  No concrete proposals.  You know, something like...limit births?  Or force everybody to spend a certain amount of time daily on a treadmill, generating power to feed back into an electric grid?  Or, how about rationing food?  Ya got anything other than sit on your ass and wait for someone else to come up with something better?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Update:
> ...



Theories and models are a start

Don't fuck with the data

Do some experiments

 Then we'll talk


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 6, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 6, 2013)

asterism said:


> Apparently I did, unless you're talking about the "daily_format.txt" file which was only minimums and maximums.



I hope you're not going to deny having told me that daily would suffice.  You are looking for CLIMATIC data are you not?  How fast do you think the climate changes?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Tough shit if you don't like it.



Tough shit if you can't accept reality.  It's coming anyway.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.  

I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.  

But,  the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.  

Jerks.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> If your "solutions" are so great, then whey do they need to be imposed on us at gunpoint?





			
				gallantwarrior said:
			
		

> Those are both excellent points. I wonder whether we will receive an answer.



Anyone whining that laws are being "imposed at gunpoint" identifies themselves as a delusional right-wing-fringe cultist. Conveniently for them, these hypocrites only use the "at gunpoint" stupidity if it's a law they don't agree with. If it's a law they like, the "at gunpoint" thing is never brought up. Hence, should you see a crank using that line or declaring it's smart argument, just laugh at the bedwetter and walk away, being that it's not possible to have a rational conversation with a cultist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.
> 
> I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.
> 
> ...



The Left is no longer the American Left, they are dedicated to dragging us down. They won't be happy until every city is Detroit and we no longer have air conditioning or heat or any "modern" comforts.

Fuck them


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently I did, unless you're talking about the "daily_format.txt" file which was only minimums and maximums.
> ...



I asked for raw data.  I said raw data in a daily format as long as the time is noted is acceptable.  The best we have so far is a daily max and daily min.  While that's better, it's still data that has been processed and the methodology used to process that data is not open for verification.

I took part in a hydrology study, defining certain areas as wetlands as part of a thesis for someone else.  In order for the study to be accepted and published, ALL data had to be submitted.  We could not leave out data that we deemed irrelevant and we could not use averages, maximums, minimums, or summaries.  The specifics (in this case air temperature, water temperature, soil composition, and many others I don't remember) were important to check for biases.  Without a complete picture, regression analyses and cross-checks were not possible.

The reason it's important to have all the raw data for stations is that one cannot check for equipment errors, calculation errors, site errors, or environment biases without it.  Actually a better way to put it is that no set of data summarization can be perfect, but more raw data increases the accuracy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Then I give up.  Global warming is a hoax to make scientists rich.  The world has not gotten ANY warmer and the CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely harmless.  

I am quite certain that if you wanted to submit an FOIA request to the USHCN and had the justification to avoid seeming harassment, they could give you as raw a dataset as you care for.  Your assumption that the data has been intentionally and willfully biased and that the rawest data is being withheld to prevent detection of that point, is unjustified by any fact or evidence in our possession.

Those making extraordinary claims - and the claim that the world's climate scientists are all involved in an enormous conspiracy is an extraordinary claim - bear the burden of proof.  It's your turn.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.
> 
> I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.
> 
> ...


----------



## bodecea (Sep 7, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"
> 
> Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior
> 
> ...



We've got the heat here in SoCal.  Hottest late August/early September heatwave I ever remember...and no sign of stopping yet.

I fear that this is going to be a really nasty fire season.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



So after claiming that the raw data is available, then claiming that you posted links to it, then claiming that you have posted actual raw data, now you're saying that you're sure it's available with a request through FOIA?

Ok.  You'll note I have said that I don't think there is some huge conspiracy.  I've cited evidence that shows incompetence.  I haven't said that data has been destroyed through malice, I've said it has been destroyed through improper data management.

I've had similar conversations with actual climate scientists.  Once we got past the "you wouldn't understand" part we got into the weeds with funding, derivative studies, and a fundamental need to rely on past peer-reviewed work.  The honest ones have said that they really don't care, and that if the slight warming that has been noted is wrong it will be apparent with more research.  Then we agreed on that, one of us bought another round, and it was time to talk about something else.

The only ones who have been especially hyperbolic are those who aren't very confident in their work or ones frustrated that their own personal biases have been exposed.  I'm not going to say that every scientist who was a member of an environment activist group in college is dishonest, but the few that I know certainly are.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.
> ...



Actually the results that you fear would come from doing nothing,  against the findings of science.  

Political entertainers have told you that you can choose between the flat or round earth.  They lie.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Conspiracy theory is never based on facts,  always innuendo,  and that's why it's the haunt of the ignorant. Innuendo takes only suspicion and imagination.  Reality takes education.  Guess which one is the easiest path through life.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.

But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I don't know exactly what an 'activist source'  is. Is that the IPCC?  They're the source of AGW science.  I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now.  I'd hate to be known as a donothinger. 

But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.  

They're stupid.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Support the science from the IPCC.  Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate.  Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



IPCC admits they're using global warming scam to redistribute wealth


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you talking about the same IPCC that passed off environmental activist fiction as fact?

8.4.2.5 Populations in mountain regions - AR4 WGII Chapter 8: Human Health

That said, when you "know people" who do something, don't accuse others of doing the same thing just because you disagree with them - and ESPECIALLY when they've said that they don't hold those views.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



You'd think that there'd be some evidence.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

The IPCC is a body commissioned to advise government on AGW science.  How could they redistribute wealth even if they wanted to?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Exactly what in your reference do you have proof of being incorrect?


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here's a little bit about the IPCC:



> In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that *Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. "You can't expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report," he said.
> 
> The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a "populist" step.



No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian



> The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.
> 
> The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature  but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.



IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers | Environment | theguardian.com



> Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> 
> In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
> 
> Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".



Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim - environment - 08 January 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  Nobody is entitled to their own facts.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.
> 
> I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.
> 
> ...



how is imposing trillions of dollars in taxes and a vastly lower standard of living on them being "hospitable" to our progeny?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I would have said,  at one time,  one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny.  Now I find that conservatives don't want that.  As long as the world is hospitable now,  that's all that counts.  Let future generations solve our problems.
> ...



Because the alternative (do nothing) is more expensive and more costly in human trauma,  and only a temporary solution.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





> Climate protection has hardly anything to do with environmental protection, says the economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which it relates to the distribution of resources.



«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»: Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ress


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130513174811.htm


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you don't know that the IPCC admitted the mistake?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Even if AGW were actually occurring, no one has demonstrated these "expenses" or "traumas."  If anything, history shows that a warmer world is more beneficial to human welfare.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Posting a completely irrelevant link hoping that nobody opens it is the epitome of troll behavior.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How about a world of higher sea levels than our shore buildings and cities were built for.  How about a rainfall distribution different that we located our agriculture based on.  How about drought and fire conditions among our population centers.  How about populations who've always depended on glacier build up and melt for water,  faced with insufficient glaciers. 

We've already seen all of this.  Denying it doesn't change that.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.

Now you're just getting testy.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



It's a link about a movie!


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.



Yes, the statement about Himalayan glacial melt rates was in error and the IPCC admitted it.  You're talking about one sentence out of hundreds of pages of reports and data compiled by hundreds of different people.  And the IPCC admitted the mistake and made corrections to the review process to avoid such mistakes in the future.  Just how much significance do you think should be put on that point?  And we have certainly seen no such behavior from the IPCC's critics.  When was the last time Watts or Spencer admitted any of the multitude of mistake they've made?

And, BTW, about the Himalayan glaciers:

