# Climate Change Deniers Debunked



## Liminal (May 21, 2015)

Here are eight reasons why.

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com


----------



## Mr. H. (May 21, 2015)

This "massive body of scientific evidence" is not in itself proof that the earth is headed for certain doom nor does it support the need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, demolish entire industries, and put hundreds of millions out of a job.

And for what reason? To hopefully effect a .7 degree F temperature differential?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2015)

Moyers?  Are you serious?

Left wing hack socialist..  

The only thing debunked by Moyers is the possibility he has a brain or has any common sense..


----------



## Mr. H. (May 21, 2015)

With only 6% of the scientific community allegedly being Republican, is it any wonder where this country is headed? 

I think it's about _control. 
_
Control of lifestyle, control of society, and control of the economy. And I believe that Liberals are loving every bit of it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2015)

*Boyers say's: 






			1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)
		
Click to expand...

*
*The real data says:*

*




*

*Moyers   0*
*Reality   1*


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2015)

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0


----------



## Mr. H. (May 21, 2015)

Modern life on this planet would be literally impossible without massive amounts of hydrocarbons. 

Obama's own EIA has "scientifically proven" that coal oil and natural gas will be the dominant fuel of choice for humans for decades to come. 

Yet, our President's "all of the above" energy strategy has little to do with "anything below".


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> This "massive body of scientific evidence" is not in itself proof that the earth is headed for certain doom nor does it support the need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, demolish entire industries, and put hundreds of millions out of a job.
> 
> And for what reason? To hopefully effect a .7 degree F temperature differential?


Which climate scientist says that?


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2015)

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.





http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 22, 2015)

cnm said:


> I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.
> 
> View attachment 41549
> 
> ...



You have a pretty graph there, from the University of East Anglia. How was the baseline established from which the anomalies diverge? Which atmospheric stations were used and why? Were some stations that are surrounded by asphalt today surrounded by grass and trees 50 years ago? How is UHI accounted for in the computer modelling? How are modern satellite datum meshed with mercury thermometer readings from amateur researchers on clipper ships in 1880? How many atmospheric buoys did we have in the southern Indian Ocean in 1890? How does the climate research unit at the College of East Anglia market itself to get the external funding it needs to survive and grow? Finally, how much of the warming during the 20th Century was due to natural non-human forcings, and how much was due to CO2- after all, we had radical warming during the Eemian period. Could Milancovich cycles, oceanic oscillations and solar activity be major culprits? 

Hopefully, these are some of the questions you ask when you see a shiny graph.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2015)

But nobody cares about the science!

Its only on the radar of the hard core climate k00ks >> Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.


Only thing that matters is that the science isn't mattering in the real world. 20 years of bomb throwing has yielded almost nothing for the global warming k00k community Because people have real responsibilities in life and real worries.

Let face it..........short of an Alaskan heat wave of 70 degree's for 3 weeks in mid-January with pictures of bikini clad babes waterskiing on a lake, nobody is caring about global warming.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2015)

The AGW crowd are losers.......because they cant help themselves from getting hysterical!!!

Global Warming Hysteria How to Lose Public Support in Just Four Short Years Wesley J. Smith First Things


LOL.....and this article ^^ was written 5 years ago and things have gotten far worse for these bozo's in the court of public opinion. If the public thinks your conclusions are stoopid......you lose.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 22, 2015)

cnm said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > This "massive body of scientific evidence" is not in itself proof that the earth is headed for certain doom nor does it support the need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, demolish entire industries, and put hundreds of millions out of a job.
> ...


I can count at least five... here, let me demonstrate...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2015)

LMAO.......and the AGW k00ks wonder why they are not winning???

Temps in the 20's all over the northeast. Now.....your typical climate nut points to points elsewhere as if the bitter cold in almost JUne werent happening to people in the northeast!!!

Late-Season Freeze to Threaten Northeast Friday Night


*fAiLiNg*


Ummm..............time to change the gameplan assholes!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2015)

cnm said:


> I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.
> 
> View attachment 41549
> 
> ...



Yes we see the *adjusted* temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.
> 
> Reality 8
> Moyers 0


Climate change deniers prefer sources like these.....
Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog Media Matters for America


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.
> ...



You warmer wackos are stuck in logical fallacy....the source is meaningless.  If the data is wrong, then prove it is wrong.  Do you think the wacko warmist web sites are any less bias?  Skeptical science for instance is a regular link from you guys and they are the most manipulative and dishonest bunch of seamstress out there.  They get debunked on a regular basis not by simply complaining about them as a source, but by providing actual data that proves them wrong.  How about climate progress....350.org, and the list could continue ad nauseum....do you really think they are not biased?  Till you get past being stuck in logical fallacy mode, you really don't have a chance...of course, being on the wrong side of the argument won't help even if you ever come up with an argument that isn't fallacious....the data and reality is waiting to shoot you down if you ever try an actual argument.


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Let's have a closer look at the "experts" and  "scientists"  who claim to dispute the facts of global climate change.
Global Warming Deniers Database


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


point?


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Speaks for itself.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


no it doesn't.  It is just a list of names.  What is the importance to the list other than there are scientist that deny global warming? So what?


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


OK, if you say so.  It looks like a really interesting list of folks to me though, with some very notable qualifications.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2015)

Reminder: Denier is a AGWCult secret handshake work, it's how they identify each other. Further, no real scientist ever calls skeptics a denier, nor do they ever claim to have Consensus as a means to make you stop questioning them


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2015)

Thermometer from 1950, not accurate to even .5 degrees but used by the AGWCult to claim "warming"


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



There is no point in your post. You used adhom and circular logic in an effort to deceive.  

Please justify their adjustments upward and their infilling of all areas without data point stations by data which is 1 deg C warmer than the surrounding area.  What kind of deception do think will happen to global temperatures if you do this kind of crap?

But then we have Global Satellite coverage which tells us your lies are simply that... LIES and deception..





Even the satellite based data shows you a liar..


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



In Pal review qualifications means that the person is paid to say what they say..  Qualifications mean shit!  Evidence of what they do, how they do it and if it is repeatable and honest science is what has meaning.  The alarmists do nothing of the sort. They hide their data, methods, and then scream that they are the authority. They show themselves frauds by not practicing real science, thus their qualifications mean shit nothing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



DESMOG???  Seriously???  You used a lying piece of shit blog that has been shown a fraud and intentionally deceitful, currently being sued for libel by multiple real scientists,  as a source..  Really?

The blog is funded by Think Progress a George Soros front group to spread lies and deceit..



You really should check your facts before presenting them...  you just might end up in a libel suit if you are not careful.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


no it doesn't


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The only point he is exposing is the one on top of his head.    Its been a while since I have seen a total left wit drone post all this kind of crap.  His last 'deniers list' has desmog in court in five states..  The case in Wyoming has been lost and is now entering the punitive stage.. There has to be a butt load of money behind the lies remaining for them to not retract their lies. The final court order to retract is coming and they are fighting it as a free speech right but we all know that libel is not free speech.


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 22, 2015)

"_My university has only one permanent university-funded scientist, and that's me. I have about a dozen research workers with PhDs who are working in the climate research unit and they're all funded by so-called soft money. Their existence requires external support_." - Tom Wigley, College of East Anglia

[ _"I was warned when I wrote my first paper which discussed a difference between the climate models and some numbers I was looking at for the tropics alone that it would be very difficult and that my funds would probably be cut. In fact, they have been cut"
"Did you expect that?"
"No, I thought that the system was so straight forward and honest that bringing in a new idea and a new perspective into the whole thing would be considered to be a positive thing and that people would like to look at both sides of the argument and then to have a debate."_ ] -interview with Reginald Newell, M.I.T. 

It's not a wacked-out conspiracy theory to simply identify the fact that there's a financial incentive in climate science to err on the side of the disaster scenario. Without the threat of man-made catastrophic warming, there is no $millions in funding for research. To be a researcher at most universities and to minimize the effects of CO2 on climate would be like a fireman publicly stating that station 7 is redundant and its closure would not significantly impact public safety. That guy is going to become an instant pariah within his vocational community. 

At the same time you've got 'researchers' who are paid big money by the oil industry. So, instead of a healthy scientific debate where tough questions are asked, we've got a WWI trench warfare situation in climate science.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> Which atmospheric stations were used and why?



Why don't you do your own research? Of course, I suggest you stay far away from denier blogs, being denier blogs will just give you fraud and hoaxes.



> Were some stations that are surrounded by asphalt today surrounded by grass and trees 50 years ago? How is UHI accounted for in the computer modelling?



After adjustments, the UHI-affected stations actually show less of a warming trend, so it's likely they've been overcorrected a bit. So why do you think deniers lie and declare UHI is raising current temperature averages?



> How are modern satellite datum meshed with mercury thermometer readings from amateur researchers on clipper ships in 1880?



With great difficulty. That old data had to be revised upwards, making the current warming look smaller. How does that fit in with the conspiracy theory? The adjustments scientists have made have made the warming look smaller. Almost all deniers say the exact opposite. Why do you think deniers revise reality like that?



> Hopefully, these are some of the questions you ask when you see a shiny graph.



Hopefully, you'll start questioning why deniers are always making stuff up.


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Adhom?  Which part?


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure you said that already.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> It's not a wacked-out conspiracy theory to simply identify the fact that there's a financial incentive in climate science to err on the side of the disaster scenario.



"Everyone lies for the money!" just shows how you think, not how the world works.

Any of those climate scientists could instantly double their salary by going to work for the deniers. But they don't. Those scientists take a pay cut because they won't lie for money. That gives them added credibility.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > Which atmospheric stations were used and why?
> ...


 


Thats right.....they'll be making it up in the northeast this Memorial Day weekend when they have to go out at night with winter parka's to enjoy happy hour!!! Clearly!!! The topic of discussion will clearly be about how uncomfortable everybody is in this global warming weather!!!

Except fort he AGW k00ks, the wntire population is out reacting to their environment. Howmany people will be sitting home tonight doing internet searches about satellite temperature readings? One in 5,000??? Maybe?

Only progressive OCD's with nothing meaningful in thier lives think people care about global warming. Every poll shows that its not on anybodys radar........lol.....people are far more worried about ISIS. LMAOIm laughing......people should be worrying about neither.


----------



## Liminal (May 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Rather than imposing my own interpretation, I believe it would be far more instructive for people to read the link and draw their own conclusions.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > Which atmospheric stations were used and why?
> ...


 


Ummm.......if "deniers" are making stuff up....."hoaxes"..............and have zero media coverage of their side of the story, why is it sweetie that every poll displays a totally apathetic attitude towards global warming from the American public?


Fing duh!!!!!!


Would yuo like me topost up one of many sobering polls? Pew? Gallup? Rasmusen? Take youpick honey!!


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > Which atmospheric stations were used and why?
> ...





> Hopefully, these are some of the questions you ask when you see a shiny graph.



Hopefully, you'll start questioning why deniers are always making stuff up.[/QUOTE]

I have done my own researchers. It confounds me how AGW apologists can reduce the entire problem to CO2 and ignore all other factors. 'Climate science' has widely come to mean "the effects of CO2 on climate". Even other anthropogenic factors like 1.5 million sq. miles of concrete and asphalt are ignored. I can't be that simplistic. 

 While there are problems with using ice core samples to pinpoint annual or decadenal fluctuations in prehistoric climate, they give us a fairly dependable big picture perspective on how the climate fluctuated during the late Pleistocene era, going back 400,000 years or so. What we see are long periods of snowball earth, punctuated by brief warming spikes (interglacial periods). The interglacial periods, like the one we're in now, have come along fairly consistently every 100,000 years or so. This particular one, the Holocene Era, is amazingly consistent with past warming periods. The climate has been warming on and off for the last 17,000 years, give or take. We can expect the climate to continue to warm, CO2 or no CO2, until we enter the next pre-glacial period. If we compare this interglacial period with the Eemian, we shouldn't be surprised to see another 2 degrees Celcius of warming over the next few thousand years, and 20+ more feet of sea level rise. But, what we need to realize is that we're living in the good times. The climate is not 'broken'. The alternative is an Ice Age, for which we're due. 

"Well, this warming spike is unprecedented", say the AGW apologists. That's not a fact. If you think that's a fact, you don't know the difference between a fact and speculation. 

If I were a published scientist, I would actually be included within the 97% 'consensus', which isn't actually a consensus. I do believe that carbon emissions have some effect on climate, and that's all that's required to get you included in John Cook's 97% consensus survey, which is the source of the 97% statistic that everyone quotes. It's just that I think the effect of CO2 is minimal when compared to the effects of Milankovich cycles, periodic migrations of oceanic heat pumps, solar activity and chaos theory. The planet is going to do what it's going to do, and I can list a dozen reasons to break our oil addiction that (to me) are more compelling than 400 ppm CO2.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> I have done my own researchers. It confounds me how AGW apologists can reduce the entire problem to CO2 and ignore all other factors.



Does this look like other factors have been ignored? It looks to me like they've all been carefully measured.








> The climate has been warming on and off for the last 17,000 years, give or take.



No. The climate stopped warming 8,000 years ago. The climate has been steadily cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have kept steadily cooling until the next ice age. Instead, the slow cooling suddenly turned into a fast warming, completely contrary to the natural cycle or any natural forcing.