*Asia*
[Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

The Himalayas and other mountain chains of central Asia support large regions that are glaciated. These glaciers provide critical water supplies to arid countries such as Mongolia, western China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. As is true with other glaciers worldwide, the glaciers of Asia are *experiencing a rapid decline in mass.* The loss of these glaciers would have a *tremendous impact on the ecosystem of the region.*
In the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan 28 of 30 glaciers examined *retreated *significantly during the 19762003 period, the average *retreat *was 11 m (36 ft) per year.[21] One of these glaciers, the Zemestan Glacier, has *retreated *460 m (1,510 ft) during this period, not quite 10% of its 5.2 km (3.2 mi) length.[22] In examining 612 glaciers in China between 1950 and 1970, 53% of the glaciers studied were *retreating*. After 1990, 95% of these glaciers were measured to be *retreating*, indicating that *retreat *of these glaciers was becoming more widespread.[23] Glaciers in the Mount Everest region of the Himalayas are all in a state of *retreat*. The Rongbuk Glacier, draining the north side of Mount Everest into Tibet, has been *retreating *20 m (66 ft) per year. In the Khumbu region of Nepal along the front of the main Himalaya of 15 glaciers examined from 19762007 all *retreated *significantly and the average *retreat *was 28 m (92 ft) per year.[24] The most famous of these, the Khumbu Glacier, *retreated* at a rate of 18 m (59 ft) per year from 19762007.[24] However, in the second half of the last century the glacier melt in High Asia also showed interruptions. In the Inner Himalayas *slight advances took place from 1970 to 1980*.[25] In India the Gangotri Glacier, *retreated* 34 m (112 ft) per year between 1970 and 1996, and has averaged a loss of 30 m (98 ft) per year since 2000. However, the glacier is still over 30 km (19 mi) long. In 2005, the Tehri Dam was finished on the Bhagirathi River and it is a 2400 mW facility that began producing hydropower in 2006. The headwaters of the Bhagirathi River is the Gangotri and Khatling Glacier, Garhwal Himalaya. Gangotri Glacier has *retreated *1 km in the last 30 years, and with an area of 286 square kilometres (110 sq mi), provides up to 190 m3/second of water volume.(Singh et al., 2006). For the Indian Himalaya, *retreat *averaged 19 m (62 ft) per year for 17 glaciers.[26] In Sikkim 26 glaciers examined were *retreating *at an average rate of 13.02 m per year from 1976 to 2005.[27] For the 51 glaciers in the main Himalayan Range of India, Nepal and Sikkim, 51 glaciers are *retreating*, at an average rate of 23 metres (75 ft) per year. In the Karokoram Range of the Himalaya there is *a mix of advancing and retreating glaciers with 18 advancing and 22 retreating* during the 19802003 period.[28]
With the *retreat *of glaciers in the Himalayas, a number of glacial lakes have been created. A *growing concern is the potential for Glacial Lake Outburst Floods*researchers estimate 20 glacial lakes in Nepal and 24 in Bhutan pose hazards to human populations should their terminal moraines fail. One glacial lake identified as potentially hazardous is Bhutan's Raphstreng Tsho, which measured 1.6 km (0.99 mi) long, .96 km (0.60 mi) wide and was 80 m (260 ft) deep in 1986. By 1995 the lake had swollen to a length of 1.94 km (1.21 mi), 1.13 km (0.70 mi) in width and a depth of 107 m (351 ft). In 1994 a GLOF from Luggye Tsho, a glacial lake adjacent to Raphstreng Tsho, killed 23 people downstream.[29]
Glaciers in the Ak-shirak Range in Kyrgyzstan experienced a slight loss between 1943 and 1977 and an accelerated loss of 20% of their remaining mass between 1977 and 2001.[30] In the Tien Shan mountains, which Kyrgyzstan shares with China and Kazakhstan, studies in the northern areas of that mountain range show that the glaciers that help supply water to this arid region, lost nearly 2 km3 (0.48 cu mi) of ice per year between 1955 and 2000. The University of Oxford study also reported that an average of 1.28% of the volume of these glaciers had been lost per year between 1974 and 1990.[31]
The Pamirs mountain range located primarily in Tajikistan, has many thousands of glaciers, all of which are in a general state of *retreat*. During the 20th century, the glaciers of Tajikistan lost 20 km3 (4.8 cu mi) of ice. The 70 km (43 mi) long Fedchenko Glacier, which is the largest in Tajikistan and the largest non-polar glacier on Earth, lost 1.4% of its length, or 1 km (0.62 mi), 2 km3 (0.48 cu mi) of its mass, and the glaciated area was reduced by 11 km2 (4.2 sq mi) during the 20th century. Similarly, the neighboring Skogatch Glacier lost 8% of its total mass between 1969 and 1986. The country of Tajikistan and neighboring countries of the Pamir Range are highly dependent upon glacial runoff to ensure river flow during droughts and the dry seasons experienced every year. *The continued demise of glacier ice will result in a short-term increase, followed by a long-term decrease in glacial melt water flowing into rivers and streams.*[32]
The Tibetan Plateau contains the world's third-largest store of ice. Qin Dahe, the former head of the China Meteorological Administration, said that the recent fast pace of melting and warmer temperatures will be good for agriculture and tourism in the short term; but issued a strong warning:
*Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed than in any other part of the world ... In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring floods and mudflows ... In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish, water supplies in those regions will be in peril.*[33]

*References*

21 ^ Haritashya,; Bishop, Shroder, Andrew, Bush, Bulley (2009). "Space-based assessment of glacier fluctuations in the Wakhan Pamir, Afghanistan" (PDF). Climate Change 94 (12): 518. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9555-9.
22 ^ a b Mauri S. Pelto. "Ice Shelf Instability". Retrieved 2009.
23 ^ Sandeep Chamling Rai, Trishna Gurung, et alia. "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China" (PDF). WWF Nepal Program. Retrieved March 2005.
24 ^ a b Bajracharya, Mool. "Glaciers, glacial lakes and glacial lake outburst floods in the Mount Everest region, Nepal". International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
25 ^ Achenbach, H. (2011): Historische und rezente Gletscherstandsschwankungen in den Einzugsgebieten des Cha Lungpa (Mukut-, Hongde- und Tongu-Himalaja sowie Tach Garbo Lungpa), des Khangsar Khola (Annapurna N-Abdachung) und des Kone Khola (Muktinath-, Purkhung- und Chulu-Himalaja). Dissertation, Universität Göttingen, 260 S. (elektronische Version)Historische und rezente Gletscherstandsschwankungen in den Einzugsgebieten des Cha Lungpa (Mukut-, Hongde- und Tongu-Himalaja sowie Tach Garbo Lungpa), des Khangsar Khola (Annapurna N-Abdachung) und des Kone Khola (Muktinath-, Purkhung- und Chulu-Him
26 ^ Bishop, MP; Barry, RG; Bush, ABG; et al. (2004). "Global land-ice measurements from space (GLIMS): remote sensing and GIS investigations of the Earths cryosphere". Geocarto Int 19 (2): 5784.
27 ^ V.K. Raina. "Himalayan GlaciersA State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,Glacial Retreat and Climate Change" (PDF). Geological Survey of India. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
28 ^ Hewitt, K. "The Karakoram anomaly? Glacier Expansion and the Elevation Effect, Karakoram Himalaya". Mt Res Dev 25 (4): 332340.
29 ^ United Nations Environment Programme. "Global Warming Triggers Glacial Lakes Flood Threat  April 16, 2002". UNEP News Release 2002/20. Retrieved April 16, 2002.
30 ^ T. E. Khromova, M. B. Dyurgerov and R. G. Barry (2003). "Late-twentieth century changes in glacier extent in the Ak-shirak Range, Central Asia, determined from historical data and ASTER imagery (Abstract)". American Geophysical Union 30 (16): 1863.
31 ^ Kirby, Alex (September 4, 2003). "Kazakhstan's glaciers 'melting fast'". BBC News.
32 ^ V. Novikov. "Tajikistan 2002, State of the Environment Report". Climate Change. Retrieved March 3, 2003.
33 ^ "Global warming benefits to Tibet: Chinese official". Google.com. AFP. 2009-08-17. Retrieved 2010-03-20.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, it's a link to post 165 of this thread.

When you have to lie, it's obvious you're out of facts.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.
> ...



It's a significant error and it shows that the IPCC plays fast and loose with the "peer-reviewed" credential.  It's not the only error, just the first glaring error that was easy to showcase.  Many were told over and over again that the IPCC was neutral, that it was only about science, and that it was diligent in avoiding hysterics and anything that was not vetted.  That's clearly not the case when it uses activist groups as official sources and didn't vet a very significant point that made headlines and was used as a major talking point for the media.

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, and this is one of the main cases where the proof was pure opinion provided by a non-scientific body.


Oh and if you haven't been told by now, Wikipedia is not a good source.  It's a decent starting point, but a website that literally anyone can edit is definitely not authoritative.  If you want to make actual points and back them up with facts, use the cited articles.  That way you won't get bamboozled.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

The good news is that papers discussing the errors in AR4 are being published.

Here's one of them:

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/x...P.CEOAS.TropicalEasternPacific.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, and this is one of the main cases where the proof was pure opinion provided by a non-scientific body.



It seems to be better than your sources because your assertion here is incorrect.

*Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers*

A paragraph in the 938-page 2007 Working Group II report (WGII) included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. This *projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers* which highlighted the importance of the glaciers for freshwater availability, and stated that "Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century". Late in 2009, in the approach to the Copenhagen climate summit, the 2035 date was strongly questioned in India. *On 19 January 2010 the IPCC acknowledged that the paragraph was incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust* [ie, the error was insignificant ---Abraham]. They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance" and their vice-chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said that the reviewing procedures would have to be tightened.[2][12]
The WGII report ("Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"), chapter 10, page 493,[13] includes this paragraph:
*Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).*
&#8212; WGII p. 493 [13]
There was controversy in India over this statement, and at the start of December 2009 J. Graham Cogley of Trent University, Ontario, described the paragraph as wildly inaccurate.[14] The rates of recession of Himalayan glaciers were exceptional, but their disappearance by 2035 would require a huge acceleration in rate. The first sentence of the IPCC WGII report, including *the date of 2035, came from the cited source, "(WWF, 2005)". This was a March 2005 World Wildlife Fund Nepal Program report,[15] page 29:
In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: &#8220;glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood [sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high&#8221;*.
&#8212; WWF p. 29 [16]
On page 2, the WWF report *cited an article in the 5 June 1999 issue of New Scientist which quoted Syed Hasnain, Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI), saying that most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".*[16][17] That *article was based on an email interview,[18] and says that "Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline."*[19] Both the article and the WWF report referred to Hasnain's unpublished 1999 ICSI study, Report on Himalayan Glaciology, which does not estimate a date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.[15][20]
The second sentence of the questionable WGII paragraph which states "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035" could not refer to the Himalayan glaciers, which cover about 33,000 km2. Cogley said that a bibliographic search indicated that it had been copied inaccurately from a 1996 International Hydrological Programme (IHP) report by Kotlyakov, published by UNESCO, which gave a rough estimate of shrinkage of the world's total area of glaciers and ice caps by 2350.[14][21]
*The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates&#8211; its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350.*
&#8212;IHP p. 66 [22]
*Cogley suggested that the "2035" figure in the second sentence of the WGII paragraph was apparently a typographic error. He concluded, "This was a bad error. It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC&#8217;s review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate."*[15]
Statements very similar to those made in both sentences of the WGII paragraph appeared as two successive paragraphs in an April 1999 article in Down to Earth , published in the India Environment Portal (IEP). This included the substitution of 2035 for 2350 as stated in the IHP study.[23] New Scientist has drawn attention to Hasnain's claim about the timing of glaciers disappearing:[24]
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high," says the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) in its recent study on Asian glaciers. "But if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate, it might happen much sooner," says Syed Iqbal Hasnain of the School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Hasnain is also the chairperson of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG), constituted in 1995 by the ICSI. "The glacier will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square km by the year 2035," says former icsi president V M Kotlyakov in the report Variations of snow and ice in the past and present on a global and regional scale (see table: Receding rivers of ice ).
&#8212;IEP[25]
The question of whether it was acceptable to use material which had not been peer reviewed has been disputed.[18] IPCC rules permit the use of non-peer-reviewed material, subject to a procedure in which authors are to critically assess any source that they wish to include, and "each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report."[26]
The official statement issued by the IPCC on 20 January 2010 noted that "a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly." It emphasised that the paragraph did not affect the conclusion in the final summary for policymakers in the 2007 report, which it described as "robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment", and reaffirmed a commitment to absolute adherence to the IPCC standards.[2][24] The IPCC also stated that it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.[2][12] This was confirmed by Wilfried Haeberli, who announced the latest annual results of the World Glacier Monitoring Service. He stated that the important trend of 10 years or so showed "an unbroken acceleration in melting" and on expected trends, many glaciers will disappear by mid century. Glaciers in lower mountain ranges were the most vulnerable, and while those in the Himalayas and Alaska could grow in the short term, in a realistic mid-range warming scenario they would not last many centuries.[27] Mojib Latif, a climate scientist who contributed to the report of Working Group 1, sees the consequences of the glacier data mistake but also the need to continue focusing on global warming.[28]

So, what "opinion" by what "non-scientific body" do you believe was the source of the erroneous IPCC statement?