> It's just that I think the effect of CO2 is minimal when compared to the effects of Milankovich cycles, periodic migrations of oceanic heat pumps, solar activity and chaos theory.



Your gut feeling is contradicted by the actual data.


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The climate stopped warming 8,000 years ago. The climate has been steadily cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have kept steadily cooling until the next ice age. Instead, the slow cooling suddenly turned into a fast warming, completely contrary to the natural cycle or any natural forcing.



I said that the climate has been warming* off and on *since the last Ice Age. Obviously, it's warmer today than during the last Ice Age. As you suggest, the climate was warmer 6,000 years ago than it is today. So, we had a very steep spike in temperature back then without CO2 forcing. 
NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

In the meantime, we had the Roman Warming Period, followed by cooling, and then a Medieval Warming Period, followed by a mini Ice Age, and back to warming for the last 400 years or so. The data, therefore, suggests a lot of natural non-anthro variation in climate.

Your graph provides no link to a source. My guess is that it depends on amplifiers which triple the effect of CO2 if it's like other graphs I've investigated.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> So, we had a very steep spike in temperature back then without CO2 forcing



And if anyone said that CO2 was the only factor involved in climate, that would matter.

Your logic is bad. It's basically like saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, so obviously humans can't cause forest fires now." The fact that climate changed naturally in the past does not preclude humans from causing it to change.



> In the meantime, we had the Roman Warming Period, followed by cooling, and then a Medieval Warming Period, followed by a mini Ice Age, and back to warming for the last 400 years or so. The data, therefore, suggests a lot of natural non-anthro variation in climate.



All local variations. Noise on the signal. The globe as a whole has been slowly cooling.

We also see the stratospheric cooling, the outgoing longwave radiation decrease, the downgoing longwave radiation increase. There are no natural explanations for such directly observed data, hence such data is regarded as a smoking gun for greenhouse-gas induced global warming. Global warming theory is the only theory that explains all the observed data, therefore it is the accepted theory. If you can come up with a different theory that explains all the observed data, you'll be the first.



> Your graph provides no link to a source. My guess is that it depends on amplifiers which triple the effect of CO2 if it's like other graphs I've investigated.



The source is the IPCC AR5 report, which is the summary of the current science. It displays only current forcings, and makes no assumptions about feedbacks.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

Chapter 8, page 698, with the whole chapter being about how the forcings are calculated.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > So, we had a very steep spike in temperature back then without CO2 forcing
> ...



Why do you make things up?  The stratosphere is not warming and the TOA measurements have risen, not declined.
AR5 is fatally flawed and a political pile of crap.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2015)

Billy, how can we see deep freeze you swear is upon the world? Do we need special glasses?

Of course the stratosphere isn't warming. It's cooling, as as I keep saying, and that's one of the fingerprints of greenhouse-gas-caused global warming. There is no natural explanation for the stratospheric cooling. If it was the sun causing the current warming, then the stratosphere would be warming.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy, how can we see deep freeze you swear is upon the world? Do we need special glasses?
> 
> Of course the stratosphere isn't warming. It's cooling, as as I keep saying, and that's one of the fingerprints of greenhouse-gas-caused global warming. There is no natural explanation for the stratospheric cooling. If it was the sun causing the current warming, then the stratosphere would be warming.


Except surface temperatures aren't warming


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy, how can we see deep freeze you swear is upon the world? Do we need special glasses?
> ...


*Link? *

How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research




*Global average temperature since 1880. *This graph from NOAA shows the annual trend in average global air temperature in degrees Celsius, through December 2013. For each year, the range of uncertainty is indicated by the gray vertical bars. The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.)

*Looks like a rapid and substancial rise to me.

30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed





Temperature history for every year from 1880-2014. Credit: NOAA National Climatic Data Center

You can interpret variability over land as the driver of the ups and downs seen in the global graph. There are four years from 1976 onwards when the land was below average; the last time the land temperature was cool enough for the globe to be at or below average was February 1985. The flirtation with below-average temps was tiny – primarily worth noting in the spirit of accurate record keeping. Looking at any of these graphs, it's obvious that earlier times were cooler and more recent times are warmer. None of the fluctuations over land since 1976 provide evidence contrary to the observation that the Earth is warming.



Read more at: 30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed
*


----------



## eagle1462010 (May 23, 2015)




----------



## eagle1462010 (May 23, 2015)

Holy Shit Batman..............................The earth is on fire..................by a study that shows .6 temperature rise over a whole 30 year period.................................................

Al Gore has put up the Batman light in the sky............................time to save the planet........................

Ummmmm Batman..............the earth has been warming since the last ice age................

shhhhhhh..............a lot of green is on the line here..............shhhhhhhh


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2015)

And yet only  the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it we have been cooling since the mid 1970's

Whom to believe..  Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???

Again there has been no warming for over 18 years 6 months.. 

And the satellite Data confirms it.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Already been posted . Go read theAR5 report. It's been Put on here hundred of times in all the threads that you already know of. Link is IPCC report.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


>


IN one post you revealed why the alarmist drivel is nothing more than hype and shame...  It has been warmer, much warmer than today and it has also been cooler, much cooler than today. Should we drift downward into the next ice age some alarmists are gonna be pretty upset..


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Here are eight reasons why.
> 
> Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com








Yes, the planet HAS stopped warming.  The data manipulation that the warmers have had to resort too is all the evidence you need to show that that is a fact.

Projection, prediction.....  Are we arguing over what the definition of "is" is?

The temperature reading used to be.  Now that there has been wholesale data falsification that is no longer true.

Who gives a shit.  Consensus is the language of politics, not science.

Actually, yes it is the Suns fault.

This is correct.  There currently is no global cooling.  Wait a few years though and there WILL be a discernible marker.

Yes it has been MUCH warmer.  So why try to hide that fact?

Yes, the Antarctic sea ice is increasing.  So is most of the Ice sheet itself.  The one exception being the peninsula.  A small percentage of the whole continent.

This link is one hell of a fail....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy, how can we see deep freeze you swear is upon the world? Do we need special glasses?
> 
> Of course the stratosphere isn't warming. It's cooling, as as I keep saying, and that's one of the fingerprints of greenhouse-gas-caused global warming. There is no natural explanation for the stratospheric cooling. If it was the sun causing the current warming, then the stratosphere would be warming.



Now THERE is that juvenile gratification that you warmers seem to crave. The expectation being that the Earth's climate system is as instantly responsive as my zero-turn mower. That because the stratosphere isn't warming INSTANTLY or "now" that somehow is all you need to dismiss the history of that parameter.

you need to get over this childish expectation that we are only looking at parameters that are shaped and scaled exactly like the temperature record. It would be just weird if you happened to stumble onto one or more parameters with a hockey stick shape that explained it all..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Here are eight reasons why.
> ...


If there were only some way for you to put all this information into some kind of context.   I wonder who we could ask?


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Context?  Whatever do you mean dear child?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Trust me on this one Luminal. There is no EASY way to get to the bottom of this issue. The context is often YEARS of carefully listening to the news and research.. 

Keep tuned in.  Let us know what background info you might need..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Context?  You know, the kind of context you can get from people with actual knowledge, people with some kind of background in science.   Know what I mean?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


When I find someone who's expertise didn't come from TV or the internet, I'll be sure to do that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...










I merely pointed out that assertions made in the link, with one exception, were not factual.  That's all the context a scientist ever needs.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Not asked of me, but..........................when the so called who's who of Climate change get caught Lying.........time and time again...........................why the hell should anyone trust them anymore................


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Now THERE is that juvenile gratification that you warmers seem to crave. The expectation being that the Earth's climate system is as instantly responsive as my zero-turn mower. That because the stratosphere isn't warming INSTANTLY or "now" that somehow is all you need to dismiss the history of that parameter.



There goes flac again, invoking his magic theory that has never explained anything. It's a bit of pseudoscience he brings up when the real world makes him uncomfortable.



> you need to get over this childish expectation that we are only looking at parameters that are shaped and scaled exactly like the temperature record. It would be just weird if you happened to stumble onto one or more parameters with a hockey stick shape that explained it all.



Let me remind you how science works. You create a theory to explain the observations, make testable predictions with it, and see if those predictions come true. AGW science has passing that test for decades now, which is why it has credibility. You're not doing science. You're invoking magic to explain why all those correct predictions weren't really correct predictions. If you want credibility, do some science. Create a theory and make testable predictions.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



So you think my knowledge of the topic comes from TV? Got news for you.. Libraries are yesterday. Today science and technology is discussed, developed and distributed by the Internet. Or didntcha notice that? 

I can shop 40 university libraries and research institutes right from this very chair.. AND I do that often.. But enough about me. What do YOU believe about the hysteria and intense exaggerations of Global Warming? 

And what do you think a Denier believes?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Is that the current FOX News version?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


The apparent basis for your argument is that climate change deniers base all their conclusions on science, while everyone who disagrees with them has to be politically motivated or simply naive.  I'm saying that no part of that argument has ever, in any way, been substantiated by anyone.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


LOL

On many posts the data and emails and raw data changes are reported.............Not doing it again..............

If they have to change the data to get graphs to support their position then they are worthless..............

Even Nasa screwed up the data...............at least they finally admitted it...........and then on the very thread I posted it on...............the same cult posters still denied it...............even after showing them that NASA was saying they screwed up.

Also too many predictions aren't coming true...............but the green backs by the Billions keep going to them................so they Lie Lie Lie.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Yes, I understand the contrived narrative.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.


I put up data from the scientist who study the antarctic.........some agreeing with the loss of ice on one side and showing ice gains on the other........................even showed data that helped support some claims for global warming.....................

And I was still told the ice wasn't increasing on one side, as they used similar data from the same team for the losses.................................

Why should I give those types the time of day................


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

For people who's primary source of research material comes from the internet:  You are all just plain lazy.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> For people who's primary source of research material comes from the internet:  You are all just plain lazy.


I work for a living...................I don't have the time to buy all the books and go to the library just to satisfy your opinion of who's lazy or not.........................

The internet is full of truth, lies, half truths, and everything in between.....................

It's up to the end user to figure out which info is right or wrong based on their reading and beliefs...................

Lazy...............Get up at 3:30 am tomorrow and join me at work...........I get back home every day at about 5:15p.m.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > For people who's primary source of research material comes from the internet:  You are all just plain lazy.
> ...


Well congratulations, that means you're just like nearly everyone else in the world.  You need qualified people to interpret the information for you.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


No I don't..................I can read and decide for myself.....................and the lies and manipulation of orgs like IPCC means they are tarnished...................If they have to Lie to prove they are right...........LOL..............then they are to be ignored..........................

Unless you like getting your information from Liars.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Decide what for yourself?  Are you kidding?  Someone else had to interpret that much for you as well.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


And who is that..............YOU..................do you deny that they falsified data.................hmmm....................interpret that.


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2015)

Can you please write normal English sentences and stop with all the periods?  You posts are incomprehensible.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Can you please write normal English sentences and stop with all the periods?  You posts are incomprehensible.


Nope...................................................................................

It's how I post...............................

Change da channel...........


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Tell me then, how did you come by this information about falsified data?  Did you conduct your own intensive, completely unbiased study? Did you evaluate all the available data?  Or did you hear about it some where?


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Only the "qualified" people you look to...aren't.  Repeatedly they have been shown to be catastrophically wrong.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



No.. Simply "deniers" are pointing out the exaggerations and claims that were DESIGNED to misleading in order to further a socio-political agenda. And it's really not hard to do.. For instance.. 

Do you know about IPCC? Have you read their simple "mission statement"? Do you think that they are a purveyor of OBJECTIVE Climate science with the obvious bias in their mission statement. The "agenda" ain't hidden. It's right there in your face. Every time that some politician declares that "the science is over".. The only thing that's over is the free ride these scientists have had being used and rewarded as political tools..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


So then we are apparently supposed to believe that there exists an international conspiracy of scientists and governments to suppress the truth about global climate change.  Is that right?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


No doubt someone qualified told you that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.



And half of what's been in print is redundant. How many Thermodynamics or Calculus books do you need? How many have been in print? 
(Largely the same economic scam as every new improved IPhone -- Professors gotta eat. Students shouldn't be reading textbooks by dead people and publishers need to have new products.)

No reason to suspect that an ONLINE textbook is incomplete or inferior. Otherwise, there would still be bookstores at Universities.   Or haven't you discovered that there aren't any anymore (for the most part -- unless they have huge revenue on NCAA apparel and a joint deal with Barnes and Nobel.. 

As for citations to older journal articles. You can have somebody fetch it for you and deliver it cheap -- right over the internet. 

I have a hard time getting my societies to continue to send me print versions of journals. You have a check the "I'm an old fart paper delivery" box.

How about you?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.
> ...


Half of what's in print is redundant?  Hilarious, I thought for a moment you were being serious.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.



And half of what's been in print is redundant. How many Thermodynamics or Calculus books do you need? How many have been in print? 
(Largely the same economic scam as every new improved IPhone -- Professors gotta eat. Students shouldn't be reading textbooks by dead people and publishers need to have new products.)

No reason to suspect that an ONLINE textbook is incomplete or inferior. Otherwise, there would still be bookstores at Universities.   Or haven't you discovered that there aren't any anymore (for the most part -- unless they have huge revenue on NCAA apparel and a joint deal with Barnes and Nobel.. 