PS  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", Marcello Truzzi, professor of sociology who spent much of his career investigating pseudo sciences.


----------



## rdean (Sep 7, 2013)

15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

In Alaska!!!!

Can you believe it?  Cold in Alaska????

Crazy!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"millions of IPCC staff, engineers, scientists, investors, builders of things, regulators, politicians, etc"

Not according to RealClimate:



> Lets start with a few basic facts about the IPCC.  The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group.



RealClimate: IPCC errors: facts and spin


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > "millions of IPCC staff, *engineers, scientists, investors, builders of things, regulators, politicians, etc*"
> ...


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, and this is one of the main cases where the proof was pure opinion provided by a non-scientific body.
> ...



I already gave links to the IPCC's own admission that the WWF was cited as a source, that the WWF source was not peer-reviewed, and that the point originated as an opinion expressed in 1999.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

> In a paper just out in Climatic Change today Rachael Jonassen and I perform a quantitative analysis of all 2,744 findings found in the three 2007 assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Here is the abstract of our paper:
> Jonassen, R. and R. Pielke, Jr., 2011. Improving conveyance of uncertainties in the findings of the IPCC, Climatic Change, 9 August, 0165-0009:1-9, Improving conveyance of uncertainties in the findings of the IPCC - Springer.
> 
> Abstract Authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) received guidance on reporting understanding, certainty and/or confidence in findings using a common language, to better communicate with decision makers. However, a review of the IPCC conducted by the InterAcademy Council (2010) found that &#8220;the guidance was not consistently followed in AR4, leading to unnecessary errors . . . the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.&#8221; Our comprehensive and quantitative analysis of findings and associated uncertainty in the AR4 supports the IAC findings and suggests opportunities for improvement in future assessments.
> The paper characterizes the various findings of the report in terms of the uncertainty guidance used by the IPCC.  The paper includes various summary statistics and discussion.



Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: How Many Findings of the IPCC AR4 WG I are Incorrect? Answer: 28%


Published work on the statement above:  Improving conveyance of uncertainties in the findings of the IPCC - Springer


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

This is a good read.  The source is biased, so be warned.

Why the EPA is Wrong about Recent Warming ? MasterResource


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The ultimate 'source' was Professor Syed Hasnain, Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI), who had conducted a four year study of melting in the Himalayan glaciers.  The problem was not citing an unqualified source, it was a bloody typographical error.

And, again, given that the mistake a very small part of a very large report, that it was not carried over to the policymakers guide, that the mistake was admitted and that corrective actions were taken, the significance of this is NIL.

And I REALLY hope you don't actually trust Dr Roy Spencer to so much as give you the correct time of day.  When you have to go to Spencer, you've punched through the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## asterism (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



So you're saying that the IPCC and RealClimate were wrong to admit the error?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

Not at all.  I'm glad they did.  I simply think it has about as much significance to the issue of AGW as a wart on my nose.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In other words, sit quietly on your ass, ask no questions, be not curious.  Accept whatever your "coalition of government and private enterprise" chooses to do to "solve" the problem.  Let me ask you this, what if your "current coalition of government and private enterprise" decides that the best solution to anthropogenic global warming is to severely limit the number of humans consuming resources and emitting green house gases?  Will you willingly give up your life so that future generations will have a nice place to live?  Will you placidly follow your government's orders to report for elimination?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Do you ever look into a mirror?  Try it.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Oh, damn!  He/she/it cannot understand that the AGW creed it's swallowed wholesale at the command of its AGW masters is nothing more than a pretty-sounding cover for a much more sinister agenda.  Now you go and ask it to understand a foreign language.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The high priests of AGW, embodied in the IPCC, are infallible and their declarations should not be questioned.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Four year study?  Really?  Yeah, four years certainly provides comprehensive and convincing data about global climate changes.  NOT!


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

It was a four year study of the retreat rates of Himalayan glaciers.  Did you catch that he was the Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> It was a four year study of the retreat rates of Himalayan glaciers.  Did you catch that he was the Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice?



Yeah, I caught that.  Sounds pretty important.  Pretty silly, too.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It was a four year study of the retreat rates of Himalayan glaciers.  Did you catch that he was the Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice?
> ...



Maybe not if that's where your tap water comes from.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

asterism said:


> The good news is that papers discussing the errors in AR4 are being published.
> 
> Here's one of them:
> 
> http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/x...P.CEOAS.TropicalEasternPacific.pdf?sequence=1



It's a paper with some possible improvements to global climate models. That's how science works.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

The k00ks will never get the whole reality/perception dynamic!! Which is what makes this forum such a hoot!!


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

This is why no one cares what you think Skooker.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2013)

Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice...what? What the fuck is that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice...what? What the fuck is that?



They are a commission of the International Association of Hydrology Sciences (Home Page).  The really important thing, Frank, is that they know a fuck of a lot more about snow and ice than do you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This is why no one cares what you think Skooker.





You're right s0n!!!!!

Nobody cares!!!!  Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice...what? What the fuck is that?
> ...



This forum is like a Petrie Dish for DK researchers.  Never has the idea that a big part of ignorance is ignorance of that ignorance  been more convincingly displayed.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





But who cares......ignorance is winning then s0n!!! 100% certainty. Green investment is falling like a stone in water.......which means, nobody is caring about the science = the ignorant is not losing.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 8, 2013)

May second here in Minnesota, thirteen inches of snow. May twelfth, ninety-eight degrees.

Good times. People in beachwear, storing the beer in snowdrifts.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This is why no one cares what you think Skooker.
> ...



The man on the street is very predictable.  Thats why those with a DK business plan have such easy success. 

People always naturally go for urgency over importance. 

No question that economic issues,  in bad or marginal times,  take precedence over long range issues. Always. Because it assumes that long range issues can be solved as quickly as urgent issues,  and there is always tomorrow to get started. 

There is hardly any issue longer range that energy.  What needs great leadership is that even at high priority the conversion to benign energy will take as long as a century. But the consequences of slow progress are huge and we've already wasted what time cushion we might have once had. 

Can the man in the street be led to prioritize by importance rather than urgency?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice...what? What the fuck is that?
> ...



Let me guess, they're formed to protect snow and ice from AGW, am I close?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Let me guess, they're formed to protect snow and ice from AGW, am I close?



No.  There were formed in 1922 and are simply a professional association of hydrologists.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Perhaps it has eluded you that there is no protecting ice and snow from AGW.  Once they're gone,  they're gone.  Probably for thousands of years.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

Record *INCREASE* in the Artic ice cap  


Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)




----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



And that's a bad thing how?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 9, 2013)

[/URL][/IMG]








[/URL][/IMG]



Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Because they become ocean. That huge body of water that we built most of our cities on. When it goes up,  they'll come down.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Apparently conservative media teaches that AGW means everything on the globe gets warmer every day.  I suppose that when you don't have statistics,  that's the only model you can deal with.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Apparently conservative media teaches that AGW means everything on the globe gets warmer every day.  I suppose that when you don't have statistics,  that's the only model you can deal with.





> A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.




Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently conservative media teaches that AGW means everything on the globe gets warmer every day.  I suppose that when you don't have statistics,  that's the only model you can deal with.
> ...



Here's what passes for facts among those educated by entertainers.


Quote:
A *leaked* report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) *seen* by the Mail on Sunday, has led *some* scientists to *claim* that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

Based on that we can conclude...........er...........nothing.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials?  What makes you an expert?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for abolishing the IPCC.  Here's a clue for you "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy.  However, that's the basis for your entire AGW jihad, so how can you give it up now?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



He's a good little drone who obediently regurgitates the propaganda his ideological masters dispense.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Apparently conservative media teaches that AGW means everything on the globe gets warmer every day.  I suppose that when you don't have statistics,  that's the only model you can deal with.



No, it doesn't teach that.  One thing it does teach is not to use logical fallacies like the "Appeal to Authority" and "Begging the Question."


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I don't need to be an expert at climate science.  Thats what we have the IPCC for,  and you have nobody for. 

I built a very successful career solving engineering problems,  which is what this is.  

Plus I'm a liberal, so not afraid of the future instead of living in the past.  I'm willing to manage risk and investment. I think for myself.  I have faith in mankind's abilities. I'm a history buff and have studied fear based eras and growth eras. 

Anybody who'd even think of this whole opportunity and not invest in basic science is simply not useful to anyone.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



In other words,  it's logical in your tiny mind to believe that you are an expert in everything. 

That is a logical fatality.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Tell us it's merely a coincidence that conservatives all have the same ideas at the same time expressed in the same words.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I agree.

We disagree on what constitutes "Science," that's all.

Can a geologist design an airbag assembly?  Can a hydrologist build a railroad bridge?


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The same could be said about most liberals on some topics too.  When an Art History major lectured me about climate change last summer, it was obvious that she hadn't really studied the issue much.

She even said that electric cars were better for the environment (they aren't when they just use more coal generated electricity).


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 9, 2013)

[/URL][/IMG]







[/URL][/IMG]












[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm still not seeing the downside.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Seems to me he's more an expert at blindly and unquestioningly lapping up whatever agenda-driven "science" is presented to him and then steadfastly insisting on the so-called "science" is absolutely infallible and beyond question.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 9, 2013)

Yo PMZ......hate to break it to you but your side is losing. HUGE!! The "consensus" shit is having no effect on energy policy of western nations. Zero.......nada.......none. In fact, since 2009 green energy falls further and further into the shitter. Green energy contributes about 3% in the US.....and that is wind and solar combined. Only mental cases would thump their chests on those numbers, but of course, we know what we are dealing with here.

By 2040, the BESY estimate is renewables will be at 10% with most estimates being closer to 7%. Ive posted up scores of links supporting this.

Ive been waiting almost 3 years for one single climate nutter to post up a single link showing how the science is mattering?? Never happens because the whole global warming thing has become nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



You make a good case to employ the IPCC climate scientists to provide the science behind AGW and not the average man in the street.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



My topics are science, business and engineering.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



The only downside is the cost of protecting shoreline civilization from rising sea level. And recovering from storm damage worsened by high sea levels.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I have faith in science. You have faith in evangelical media based political entertainers paid by big oil.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Yo PMZ......hate to break it to you but your side is losing. HUGE!! The "consensus" shit is having no effect on energy policy of western nations. Zero.......nada.......none. In fact, since 2009 green energy falls further and further into the shitter. Green energy contributes about 3% in the US.....and that is wind and solar combined. Only mental cases would thump their chests on those numbers, but of course, we know what we are dealing with here.
> 
> By 2040, the BESY estimate is renewables will be at 10% with most estimates being closer to 7%. Ive posted up scores of links supporting this.
> 
> Ive been waiting almost 3 years for one single climate nutter to post up a single link showing how the science is mattering?? Never happens because the whole global warming thing has become nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013.



Do you realize how stupid it sounds to be trying to sell the idea that science doesn't matter?


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



But not write their own software, which is the entire premise that I argue.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Mine are software, data, and business.

On edit:  some construction, real estate, finance and insurance.

Another edit:  Middle Eastern terrorism, military operations, some astronomy


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Yo PMZ......hate to break it to you but your side is losing. HUGE!! The "consensus" shit is having no effect on energy policy of western nations. Zero.......nada.......none. In fact, since 2009 green energy falls further and further into the shitter. Green energy contributes about 3% in the US.....and that is wind and solar combined. Only mental cases would thump their chests on those numbers, but of course, we know what we are dealing with here.
> ...




yuk.....yuk......


How ironic that the same jackasses who advocate for Keynesian fiscal policy think western politicians will go for devastating carbon restrictions. The k00ks never could connect the dots.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I assume that their main modeling tool is 3D finite element analysis software.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They don't have off-the-shell finite element software for analyzing the atmosphere.  It has to be written from scratch.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Finite elements are finite elements. Stress and strain, heat and temperature, fluid flow.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wrong.  

I've written Finite Element analysis software.  What's your expertise?


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Lots of Fortran and no data controls.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 9, 2013)

[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What package did you work on?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Here's a simple explanation of FEA. The next time you try to claim expertise in it you can use this for a more credible act.

Introduction to Finite Element Analysis


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

More help. Making a simple global climate model using an out of the box FEA package called Matlab. No software required.

http://math.bard.edu/student/pdfs/jonathan-fivelsdal.pdf


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's all right here.

FOIA HARRY_READ_ME.txt

This is a foundation on which the global warming science is built, the early work of the University of East Anglia.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> More help. Making a simple global climate model using an out of the box FEA package called Matlab. No software required.
> 
> http://math.bard.edu/student/pdfs/jonathan-fivelsdal.pdf



That's a problem a "simple global climate model" that any non-programmer can make in Matlab.  No data integrity enforcements, no regression analyses on sample data, and overly simple assumptions (only 4 land configurations?  This is Science?).

I could go on, but there's no point.


By the way, Matlab (I used it in junior high) was primarily written so that people wouldn't have to learn and code Fortran.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

From the simple climate model link:



> A Senior Project submitted to
> The Division of Science, Mathematics, and Computing
> of
> Bard College



This is a senior project?  for college?  I would have been laughed out of the room for submitting this as a project when I was a senior in high school.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I worked on the stuff my engineering professor wrote.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nothing in your reference contradicts what I said, moron.  A finite element program designed for stress analysis cannot easily be adapted for heat transfer analysis.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



FEA is generic. It's matrix algebra. It's easily adapted to many disciplines. Matlab, as a simple example, doesn't care what you are calculating as long as it can be modeled as finite elements, each of which affects, and is affected by, adjoining finite elements. 

Moron.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Did it have a recognizable name?


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So how does one maintain data integrity by using one of these packages?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The two are separate issues.


----------



## asterism (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



True, and that's why Climatologists shouldn't write their own software.  They are concerned with the calculations, not so much with maintaining the data.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's not that simple, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He didn't market his software.  He used it for teaching purpose, and I suppose his own research purposes.  It's been over 25 years since I touched the stuff, so my memory of it is sketchy,


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Why?  Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.  Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity.  It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure now that you pay absolutely no attention to what people talk about here.  Evangelical media?  Really?  Me?  Your particular choice of political entertainer sucks their monetary sustenance from far more sinister sources than Big Oil. 
I am still waiting for your proposals to solve your AGW dilemma.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Google does work on your system...you should try it to broaden your knowledge, not support you very narrow views.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that you're a genuinely sick individual.  No wonder you're conservative. You're misogynistic.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your assessment of me is absolutely hilarious.  Misogynistic?  Where, exactly, did that come from.  You still have no recommendations, good, bad, or otherwise.  Give us some point to begin a discussion.  What do you suggest as a solution to your current AGW dilemma?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



There is no AGW dilemma other than the mature one of using science to find and get to the world's optimum energy future.  Thats what it's always been about.  

I'm 99 percent sure that you won't make the effort to learn from this video,  but for the sake of the 1 percent,  here it is. 

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=uvy292xj#/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&feature=related


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

A post from another thread. 

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.  

There are many things left to ponder though.  

If we stopped today,  what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks. 

We can't stop today,  so our choice really is,  how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered? 

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point.  Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous. 

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse,  if,  in fact,  we still can avoid worse. 

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A Miley Sirus video?  Riiiiigggghtt... Miley Sirus is a "scientific" authority on AGW.  You say there is no AGW dilemma, so why so much angst and drang?  Ya kno wut...kiss my ASS, you fuckin' schill.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Nothing misogynistic about:

''Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.  Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity.  It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.''


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> A post from another thread.
> 
> Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.
> 
> ...



The consequences?  NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!  You are an absolutely MORON if you think your puny existence means ANYTHING in the greater scheme of life.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I am convinced you do not know the meaning of "misogynistic".


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > A post from another thread.
> ...



Nothing misogynistic about this either.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



yet you label me "misongynist".   Please post the basis for this analysis.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > A post from another thread.
> ...



As everyone expects,  you are completely unable to support what you wish was true with any evidence,  science,  data,  theory,  nothing at all.  You are a misogynistic shaman dancing around with a scary mask on hoping it will rain.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



As I said,  you are 99 percent predictable in your aversion to learning.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And you have absolutely failed to present any possible solutions to your false, AGW bullshit.  Despite my proposing possible solutions, you continue to regurgitate bullshit platitudes.  I would be most interested in what you think makes me "misogynistic".


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



I did.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



The world's solution is to continue with IPCC science.  Continue to work towards replacing FF with sustainable energy. Use the science to find the optimum rate.  

You don't understand the problem even so can't possibly help solve it.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


 Don't worry about *PMS*, gallantwarrior. She lies thinking the end justifies the means, plus she cannot do math. The logical sciences are way over her head. I'm not surprised she is calling another intellectual man of science and letters an evangelical because she disagrees with you since you do not support her rabid political talking points for the good of poor liberal scientists who play ball for cash grants that libbies have routed from the dead conservatives through foundation "volunteerism" (another word for slipping cash into the pockets of political players who need grants to fund their failed green agendas). Reading her is one laugh after another. In fact, some intellects do it for sport.


----------



## asterism (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Post a link we can view on a desktop and I'll take a look at it.

Technology obviously isn't your thing.


----------



## asterism (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> A post from another thread.
> 
> Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.
> 
> ...



The direct causation has to be proven first.  Not proven in the opinions of scientists, proven with actual repeatable experiments.  The consensus of the scientific community at one time was that the Earth was the center of the universe.  That's obviously not the case.  The consensus of scientists had the opinion that the atom was the fundamental particle.  Boy were they wrong!

Consensus of opinion, even informed opinion doesn't mean much.  Repeatable results does.  

This is not a concept I heard about on a radio, read about on some activist website, nor was told by an oil company.  This concept I learned in elementary school and it has been reinforced in the 35 years since.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 10, 2013)

[/URL][/IMG]








[/URL][/IMG]



I keep laughing my ass off when I look at these two photo's......because who couldn't have guessed that the response from the climate crusading meatheads would be, "Well, clearly, this is a downward blip in an ongoing trend up"....or some shit like that??!! These nutters have an answer to ANY emerging climate activity up or down, wet or dry, stormy or not. No matter what......the established narrative will be supported and defended vehemently at all costs. Shit...half the globe could freeze over the next 6 months and these bozo's would still be hemming and whoring about the "anomaly in overall warming".