As for citations to older journal articles. You can have somebody fetch it for you and deliver it cheap -- right over the internet. 

I have a hard time getting my societies to continue to send me print versions of journals. You have a check the "I'm an old fart paper delivery" box.

How about you?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.
> ...


I'm sorry your access to knowledge has been so limited.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Of course !! It's not hidden. It's in your face. Now I'm gonna give you one data point. The significance of that data is the following. Once you read the quote below -- you can no longer honestly claim to be totally ignorant of ANY statements admitting the true socio-political agenda behind the Global Warming Extravaganza. 

The guy is a lead "investigator" for the IPCC. A "Climate Economics" specialist. And he sits in approval meetings for the scientific "consensus" statements coming out of that grand body..



> Climate Talks or Wealth Redistribution Talks
> 
> NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
> 
> Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.* Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. *One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore*, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.



Poof -- If youre honest -- you are innoculated from your innocent view of Global Warming hype.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.
> ...


Ever been to the National Archives?  I have.  Can you guess what you'll find there?     Millions of documents, journals and books that you can't get on the internet.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Feel free to explain how nearly every civilized nation on earth officially agrees with the science of global climate change.  How did that happen?  Did they all meet one day at Applebees to plan this diabolical conspiracy?  Have the real scientists been silenced and the truth suppressed?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



OH look a useful idiot... one that couldn't find his ass with both hands...  NO facts, just adhom attacks...  Doesn't present evidence just belittles and spouts crap..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Unlike some people, I don't pretend to understand the evidence.  That's why you don't see me presenting any, I post links and let people draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Another post of crap... Not a single lick of fact...  Where do you come up with your lies and deceit?  Motherjones?  HOTWHOPPER? the DNC? or some socialist crap organization like the IPCC who admitted that its all about power and wealth redistribution...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



AH yes the "I know better than you and you will do as I say" fuck face mantra..  You have proven you do not know shit about anything. You are simply a left wit troll who uses Alyinsky tactic in an effort to silence people..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


That doesn't even make sense.  You must be responding to some other post.  Did you just wander onto the wrong thread by mistake?


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Here are eight reasons why.
> 
> Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com


I know right?

Hard facts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




Nope.. They meet at the UN every few years to present ONLY the Climate science relevent to MAN-CAUSED Global Warming. Then they all try to mug the industrialized world for money. 

These "position statements by professional society are never voted on by the membership. They are drafted by the front office to ADMIT their bias and pledge their loyalties to all their sponsors. Like the BILLIONS of research dollars available IF --- you can swallow your pride and make your work SOUND like their prepackaged conclusion that man is wrecking the planet and money and power is required to fix that. 

In fact -- 2nd data pt. The Geological Society of Australia had a Global Warming/Climate Policy Statement for YEARS.. Revised several times all without input from the membership. Last time they tried to revise it -- the membership demanded to be involved. They no longer HAVE  a policy statement on Climate Change. Worthless as a Congressional Investigation I tell you..  Not like in the movies where the society members all meet in the Old Harvard lecture hall and hammer out a proclamation of truth. 

I sense you're not really interested in learning this kind of conflicting information. Seriously, 

DID you really think those policy positions are NOT political?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


That must be why the military planners of all the industrialized nations are making contingency plans based on global climate change scenarios.   Maybe they just don't have anything better to do, you know since they aren't concerned about terrorism or Chinese expansionism, or Russian resurgence.  They must be thinking about stuff like that because it's stylish and trendy.  You know how liberal those military guys can be.


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


True. The military has no ideological bent to defend. They have the nation to defend.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Now watch one of these guys tell us he knows all about how military planning priorities are established in other nations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Obviously, you're oblivious to the model of inefficiency that is our Federal Govt. Good bet would be that you LOVE yourself more of this kind of "military preparedness"..

That plan is right up there with the Alien Invasion Contingency Plan and the Return of Jesus Plan that Ronald Reagan required of them.

*Are you that naive?* Do you not know the effect of mandate requiring all Federal Agencies to address and be sensitive to a myriad of "favorite memes of the day"..

Do you really think the Coast Guard cadets that had to suffer thru 1/2 an hour of Obama explaining to them why Global Warming was one of their most serious missions - are ever gonna get a Purple Heart for heat exhaustion?

The day the Defense Dept develops a battle  cross for meritorious service in the Climate Change cause because those CG cadets got a sunburn on patrol --- send me a PM.... 0.5degC change in your lifetime and you believe this is a military crisis? ARE YOU DAFT?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


See, I knew we had an expert on military planning here. 
Looks like we're back to conspiracy theories then.


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I know right?  I was in the military too. Funny.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2015)

What's funny is how the 2 of you are the same kind of naive and unreachable. Have you been in the stacks of the stacks of the Nat Archive lately Dotty? 

You both do realize that by your reasoning -- Santa Claus must be real as well. Because the Military tracks his progress around the world and scrambles jets to escort him and the reindeer thru the hotspots of the world. 

Saw the officers do it with my own eyes..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Me too.   Why weren't we told about these ongoing conspiracies to conceal the truth about climate change?  Maybe we just weren't high enough in the chain of command to have  access to that kind of classified information.  I wonder if Edward Snowden could tell us?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> And yet only  the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it *we have been cooling since the mid 1970's*
> 
> Whom to believe..  Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???
> 
> ...


A perfect example of how the deniers LIE!
They lie that we have been cooling since the 1970s and then compound that lie by lying that the satellite data "confirms" it, but only post cherry picked data starting 2001, not the mid 1970s because they know they are lying. Deniers are premeditated liars!

There is not one single satellite data set, raw or otherwise, starting in the 1970s that shows cooling!

The reality is there has been no statistically significant global cooling for 115 years and 5 months.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




hahahahaha. yup, stylish and trendy. here is a report from the mid-70s when global cooling was all the rage. when you read the report it seems like everything that was caused by cooling then, is caused by warming now!

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2015)

It was never "all the rage" anywhere outside the pages of Newsweek and Time.  

And I would find it a serious disappointment were you to think such a comment is a meaningful rebuttal of the evidence for AGW that climate science has found.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> It was never "all the rage" anywhere outside the pages of Newsweek and Time.
> 
> And I would find it a serious disappointment were you to think such a comment is a meaningful rebuttal of the evidence for AGW that climate science has found.




wow. I guess you didnt live through that era.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

this CIA report starts with a summary. simply read the first paragraph.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

It went from global cooling to global warming to climate change all in the space of 30 years yet they insist the science is settled.