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



He really means misanthropic, but I don't want to make his head spin looking both words up.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





Bripat bro....do those two photos above crack your ass up or what??!!


Saw them this past weekend and still find myself laughing my balls off!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 10, 2013)

Hey PMZ s0n....this link is for you!!!! Packed with some fresh energy predictions for 2040 from the US Dept of Energy!!! LOL....virtually zero gay renewables s0n!!!


*
What sort of fabulous new energy systems will the world possess in 2040?  Which fuels will supply the bulk of our energy needs?  And how will that change the global energy equation, international politics, and the planets health?  If the experts at the U.S. Department of Energy are right, the startling new fuels of 2040 will be oil, coal, and natural gas -- and we will find ourselves on a baking, painfully uncomfortable planet.

Many of us would like to believe that, by 2040, the world will be far along the path toward a green industrial future with wind, solar, and renewable fuels providing the bulk of our energy supplies.  The IEO assumes otherwise.  It anticipates a world in which coal -- the most carbon-intense of all major fuels -- still supplies more of our energy than renewables, nuclear, and hydropower combined.

The world it foresees is also one in which oil remains a preeminent source of energy, while hydro-fracking and other drilling techniques for extracting unconventional fossil fuels are far more widely employed than today.  Wind and solar energy will also play a bigger role in 2040, but -- as the IEO sees it -- will still represent only a small fraction of the global energy mix.*

Tomgram: Michael T. Klare, 2040 or Bust | TomDispatch



Whos not winning???!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 10, 2013)




----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Yep.  I think I'm the one who originally posted them.  What cracks me up even more is watching those two pathetic drones PMZ and Abraham trying to explain them away.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...






Like I said......the entire earth could look like this tomorrow >>>>








......those two k00ks will still be in here banging the global warming panic button!!! These people either have plates in their heads or got dropped on their heads far too often shortly after birth.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Apparently the fact that you have zero science on your side doesn't trouble you.  To have zero on what is essentially a science and engineering issue is pretty pathetic. But you were brought up on dirty politics so you fall back on that. 

No matter.  Anyone who's liberal enough to contribute to the science or the solution knows exactly how empty your hand is.

You're firing blanks bro.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Now you want us to believe that only liberals contribute to science?  The fact that your so-called "science" verges on being religious hysteria doesn't seem to bother you.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...








What do you mean "verges on"...  The cult of global warming is a well established religion, it has high priests, scripture, punishments for heretics etc.  It IS a fully blown religion...


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I stand corrected.  You are right, it's already a full-blown, mind-bending cult.  I was trying to be polite...most likely a wasted effort, considering the intended recipient.
Thanks.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...








Oh don't be polite with these people....they want to kill you and yours to make the world a better place.  They are evil personified, they just call themselves different names but they are totalitarian murderers in sheep skin.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



There is science and there is politics. Science proves the relationship between atmospheric GHG concentration and AGW. It's a given.

Your politics do not trump science. Truth. Facts. 

You have nothing but what you want to impose on the rest of the world. It is unaffordable. You don't understand that both because you don't want to and are unable to. Come again when you have some science to support your politics.


----------



## asterism (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Science proves this?

Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you truly as deluded and stupid as you present yourself?  You really cannot see the political impetus for your "science"?  You are one of the most thoroughly brainwashed steeple I've ever encountered on forums like this.  You use the word zealot, look in the mirror.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Best to kill them first, right?  Then they won't be around to witness the universe proving you to be the narrow-minded idiots they always said you were.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


>



I must be doing something right.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



We shouldn't have to kill them.  Their overwhelming concern about the irrevocable damage inflicted by the human race should compel them to kill themselves.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Bripat bro....do those two photos above crack your ass up or what??!!
> ...



What's to explain?

Oh, I see the problem.  You can't read a simple graph.  

The two pictures you've shown represent the Arctic at the next to the last data point and the last data point.  It's a nice one season rise; in the same ballpark as the rise in the 95-96 season.  But the Arctic is still down almost 3 million km^2 from 1979, the trend is still decidedly negative and this latest datum doesn't even particularly stand out amongst the history of seasonal variation.







Why don't you put your 2013 image up against the 1980 image and see if you don't actually relocate your testicles.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)




----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...









That is your goal isn't it....  Kill everyone you don't like...  Here's one of your champions...

*David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth*
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough. 

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph

Or how about this one...


As the world population reaches seven billion people, the BBC's Mike Gallagher asks whether efforts to control population have been, as some critics claim,* a form of authoritarian control over the world's poorest citizens.*
BBC News - Population control: Is it a tool of the rich?


Yes, your kinds methods are all about death.  Death to brown people, death to poor people, death, death, death....  Heydrich would be so proud of you all...  The only problem is you're too fucking stupid to know who and what he was...sad...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Still no denier science.  Every thing science has discovered has been against their denial. All they have to talk about is their global conspiracy theory. How science abandoned them simply because what they are desperate to impose on the world turned out to be almost perfectly wrong.  How can that be.  A wrong conservative? Unthinkable!


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The experiment demonstrates what GHGs are defined as being.  Absorbers of longwave radiation.  Thats good,  by those pledged not to learn here,  will only find another reason to avoid it. 

But,  you probably already know that.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense.. 

You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle.. 

For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.
For two --- the added gas PRESSURE is not compensated for.. 
For three -- you've changed the chemical composition of the liquid which MIGHT encourage more water vapor (the most dangerous gas) to sublimate into the "atmos".. (even if chem. diff doesn't do it, the addtnl heating from the CO2 will also vaporize more water, thus tainting the magnitude of the result)

That's enough ain't it? 

The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings. 

It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR.. 

There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.

You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done. 
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Try this one on for size then.  It's a college science class for non-science majors.  It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo&feature=endscreen]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Thanks for that.. I WILL watch it later.. 

For the record -- I FULLY accept that CO2 has a role as a GHG.. I even accept the calculations that show a doubling from 250 to 500ppm ought to result in a surface temp. increase of about 1.2degC.. ( I think less, but WTF)

But that's NOT what AGW preaches.. THey admit that CO2 is only the "trigger mechanism" for the heating that will occur.. It's this extraneous horseshit that is not supported by evidence, --- not the basic EM absorption, heat capacity or other phys. properties of CO2 that is being denied.   At least by me...


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



You have to ask individual posters.. But BriPat is correct. The majority of skeptics are not denying much at all.. They acknowledge the world is long-term warming (slightly), they acknowledge the validity of the Greenhouse effect in principle, some of us will even give credit that man-made CO2 has some MARGINAL effect on the observed warming.. 

*The fantasy we're all bent on seeing debunked -- is the Warmer belief that we live on a certified JUNKER of a planet that will proceed to destroy itself and all life thereupon --- if ANY TEMPERATURE forcing of a couple degrees happens. SOME of the warmers believe we live on a giant Fuel-Air bomb and that using fossil fuel is gonna literally ignite the fuse. *


It's like a biblical admonition right out of Genesis.. "You may avail yourself of anything in the Garden -- but yee shall NEVER partake of any Carbonized substance under the earth"... So sayeth the Church of Global Weirdness.. 

Personally for me, it's quite simple.. The contribution by man has been PURPOSELY EXAGGERATED, and the contribution from natural forcings has been PURPOSELY hidden, minimized and distorted. *All by an IMMATURE science with too much time and attention being heaped upon it.. *

TERMITES as species are 2nd to man as Global Warmers. Go tax and annoy the termites. Stop prostelitizing me and perverting my science to your religion..


----------



## asterism (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's not repeatable:

Falsification Of CO2 Greenhouse Effect

Not so CLEAN Greenhouse Gas in a Bottle Demonstration. Faulty hands-on science


----------



## asterism (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



I was curious about what would be posted as "proof."

Here's the problem, there is currently no direct correlation.  Global average temperatures appear to be trending up (a separate claim that I question based on data adjustments needed to show this) but not in a direct way relative to carbon dioxide concentrations.

The planet is not a plastic bottle, CO2 concentrations have never and will never reach the level of concentration in the alka seltzer bottle, and the two bottles have unequal pressure inside them.  There are too many variables to claim that CO2 is the reason one bottle is heating up - and this doesn't work in sunlight.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Your graph covers a very short period of time in terms of climate.  Why should anyone assume that it represents a long term trend as you do?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's "simple" and wrong.  Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction.  That means it gives off heat.  The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.

*FAIL!*

That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Today the vast majority of the scientific pursuit of truth comes not from laboratories but computers. While the Wright Bros had to build and hope,  today's aircraft fly first in virtual space. 

People without advanced math skills can't even comprehend what's possible.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

asterism said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Shows us your calculations that confirm what caused that specific delta T if not IR absorption.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Please show your work that shows the delta T recorded could come from the exothermic reaction.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

asterism said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...








It also is not what they claim.  It is an example of the Ideal Gas Laws in action.  Had these morons taken a high school physics class they would know that.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...










Bullshit.  They use highly complex CFD models that give them a basis for building a model.  They then build the model and test them in a wind tunnel.  Then they go back and work on the computer model again.  Then they do a new scale model etc.  That's why it takes 10 years minimum to design a new aircraft.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Thanks 





westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I guess you are as obsolete on aircraft design as on climatology.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Shows us your work.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...









You guess a lot.  That's your problem....you don't know shit from shinola...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks
> ...



But I do.  That makes me your worst enemy.  When you lie,  I'll be there.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









No, no you don't.  That much is obvious.  But, by all means, if ever I lie...and I never have, feel free to point it out.  And to be a "worst enemy" you have to have some credibility....you have none..


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



I just did, nitwit.  You see, changing the composition of the gases in the bottle isn't the only thing he did.  He increased the pressure in one, plus he introduced an exothermic reaction.  As a chemist, he's a total imbecile.

Furthermore, I don't have to show shit.  He has to show that he's isolated the variable, and it's 100% clear that he hasn't.  He's introducing several variables into the experiment.  He's either an idiot or a conman who's deliberately trying to fool his audience.


----------



## asterism (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



I haven't conducted the experiment myself, there's no need because the experiment doesn't isolate CO2 as a variable.


----------



## asterism (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Where does a hydrologist learn programming?


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 13, 2013)

The experiment would have been a bit more accurate if he had used Sunlight. Still, he had to calibrate the thermometers to make sure they were registering in an identical manner. 

One thing that was discovered was that the CO2 sample had a lag behind that of the plain water sample. Meaning that CO2 acted as a buffer or insulator as it does in nature. Kind of the way clouds or water vapor keeps larger temperature swings from happening. 

Also, this experiment is invalid because you can't avoid heating the bottle. The Earth has no massive plastic bottle surrounding it. 

Just sayin.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 13, 2013)

SO? 

this isn't such a big deal...they first snow fell on Sept 10th when I lived there

what is with you people and now all of a sudden these things are major


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 13, 2013)

I took this picture while inside the Clear Airforce station where I worked 80 mls south of Fairbanks, AK

brrrrrrr


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

asterism said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You seem to be providing your own evidence that the only way to determine the atmosphere's reaction to increasing CO2 is by using computer models based upon lab derived physical principles.

Did you see the college lecture video I suggested that describes these principles?


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Hey dude, I have a degree in a science based discipline.  I'm just trying to find something my audience can relate to.  BTW, I'm surprised you've even heard the term exothermic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



How does that alter the fact that your experiment is a hoax?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



My credibility that counts is with intelligent educated folks,  not with conservative sheep so you have no way of knowing what it is.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Where are your calculations showing that those two effects outweigh the IR absorption.  This is why real scientists build math models rather than make wild ass guesses.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The other variables can verify easily shown to be a big part or an insignificant part of the delta T.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I don't need to do any calculations.  You need to design a better experiment.  The design of the experiment in the video is flawed.  You claimed it demonstrated the effect of light interacting with CO2.  It doesn't show what you claimed.  End of story.

All you're saying is that you have no clue whether the experiment shows what you claim it shows.  In other words, the experiment is worthless as proof of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I've never been a hydrologist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Then do it.  But that won't be very convincing.  A well designed experiment wouldn't introduce additional variables.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Generally, when you explain something to an unsophisticated audience (children and conservatives for instance), you take a few short cuts that might not be completely accurate.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. Thats the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against.  They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise.  Ignore it.  The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as.  IR absorbers.  

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial.  And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia,  only trivia.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm sure this isn't the best experiment ever conducted - more of a science fair demonstration than anything.  For those who are actually interested, I've posted a University of Chicago lecture on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Of course, that one takes 45 minutes to watch and involves some simple math.  Haven't heard any discussion of that one for some reason.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation.  If you want something more substantial, check this out.  Be sure to post comments when you're done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...




The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words.  Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Can you repost the link?  Thanks


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share?  If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level.  See post #350.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Just did in post #350.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



You tube is not generally my favorite source but here is a very visual and simple demonstration of CO2's GHG properties. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw&sns=em]Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



What a great lecturer and lecture. Things become so obvious with a rational step by step explanation from someone with a mastery of the science. 

One question that I ask myself is, how much of his lecture was based on IPCC developed science?

Do you know if there's a link available to the public for his web based model?

Thanks.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Can't believe you here.. It has the NOAA Stamp of Approval right on the Webpage for teachers.. 

You've gone too far Westwall.. Now you want me to believe that our highly distinguished govt science bureaus don't know High School physics ?? 

Why would they promote bad science ?? Especially in the goal of educating our precious children??


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...




Yeah Joe --- I've got one.. 

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom?? 

That's my conspiracy theory for the day.. 
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You continue to believe that everyone's understanding of science is as limited as yours.  Classic D-K syndrome.  You whine about this middle school demonstration but can't,  apparently,  do the simple math or experiment design that would reveal your whining as of trivialities.  Like adding a third closed bottle with the same dose of Alka Seltzer and measuring it's  delta T. 

It's absolutely no wonder that the boobs and boobies at Fox found you to be such an easy mark.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



I'll see if I can find one.  I'm a little busy today but if it doesn't slip my mind I'll search.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Most peoples 1st intro to science tends to be an 'experiment' just like this in the classroom or at a science fair.  Here's a clue for anyone who wants to attach undue importance to this or attribute some nefarious intent on posting it - real science isn't done with empty soda bottles or a $3.00 lamp from Home Depot.  Like I say, if you're ready for more than this, check out the University of Chicago lecture.  If you're ready for even more than that, take a course for science majors that uses partial differential equations and matrix math.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



So the guy who didn't realize the experiment was flawed is acting sanctimonious about his knowledge of science?

You can't buy better comedy!


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, I just never know how smart my audience is.  You've set my expectations pretty low.  BTW, did you ever check out that lecture?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



I'd say the people in the audience who said that experiment proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas were pretty damn stupid.

Now who would that be?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Not asking for 3rd Graders to understand a U of Chicago physics lecture.. I'm simply asking for a middle ground.. No charlatans in the classroom... Do what you can to discuss the topic if you must --- but this is not Sesame Street make-believe.. 

I'm sure that lecture is great. Not sure I'll learn anything, but I still intend to watch it. 
Nothing personal here --- except I'd expect a little more outrage at the perversion of science by someone like you who invested in it..

Probably because you're ignoring the NOAA endorsement of that "curriculum".. Don't see how anyone with a science background could excuse that.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Hell, I don't care if they endorse it.  It's hard enough to get kids to develop an interest in science.  Even harder these days with cutbacks to everything except the 3 R's.  It's a non-threatening demonstration and they probably thought it at least made the principle understandable to a certain audience.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Did you check out the lecture or shall we continue to debate the minutiae of the demonstration?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



You're an intelligient "normal" guy.. You should know that if the theatre act is BULLSHIT -- then it's NOT LEARNING... 





It's then called "PROPAGANDA".. So you think NOAA should be in the propaganda biz???


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



The lecture is irrelevant. All you brethren of the church of AGW claim to be experts in science.  Yet, you couldn't see the obvious flaws in a simple experiment.  You were conned.  So why should anyone take you seriously?


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's irrelevant to you because you're too fucking stupid to understand it.  You'd prefer to endlessly debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Knock yourself out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture.. 

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..
> 
> What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?



No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math.  Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc.  Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that all 'Conservatives' be banned from the classroom?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..
> ...



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.


Greenhouse Effect
The effective radiating temperature of
the earth, Te, is determined by the need
for infrared emission from the planet to
balance absorbed solar radiation:
'rrR2(1 - A)So = 41TR2cT, (1)
or
Te = [So(1 -A)/4or] " (2)
where R is the radius of the earth, A the
albedo of the earth, S0 the flux of solar
radiation, and a the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant. For A - 0.3 and So = 1367
watts per square meter, this yields
Te - 255 K.
The mean surface temperature is
T-- 288 K. The excess, Ts - Te, is the
greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,
which cause the mean radiating level to
be above the surface. 

*Some symbols left out. However, this was published in 1981. And the science has much advanced since then. This is real science as done by a scientist. And there are some definate preditions in the summery. Predictions that were pretty much spot on, in spite of all the lies the denialists tell.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..
> ...



The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable. 

Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us. 

So they do and say whatever they could possibly get away with in denial of all of AGW's simple truth.

They have no redeeming qualities that mitigate the damage that they do.

The bottom line of all of that is pretty straightforward. They must be removed from any responsibility at least at the national level of government. That must be separated from all decision rights concerning climate and energy policy.  

That's what they've earned.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Describe an experiment that would demonstrate AGW in a lab.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..
> 
> What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?



To me,  there was nothing controversial.  He explained without embellishment the pure science of GHGs. What they do.  Why.  The inevitability of AGW.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Tank A earth present atmosphere

Tank B earth atmosphere plus 800ppm of CO2

Check for temperature differences assuming steady heat source


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..
> ...



Dont need any  more math. Ive had more than most climate scientists. In fact, im up to par on EM Radiation and fields and waves. Ive also helped design supercomputers.

Couple of points on ur vid.

1 it doesnt address greenhouse gases. It focuses exclusively on co2 only. What  wasnt shown is how more quickly  the dip in the curve saturates in the presence of even moderate water vapor. Water vapor dominates and OVERLAPS much of the absorption lines of co2.

2 The analysis looks at the LOSS thru the atmos, rather than the W/m2 increase at the surface. Tho he implies all of the stored energy contributes to the heating,  about half is returned to the surface and half EXITS to1 space. Because the gas layer radiates both up and down. Hope his model gets that part correct.

3 didya notice how fast the co2 saturates on its absorption power? From 1ppm to100ppm there was something like 28W/m2.  Then from 100 to 1000ppm you only gotanother 20W/m2 or so. And thats without the huge masking of realistic h2o vapor content. Adding co2 for GW IS NOT A linear proposition.

Thanks for the link. But it really did not change any conclusions for me. Would like to drive his model toy and see what happens under more real conditions..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How does the radiation from the sun get in?  How does the reflection of the earth get out?  How does the thickness and structure of the atmosphere get simulated?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.
> 
> Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us.
> 
> ...







still waiting


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

yuk.....yuk.......


Whose not winning?????



Romantic Germany risks economic decline as green dream spoils - Telegraph





These meatheads live in a world of fantasy.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.
> 
> Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us.
> 
> ...








The bottom line is you are full of horsey poo.  Your entire "science" was based on a correlational coincidence when CO2 levels were rising with the global temps.  That correlation has ended and you clowns have had to resort to data falsification to support your "theory".