Lol


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> What's funny is how the 2 of you are the same kind of naive and unreachable. Have you been in the stacks of the stacks of the Nat Archive lately Dotty?
> 
> You both do realize that by your reasoning -- Santa Claus must be real as well. Because the Military tracks his progress around the world and scrambles jets to escort him and the reindeer thru the hotspots of the world.
> 
> Saw the officers do it with my own eyes..


Sounds like you know almost as much about military operations as you do about the science of climate change.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



That would rule you out, wouldn't it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.



Bullshit.  You can get most of the books published these days on Kindle.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And yet only  the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it *we have been cooling since the mid 1970's*
> ...




^ Chart shows no warming the past 2 decades


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and by the way, you can't find anywhere near half of what's in print on some subjects on the internet.
> ...


Holy shit, looks like a whole generation of people who don't know anything about anything.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



ROFL!  Holly shit, it looks like the AGW cult never bought a book on Amazon before.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I'd love to see all the research you've done at the National Archives through Amazon and Kindle.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes, I'm sure your credentials give you enough latitude to determine what the facts are without having to bother with substantiating anything.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It was never "all the rage" anywhere outside the pages of Newsweek and Time.
> ...


Feel free to explain how this report from the seventies refutes the science of 2015.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



The National Archives aren't the only place you can find information about the global warming hoax.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I'm sure you can find all the information you need about that on Kindle.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I can find it the same way you found your AGW propaganda, by searching the internet.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


you mean someone besides you, right?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Now THERE is that juvenile gratification that you warmers seem to crave. The expectation being that the Earth's climate system is as instantly responsive as my zero-turn mower. That because the stratosphere isn't warming INSTANTLY or "now" that somehow is all you need to dismiss the history of that parameter.
> ...


dude/ dudette, that is not how science works, one produces a theory and then compares it with observed, you have it assbackward fool.  what you are describing is pseudoscience 101.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


boooo, you can do better can't you?

BTW, you need some new material.   i see you are not creative.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


you don't have to believe anything.  That's your choice.  I do believe because they have been caught, it has been reported on by reporters.  The people who research and make us aware.  Simpletons such as yourself merely believe because you want to believe.  Then leave here, I'm not here to convince you of anything.  You are worthless to me. leave enjoy your life and leave us to ours.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


isn't that what he said, or did he studder?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


wow, you are really playing with your stupid cards right?  You have no idea how, hmmm ever hear about the United Nations?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


whooptido, did you get a medal for a sunburn?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


you got a book you could lend me to show me this military change in policy?

I know you would never provide any details from the internet since it is outdated and useless .


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I never left the conspiracy, so you're wrong. And, you obviously have nothing of interest for the debate on here so you can take your ball and go home.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


because you weren't invited, are you really that naive?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Bullshit!

Climate at a Glance National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Use all the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you want, the chart is flat since the late 1990's


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


You have yet to produce anything that looks like a rebuttal based on any kind of evidence.  I'm apparently supposed to take your word.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


So then you're just too damn lazy to read links.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


refute a false position?  show me how that's done. you show me your proof, it's simple right?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


you don't provide crap s0nnY


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You don't have any idea about what you know, what you believe, or why.   You only know what you're told.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


If it's not a fact then you must have means at your disposal to disprove it.  Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through this?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


sure I do.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


why would someone report on nothing? you're a k00k.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You would.
Climate Change and National Security Pentagon Says Global Warming Is Real and Is Planning for the Worst - Living Green Magazine Living Green Magazine


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

Nothing to see here.
Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

You can refute any time now.  Ready, set, refute.......
Defense.gov News Article DOD Wraps Climate Change Response into Master Plans


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

Any time now.....
Combating Climate Change Germany Prepares for Weather Extremes - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

Come on now, don't be bashful.
 Global warming will drag Britain into more wars senior military officer RT UK


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The linked chart shows a +.09C/decade warming trend from 1995 to 2014.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Any time now.....
> Combating Climate Change Germany Prepares for Weather Extremes - SPIEGEL ONLINE


was this supposed to tell me something about military?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Come on now, don't be bashful.
> Global warming will drag Britain into more wars senior military officer RT UK


an officer comments on climate and the military is changing?  How is this evidence of anything other than some military leader made a comment?

BTW, in the US the military isn't used against its own cities or state.  National Guard does that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2015)

No, it was supposed to tell you that people that have normal or better intelligence understand that a changing climate imposes certain consequences.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> You can refute any time now.  Ready, set, refute.......
> Defense.gov News Article DOD Wraps Climate Change Response into Master Plans


what the 'f' does this mean?

"John Conger, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment told American Forces Press Service the roadmap was completed in 2012 and published early this year.

The document “had us do a variety of things,” Conger said. “But the piece that I think is the crux of the report is, *rather than creating a stovepipe within the DOD organizational structure to deal with climate change*, [the document says] we are going to integrate climate change considerations into the normal processes, the day-to-day jobs of everybody.”

Such language is going to be integrated into various guidance documents, he added, “and we’ve already started doing that.”"
huh, what you think it is they're going to say in the documents?  Be prepared for climate change?  Again, wht the 'f' does that mean.  That means jack crap.

So failed.  Nice try though. BTW, US armed services don't do anything in the country, national guard does.  Military is for defense of the country, so what are the defending against?  Rain, snow, wind, volcanoes, oops that's not climate right, yet there is more issue today with that then climate.  hahahaahahahaha, you bunch of sky fallers are fnn hilarious.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nothing to see here.
> Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes


this one is perhaps the best of the documents you presented, but it was done in Bush's time?  No details other than to say they must be prepared.  Good for them.  The action they will take is limited to the fact they have no idea what the enemy is, so doing something will be difficult since there isn't any danger.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> It was never "all the rage" anywhere outside the pages of Newsweek and Time.
> 
> And I would find it a serious disappointment were you to think such a comment is a meaningful rebuttal of the evidence for AGW that climate science has found.



You obviously didn't look at the CIA report that Ian posted for you. It's really quite interesting. Making the case for INCREASED warming supporting more arable hectares of land/ population. All the "consensus" science of the time is presented right there. Go read the U Wisc conclusions in that CIA paper. 

But the Best PART is on page 1 where the question is asked? 

*"Can the Agency depend on Climatology as a science to accurately predict the climate??" 
*
I don't think that question was ever asked by the IPCC. Because obviously the IPCC understood that it could control the predictions.. 
Those CIA dudes are cautiously skeptical And that's a good thing.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to see here.
> ...


No danger?  Sez you.  Actually not even you, just whoever told you.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > You can refute any time now.  Ready, set, refute.......
> ...


" US armed services don't do anything in the country.........."    
You really don't know anything about anything......do you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Ed is right. It's really weak position to say it's been cooling since the 70s.
Statistically, the US has not warmed as much as the Global Average. But the vast amount of data per sq mile in the USA just can't be "adjusted" or fudged as easily as Africa or the polar regions.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It was never "all the rage" anywhere outside the pages of Newsweek and Time.
> ...