That has been exposed and now your whole religion is collapsing around you.  You are going extinct and soon.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...








They've been able to demonstrate TELEPORTATION in a lab.  You think your theory is so difficult?  Give me a break, it hasn't been done because they know it won't work you ignorant twerp.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Teleportation-Physics-Study-Laboratory-Entanglement/dp/1422025187]Teleportation Physics Study: Air Force Research Laboratory Analysis of Teleportation of Physical Objects, Quantum Entanglement (Ringbound): Department of Defense: 9781422025185: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Teleportation: Behind the Science of Quantum Computing

Instant transport: achieving quantum teleportation in the laboratory. - Free Online Library


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

There have been many attempts to replace science with what's best for a group who thinks that what's best for them is best for us. Power grabs. 

Democracy has an answer for them be they communist or conservative or organized religion.  Get lost.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Um OK

Do the experiments outdoor in the sunlight

The thickness of the atmosphere... wtf. That's not mentioned in the age theory


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.
> ...



What you reveal is not only the absence of science education but also even respect for science. There is absolute certainty about AGW no matter what you and the conservative revolutionaries want. Nobody but you is even discussing it anymore. The science problem has moved on to what to do about it. What are our choices and what are the costs and consequences. 

You're like the few Japanese soldiers who wandered out of the jungle decades after WWII. "You mean we lost? I've been living like an animal for 10 years for nothing?"

Yes you have.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Here's the problem. The effects of higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are very well understood by scientists. That's well and clearly explained by Joe Normal's video, thousands of websites and text books, and numerous IPCC and other academic publications. 

If you need your own proof, feel free to perform whatever experiment you want to. We don't need more proof. If you choose not to believe science, do your own. 

It sounds like you have an experiment design in mind. Just do it. Report back the results.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"1 it doesnt address greenhouse gases. It focuses exclusively on co2 only. What  wasnt shown is how more quickly  the dip in the curve saturates in the presence of even moderate water vapor. Water vapor dominates and OVERLAPS much of the absorption lines of co2."

CO2 is the GHG under study. It's what's changing. Science knows, even if you don't, that as soon as a CO2 molecule with bending kinetic energy absorbs a photon, it emits it. In all directions statistically. Now it's just like it was. Ready in case another photon comes along. Nothing is saturated. 

"2 The analysis looks at the LOSS thru the atmos, rather than the W/m2 increase at the surface. Tho he implies all of the stored energy contributes to the heating,  about half is returned to the surface and half EXITS to1 space. Because the gas layer radiates both up and down. Hope his model gets that part correct."

Let's say that the end of this particular lecture was the real end of the process and not just the end of this class with the expectation of having subsequent classes. That CO2 just absorbed and never emitted. The energy just went away to a rest home somewhere. We'd have AGW even then. Because energy balance between in and out was prevented, science is 100% sure that the imbalance would cause the earth to warm until balance was restored. 

But we know that the CO2 didn't just swallow the energy. It re-emmitted it nanoseconds later. The half of the energy returned by CO2 emissions cooled the earth when it was emitted by earth trying to maintain energy balance. Now half comes back to re-warm the earth. It's like it never left.

So the net effect is that the more CO2 molecules there are in the atmosphere, the more outgoing long wave is prevented from leaving, the more incoming and outgoing are in a state of imbalance in favor of incoming, the more energy the earth has to absorb, which causes warming until outgoing matches incoming again.

"3 didya notice how fast the co2 saturates on its absorption power? From 1ppm to100ppm there was something like 28W/m2.  Then from 100 to 1000ppm you only gotanother 20W/m2 or so. And thats without the huge masking of realistic h2o vapor content. Adding co2 for GW IS NOT A linear proposition."

Water vapor is not changing. CO2 is. Water vapor contributes constantly to the natural global warming that civilization adapted to over the last few millennia. 

We are changing only CO2. That's the cause of bringing about a new climate that requires a new adaptation for civilization. That will cost trillions of dollars and is already costing hundreds of lives every year.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Here's the web interactive, U Chicago, radiation modeler. 

MODTRAN Radiation Code

Play around with it and see the results.


----------



## asterism (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Check the bios of the IPCC folks (Phil Jones).


----------



## asterism (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If it's so simple, do it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You apparently are unaware of the complexity of building the entire earth in a testube.  So what has been done is to evaluate math models on computers then verify each individual component with lab work.  That's how science is done nowadays.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



PMZ and Abraham like to pretend they are the experts on science, but they can't even see the obvious flaws in their abracadbra experiment to demonstrate the theory of greenhouse gases.  That appears to be the _modus operandi _of the global warming cult in general.  They are never looking for the flaws in their logic or their evidence because they aren't really interested in whether their theories are true.  They want their theories to be true because it's so convenient for their agenda if the global warming hocus-pocus is true.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Obviously neither are you because you think some grad student can write a program that takes all those variables into account.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



You have the questions you find the answers. I know what the answer is.  They are trivial.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What we are waiting for is the first scientific evidence of some possible result of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW. There has been absutely none presented by anyone.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Deniers,  supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following. 

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.  

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels,  and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels. 

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions  from Earth. 

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere. 

For all passive heavenly bodies only energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable.  If in is greater than out warming will occur.  If in is less than out,  cooling will occur. 

For AGW to not occur,  one of those statements must be proven false. 

Have at it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



It's not our job to prove your theories wrong, dipstick.  It's your job to prove them right.  However, there's plenty of evidence that your theories are wrong, like the fact that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The proof of AGW in certain.  You think that you can change that by denying it.  

Doesn't work that way.  The proof is the same whether or not you understand it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



AGW is about as certain as winning the lottery.  Repeating that your Chicken Little claims are facts over and over again doesn't make them any more valid.

There is no proof, and the claim that I don't understand it is laughable coming from a numskull who can't even see the blatant flaws in an experiment he claims demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases.  You totally debunked whatever credibility you may have had with that debacle.

ANd for your information, Chicken Little, that's exactly how science works.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers,  supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.
> 
> The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.
> 
> ...



Wrong, numskull.  All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.  Your error is in assuming that those are the only variables of interest.  As we've seen with the experiment that demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases, you aren't interested in examining all the variables that might affect the result - especially the ones that blow up your idiot, Chicken Little, doomsday scenarios.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round.  He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Cool, a fellow electrical engineer.  I'll address your points by number.

1) True, water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas and its absorbtion spectrum partially overlaps that of CO2.  However, that doesn't negate the effects of CO2 and as PMZ pointed out, CO2 is increasing while water vapor isn't.

2)  His model has a tick mark for looking up vs. looking down so it appears he's taken this into account.

3)  True, it does saturate but it looks to me like where you get the additional absorption is where water vapor has little effect.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You are the crispy one.
> 
> You got that wrong way round.  He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.
> 
> So... get hot.



Many of our fellow USMB co-habitants have often said that you cannot prove a negative.  So to demand that it be proven the AGW is _not_ occurring is rather ridiculous.  Or hypocritical.

Cute play on words, by-the-way.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You talking about science is laughable.  Stick to dirty politics.  You have the personality for it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You are the crispy one.
> ...



To overcome the certainty that AGW is occurring,  you have to show what is occurring instead.  

I gave you a golden opportunity to show us in each of the critical processes what might be going on instead of AGW.  So far,  nothing. 

All we hear is that you don't want what is happening, to be happening.  

You've got to do way better than that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers,  supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.
> ...



''All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.''

Really?  How?  Don't just claim it.  Explain it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

The denialists count on one thing to realize their dream of having the power to push off to others the consequences of cheap energy that have benefited all of us so much. 

That they don't have to prove anything.  

Bullshit. 

Everything in the field of science rests on proof.  Nothing in politics  does.  

They can preach their politics however they want.  I'm pretty sure only they are listening to themselves. 

What they are not entitled to is science.  That somehow no proof is proof.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So says the guy who didn't have a clue that the experiment he claimed demonstrated the greenhouse theory was nothing but shear abracadabra and hocus-pocus.  No one in this forum has been so obviously wrong on the subject of anthropocentric global warming.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



For one thing, the effect of all of them can be so small that they amount to spitting in the ocean.  Also, they fail to consider the possibility of negative feedback mechanism.  There exists plenty of evidence to support them.

That's just two examples.  There are possibly thousands of others.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The IPCC is way ahead of you in answering those questions.  Thats why we hired them and not you to do the science.  

All known positive and negative feedbacks have been included.  The energy imbalance caused by atmospheric GHG concentrations has been quantified.  Your questions have been addressed for the last decade plus. 

What's left to do has to do mostly with the dynamics of warming.  To predict that,  we need models that can predict long term weather,  and that's years away. So,  what is unknowable with certainty is the end result warming of even the current load of GHGs,  and the extent of the damages they will do,  and what parts of our civilization will have to be relocated or protected from. 

But science will ultimately provide those answers too.  But what is knowable with sufficient certainty now is doing nothing would be the biggest risk.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We didn't hire them.  The U.N. appointed them, and the U.N. has long been searching for a scheme to mulct American taxpayers for all the cash they can get out of us.



PMZ said:


> All known positive and negative feedbacks have been included.  The energy imbalance caused by atmospheric GHG concentrations has been quantified.  Your questions have been addressed for the last decade plus.



In other words, the unknown positive feedbacks haven't been accounted for.  Furthermore, the numbers assigned to the positive feedbacks are pure guesswork.  The global warming priesthood has produced explanations for everything they don't know, but they haven't supplied proof that their explanations are valid.  Their explanations are therefore no better than mine.



PMZ said:


> What's left to do has to do mostly with the dynamics of warming.  To predict that,  we need models that can predict long term weather,  and that's years away. So,  what is unknowable with certainty is the end result warming of even the current load of GHGs,  and the extent of the damages they will do,  and what parts of our civilization will have to be relocated or protected from.



You just admitted that the global warming high priests can't predict diddly squat.



PMZ said:


> But science will ultimately provide those answers too.  But what is knowable with sufficient certainty now is doing nothing would be the biggest risk.



Perhaps that is known with sufficient certainty for a dolt like you.  More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.



Wrong Pat.  Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.
> ...



Wrong.  What they really showed is that the more financially dependent you are on producing proof that Anthropogenic global warming is valid, the more likely you are to claim it is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You are the crispy one.
> 
> You got that wrong way round.  He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.
> 
> So... get hot.



THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!!

Holy fucking moly!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Clearly you have a problem with educated people and that explains why you never got educated.  However  you'd like to be accorded the same respect as high accomplishers get.  For none of the work that they invested.  You are not entitled to something for nothing no matter what the propagandists say.  

If you want respect,  earn it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You are the crispy one.
> ...



You want to instruct scientists on how science works ? 

Talk about irony.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 17, 2013)

[/URL][/IMG]









[/URL][/IMG]
















[/URL][/IMG]



*Because theory posing as science is gay*


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You are the crispy one.
> ...









They have attempted to alter the "null hypothesis" method completely due to the correlation of CO2 rise and temps failing.  Their whole religion is about to collapse and they are trying anything and everything to try and stave that off.

*
IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail*

"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,"

IPCC In Crisis As Predictions Fail


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...











Ahhhh yes, the ever popular appeal to authority....  Here's where they are at!

*IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail*

"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,"


IPCC In Crisis As Predictions Fail


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.
> ...











Ummmmmm that would be *WRONG!*  You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar.  Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. *Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. *This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the publics incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Is this an advertisement for scientific ignorance?  Is this an attempt to organize the primitives?  Is Planet of the Apes coming true?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers,  supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.
> 
> The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.
> 
> ...



Pretty much SMASHED your frail "knowledge" of how to calculate the ACTUAL EFFECT of a couple 100ppm change in CO2 on the climate..


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



An interesting aside about the self-interest angle.  On this very thread, I have been ridiculed because my observations as one living close to the land (farming) are invalid because they are unsupported by "science".  Although my day-to-day, year-to-year personal observations probably comprise a far more accurate basis for opinion than the IPCC political hacks.  Yet, the same "scientific" sources that induce AGW worshipers to call me "uninformed" and "ignorant" are very willing to accept the anecdotal observations of some Alaskan Native groups who are on board with global warming.  On closer examination, those very same Native groups tend to be against allowing any invasion of their territory, development of their resources (other than by their own Corporations), and submission to the law of the land.  In other words, those groups supporting AGW would use that concept to lock up as much land and resources as possible and to exclude any other people than themselves from access to Alaska.  Natives say "we observe that AGW is affecting us" and the worshipers are all over that.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









Gee, I don't know.....it's from one of your favorite sources NATURE, so I figured you had already read it.  Obviously I was incorrect and you are incapable of reading that, or anything else that conflicts with your religion.

Good to know!


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly.  An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers,  supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.
> ...



It's not you against me.  It's you against 97 percent of the climate scientists in the world.  It's you against all of the climate data gathering resources in the world. 

Let me give you one example of why you're losing so badly. 

''Man is generating just about  5% of CO2 emissions every year. 95% of CO2 emitted is NATURAL.''

Totally irrelevant.  What's increasing every year is 100 percent man made.  The warming caused by that that is increasing every year is a small percent of total GHG warming.  But it's what is changing the climate. What mankind will have to pay big time to re-adapt to.  

If this thinking is representative of your science capabilities don't quit your day job at 7-11.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Another ad for ignorance.  The less you know the smarter you are.  Morons unite and inherit the world. 

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



From your reference. 

''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the publics incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.''

Here's what it says.  People educated in science believe in science.  Those uneducated in science tend to side with others uneducated in science. 

And this surprises you?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The Farmers Almanac says that  the winter will be cold and snowy in the north and are right 80 percent of the time. This amazes some people. 

'Nuff said.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...








An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is.  That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, *YOU* never will.....


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Really, That's what it says?  That's not how I read it...I read it that the more scientifically literate you are the less concerned you are about climate change...

Specifically this part here...
*
''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.*

Your interpretation is not surprising however.  Stupid propagandists see what they want and ignore all other information.  You are simply doing that which you were programmed to do.

You just do it very poorly...like the rest of the computer models your high priests dreamed up...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'll take an educated idiot over an uneducated idiot any day.  At least the educated one has demonstrated the ability to learn.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are you saying that,  here for example,  those who deny science are more educated than those who support it? 

One thing that conservatives are just plain awful at is critical thinking.  You'll agree with anyone who supports what you want to be true.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



One of the HUGE faults with this country currently is the fact that the only "education" acceptable is the formalized, institutional pap administered by (mostly) "progressive" educators.  They cannot see beyond their extremely limited concept of what constitutes "knowledge", disallowing for millennia of cultural knowledge passed from those who learn by living and experience.  What a farmer, hunter, or fisher _knows_ is actually disallowed as knowledge by the "progressive" because such information comes from unapproved, unacceptable sources.  It is not "scientific".  Hence, you cannot possibly be expected to earn much, or realize your full potential unless you have indebted yourself beyond imagining, enslaving yourself to those who grant you the exorbitant sums demanded by educational institutions.  And for what?  A piece of paper that has an actual value of a piece of paper...certainly not the ridiculous cost of acquiring said paper/


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I think that your take is wrong.  There are any number of fields where education is table stakes. Science is one of them.  It's not intuitive.  It's not experiential. It's earned and learned. 

Not that education plus ambition and good personal skills and high intelligence aren't better than just education,  but education is a necessary starting point.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Of course -- MOST of that "common man" folkknowledge IS geniunely scientific.. It's just more impressive without all the numbing mathematics and detail... 

OTH -- Seems to me more and more --- the only folks who ask why ANYTHING works the way that does, are those who probably never had advanced science training. *That degree shuts down inquiry* for 4 or 10 years whilst you concentrate on Repeating Back knowledge for grades..  Don't have time to ask or ponder your own questions..

Folks on the board KNOW I'm wholly invested in the movie *Idiocracy*..    We will see it arrive in our lifetimes.  OR -- shortly thereafter.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A shame that a movie named "Idiocracy" says it all.


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Learn?  Maybe....  Parrot?  Certainly...


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

When a message board poster accuses others of behavior that EVERY PARTICIPANT KNOWS he himself exhibits in spades, that man is nothing but a troll.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



 '' Seems to me more and more --- the only folks who ask why ANYTHING works the way that does, are those who probably never had advanced science training.''

There are many people curious about how things work at all stages of education. For instance standard mechanical machines are pretty intuitive in how they work if not why they work.  

But take molecular biology or astro physics or climate science and there is nothing intuitive at all.  One is either educated adequately or not.  

You can see huge cognitive blunders among these pages by people applying common sense to uncommon phenomena. 

As I've said before,  to me what the average person knows about statistics allows them to be easily misled, whereas those trained in statistics can use that knowledge to extract much greater meaning from data.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



This bee thing that westwall was going on about is a good example of science that requires computer modeling to accurately predict.  Using standard mass, lift, and drag measurements in the 50's, the aerodynamic laws at the time did say that bees shouldn't be able to fly.  More recently, computer models of the bees wing movenments showed (unsurprisingly) that they could.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

People who spend their lives trying to prove science wrong are among the world's biggest losers.  They have no tools to accomplish that other than ignorance. Science is based on proof.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who spend their lives trying to prove science wrong are among the world's biggest losers.  They have no tools to accomplish that other than ignorance. Science is based on proof.



It cracks me up when amateur scientists think they've come up with something that the specialists in a given field didn't think of in their first week on the job.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science is based on proof.




Golly......we finally agree on something s0n!!

But that is the whole problem.......none of the AGW stuff can be proven!! Conjecture is gay.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who spend their lives trying to prove science wrong are among the world's biggest losers.  They have no tools to accomplish that other than ignorance. Science is based on proof.



Those are the people who keep science honest - people like Galileo and Copernicus.
No wonder you want everyone to ignore them.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > People who spend their lives trying to prove science wrong are among the world's biggest losers.  They have no tools to accomplish that other than ignorance. Science is based on proof.
> ...



In your dreams.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Science is based on proof.
> ...



What there is no proof of is what you wish was true. Nobody's even trying to find science to support your wishes.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 27, 2013)

More k00k losing........

Record snow at Crater Lake!!!!


Snow already? Crater Lake gets 8 inches | MailTribune.com


yuk......yuk.......


----------



## mamooth (Sep 27, 2013)

Seriously, what is with the 'tards who think that a snowfall proves no global warming? Did mama drop them on their head a couple times? Did they grow up in a house full of peeling lead paint? That is, what specific process creates denialists?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

The Skook is always surprised by weather.  And totally blind to climate.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Seriously, what is with the 'tards who think that a snowfall proves no global warming? Did mama drop them on their head a couple times? Did they grow up in a house full of peeling lead paint? That is, what specific process creates denialists?



oh now this is really cute.. Mammy has gone full monte Denialist Mode.. 

DENY THIS YOU CLOD ----- From 2000 -- right from the Fudge-Packing Ministry of Distorting Climate Science.. Your HEROES who never do anything wrong.. 




> Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent
> 
> *Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past *
> 
> ...



This is gonna be a GREAT DENIALIST MOMENT...   

We're not the ones AVOIDING reality and truth.. *Living in bubbles filtered by ThinkProgress and SkepticalScience*. YOU are rewriting history as you go.. 
In my best Clint Eastwood ------ 
"You want the TRUTH??? ----- You can't handle the TRUTH !!! "


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

I  know how strongly you believe in denying inconvenient truth. It's never worked for me though.  Problems only get worse.  That's why problem solvers rule the world.


----------