I was born in 1953. I did live through that "era".

If, by posting this document, you intended to show that global cooling was a widely held hypothesis at the time, you failed.  All the document or its references mention is "climate change".


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

Let's hear what a prominent Republican leader has to say about climate change.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


What's the danger?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Let's hear what a prominent Republican leader has to say about climate change.


I really don't care what a republican leader says? I don't need them


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

Some Republican leaders think we should just defer to God on this issue.   As if God created man without brains.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Let's hear what a prominent Republican leader has to say about climate change.
> ...


That's nice, I really don't care about what you don't care about.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Ok genius what can the military do in the country? Defend borders? Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Oh yeah follow jumbo jets


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



There's really no sense bragging about the National Archives if you can't think straight. Title of this thread is about Debunking Climate Deniers. 

The argument is over facts and interpretations of data. The fact that every US Federal Agency has been REQUIRED to make comments about the Dangers of Global Warming -- does not apply to this argument. The projections and the claims made for GW are either good or bad, right or wrong. There is no authority that can fix that by "consensus" creation. 

MAYBE -- I'd take your offered strategic Military more seriously IF the DEMAND to comment was accompanied by guidance on what the Climate will BE IN 2100 !!! 

*Tell us Limimal -- What temperature increase in 2100 will represent a strategic threat to the military operations of the USA? What were those Generals told EXACTLY about the predicated changes in Weather and Resources? Were they  given the WORST CASE IPCC estimates? Or were they trusted to look it up on the internet and draw their own conclusions?*

It's meaningless in terms of attempting to tar "deniers".


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


That's all that dude is about


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Well I certainly am fortunate to have someone of your caliber around to tell me how to think straight.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Why not ask Mitch McConnell?  He knows as much about science as you or anyone else on this forum.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I don't care. Not sure what your end game is. You're just another schmuck on a message board who thinks his shit don't stink. Dude, you smell to high heaven! You've added zip to the OP!


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You shouldn't talk about subjects you obviously don't know anything about.   I might just as well be discussing this nation's defense planning and operational capabilities with a German Shepherd....he barks and wags his tail, but he doesn't really understand.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


he he he ha ha ha ha

he haw he haw he haw...........

Military planning a attack on global warming................lol


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Wow how insightful. Like obama


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

And every military leader!


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2015)

Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme.  Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme.  Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.


Who's said that but you all, you know all you genius'


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


By contrast,  you should be proud of your amazing mediocrity, your incredibly ordinary, undistinguished and unexceptional contributions set a standard for others to follow.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


He/she would bury you


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme.  Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.
> ...



You haven't noticed anyone on your side of this argument making comments about liberals?  Really?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I don't need the likes of you to tell me anything


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Yeah so?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

You are truly a short sided guy


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I know, right?Still unclear what it has to do with the OP


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Go get that tornado


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Go get that tornado


All hands man your battle stations............set material condition Zebra throughout the ship........close all water tight hatches and ......................

This is the Captain............we've been ordered by the Commander N Chief to attack a..............ummm...........ummm..............a Tornado...............

Prepare to fire..............


----------



## MaryL (Jun 3, 2015)

Why is does it seem that every week we get a new thread espousing this same topic, like a broken record?  It's as if some of you people that
spout this propaganda often enough, you think global warming  will just go away.Dream on. The climate IS changing, and what  IS  causing that
change, mankind is the most likely culprit. All the rest of this crap people spout here sounds more like rationalizations or excuses, not rational critical thought.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Go get that tornado
> ...


Stand your lines and don't let it pass


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Why is does it seem that every week we get a new thread espousing this same topic, like a broken record?  It's as if some of you people that
> spout this propaganda often enough, you think global warming  will just go away.Dream on. The climate IS changing, and what  IS  causing that
> change, mankind is the most likely culprit. All the rest of this crap people spout here sounds more like rationalizations or excuses, not rational critical thought.


Your side starts then, ask them


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 3, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Why is does it seem that every week we get a new thread espousing this same topic, like a broken record?  It's as if some of you people that
> spout this propaganda often enough, you think global warming  will just go away.Dream on. The climate IS changing, and what  IS  causing that
> change, mankind is the most likely culprit. All the rest of this crap people spout here sounds more like rationalizations or excuses, not rational critical thought.


The climate has been changing for millions of years.............Did you know North America used to be a Glacier............Oh my...................

Of course it's been changing..........But these Warmist are using false data to jack up their claims and have been wrong on their projections time and time again.............

Most of the CO2 is done by Natural means on this earth...........The argument is how much we effect the overall picture with such a small percentage on the global scale..............

The Climate cult will push their agenda..........wipe out industries like coal................force power bills up to Germany's levels at 35 cents per kwh..................and hose over the very people they claim to be protecting.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Nut jobs like General Custer


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Why is does it seem that every week we get a new thread espousing this same topic, like a broken record?  It's as if some of you people that
> spout this propaganda often enough, you think global warming  will just go away.Dream on. The climate IS changing, and what  IS  causing that
> change, mankind is the most likely culprit. All the rest of this crap people spout here sounds more like rationalizations or excuses, not rational critical thought.


You can't argue with true believers.  They all know what they know, and even more importantly, they know what you don't know.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Why is does it seem that every week we get a new thread espousing this same topic, like a broken record?  It's as if some of you people that
> ...


It's called ignore


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2015)

JC, you have just placed that criticism against yourself and your fellow deniers.  You might want to reread that post while you can still edit it.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Somebody certainly needs to.  You're not doing well on your own here dude.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> JC, you have just placed that criticism against yourself and your fellow deniers.  You might want to reread that post while you can still edit it.


What that we ignore you all?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Who got cut for awhile?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Some Republican leaders think we should just defer to God on this issue.   As if God created man without brains.



This Democrat knucklehead thinks too many people on one side of Guam can make it flip over


----------



## Liminal (Jun 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > JC, you have just placed that criticism against yourself and your fellow deniers.  You might want to reread that post while you can still edit it.
> ...


Who's we?  Do you belong to a club of unremarkable and dull people?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I don't belong to your club, you got something for the OP? Otherwise you're violating the rules


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I see that you did not read the report, at least not with comprehension.

the first paragraph of the summary states the concern for the climate heading back towards a similar condition of 1600-1850, otherwise known as the Little Ice Age. your defensive posture based on the fact that they didnt call it 'global cooling' is pretty lame.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I was responding to the faulty logic of 'the govt is making contingency plans for global warming therefore it must be true'. the govt thought global cooling was a problem in the 70's and we now know that wasnt the case. there is a distinct possibility that we will also look back at the hysteria of the 00's and wonder why global warming was accepted with such flimsy 'proof' of catastrope.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And yet only  the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it *we have been cooling since the mid 1970's*
> ...



AND as expected the adulterated data and manipulated crap is spewed as truth..


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


So they think!! Ahhhhhh we know better don't we. Billy never give up the fight the truth will prevail I will fight hard to see it so


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Oh I see, so now you're the moderator too.  Who's going to teach you about the rules?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


As expected, when confronted with the WHOLE truth, the deniers just lie and deny some more.
It's the SAME RSS and UAH *RAW* data YOU posted in your attachment, only the full 47 years starting in the 1970s when satellite data started. YOU did say that the satellite data CONFIRMED your lie that we've been cooling since the 1970s but posted the data from 2001 to the present only. I just posted the full data from the 1970s using your EXACT SAME SOURCES.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It's the exact same raw data from the exact same sources, only including the part from 1978 to 2001 that the liar omitted.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Some Republican leaders think we should just defer to God on this issue.   As if God created man without brains.
> ...


If you like that one, you should really appreciate this.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2015)

the US appears to be cooling here. is it cherrypicking? the CRN only started in 2005. are the results significant? absolutely not. any time you have a trend that includes zero in its range that means it is not significant. store that away in your memory for future reference.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

update today for point 8 in the OP:

Hmmm, seems the Antarctic is actually growing ice:

Thanks to National Snow and Ice Data Center:


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2015)

Antartica sea ice has a bigger effect on albedo and such because it is at a more moderate incline to incoming sunshine. Arctic ice is mostly at a very high latitude where sunlight is at a steeper angle of incidence.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Nothing to worry about then, everything is just fine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Here's one for people with short attention spans.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2015)

I wonder if anyone else but me finds it odd that SLR incresed dramatically at the exact time that satellites started measuring it. and increased again when they started 'correcting' the figures. just sayin'


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2015)

If Ian doesn't don't like some data -- which would be nearly all the data now, being nearly all the data contradicts him -- he simply declares it's part of the conspiracy. He devolution to conspiracy cultist is complete.

As far as satellite temperature data goes, Carl Mears, the lead scientist for the RSS data set (the one so beloved by deniers), says that the surface data sets are more accurate,

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures Remote Sensing Systems

---
 A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).
---

and that satellite data sets shouldn't be used to discuss climate.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

The surface data is better. It measures surface temperature directly instead of upper troposphere temperature, and it's far less twiddled and adjusted than satellite data. If you see someone using satellite data instead of surface data, you know you're looking at a fraud. Naturally, every denier relies solely on the satellite data.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> If Ian doesn't don't like some data -- which would be nearly all the data now, being nearly all the data contradicts him -- he simply declares it's part of the conspiracy. He devolution to conspiracy cultist is complete.
> 
> As far as satellite temperature data goes, Carl Mears, the lead scientist for the RSS data set (the one so beloved by deniers), says that the surface data sets are more accurate,
> 
> ...


so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2015)

I read the first link and it seemed reasonable. The general attitude was evident in the papers he cited but overall it was OK.

Your quotes seemed a bit out of context. The piece seemed to be promoting a lot if natural causes for the hiatus.

All in all, one of your more sane postings even if it had the obligatory rant about conspiracies at the beginning.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.



Because if you don't correct for the errors, the output will be wrong. Anyone demanding raw data be used is essentially demanding that data be faked, and thus nobody should ever trust such a fraud.

And remember, the adjustments make the warming look _smaller_. If the adjustments are removed, that will make the warming look bigger. Kind of kills the whole denier conspiracy theory there, as that conspiracy proposes that scientists are deliberately committing fraud by making the warming look ... smaller.  The deniers aren't willing to explain why they cling to such a senseless conspiracy, so they ramp up their denial to the next stage and deny that the adjustments make the warming look smaller.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.
> ...




Land only temps are massively adjusted to increase the trend. Lowering past readings may not seem like adding to the increase but it does. Worse yet is when they add to the present and subtract from the past and then claim that the adjustments are neutral even though the trend has skyrocketed.

More to the point in your recent postings- your claim that sea surface temps have been adjusted up is a none starter. We have practically no information on ocean temps in the past, especially far past. Replacing one guess for another doesn't mean much.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.
> ...


hmmm, so why not let us see the actual temperatures?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.


too funny, dude really, that really makes me laugh.   hahhahahahahahahhaa just in case your naive brain didn't capture the jest of you making up floods and Antarctic shelf and all.

BTW, when did that flood occur this year?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.
> ...


Limited mentalities are often easily amused.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


when will you get there?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Deniers hate context.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Deniers hate context.


andy from Mayberry!


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Maybe we should see what an actual scientist has to say about it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Maybe we should see what an actual scientist has to say about it.


still waiting for a real scientist.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

I wonder how many real scientists we can find to debunk climate change denial.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I wonder how many real scientists we can find to debunk climate change denial.


garbage, don't you have a can you can throw your pretend scientists crap in?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

what a non scientist can do to one:

Thank you Joanne Nova:
Great Debate Part III IV Glikson accidentally vindicates the skeptics JoNova

Depending on flawed models

by Joanne Nova

May 11, 2010

For a sentence, I almost think Dr Glikson gets it. Yes, it’s a quantitative question: _Will we warm by half a measly degree or 3.5 degrees_? It’s not about the direct CO2 effect (all of one paltry degree by itself), it’s the feedbacks—the humidity, clouds, lapse rates and other factors that amplify (or not) the initial minor effect of carbon.

Decades ago, the catastrophe-crowd made guesses about the feedbacks—but they were wrong. Instead of amplifying carbon’s effect two-fold (or more!) the feedbacks _dampen_ it.

Dr Glikson has no reply. He makes no comment at all about Lindzen [1], Spencer[2] or Douglass[3] and their three peer reviewed, independent, empirical papers showing that the climate models are exaggerating the warming by a factor of six. (Six!) He’s probably unaware that the _assumptions_ about positive feedback are wrong, and all the portents of disaster were built upon those guesses. Everything else is just an error cascade flowing from a base assumption that is implicit and essential (and wrong). Don’t expect the IPCC to explain it in an easy-to-read brochure though.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

So many scientists and so little time.....


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

To debunk, or not to debunk?  That is the question.....


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> To debunk, or not to debunk?  That is the question.....


which you can't isn't that obvious?  Oh no not for you, you are guy with no evidence and plenty of faith.  Antarctic isn't growing ice, and I showed you it is. hmmmm not very reliable in your OP none the less, and then you wish to continue the antics and continue to barrel roll.  Pilots bail out by now pal!!!!  Open your chute

BTW, maybe you can find Barney after you land.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

We can learn so much from science.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2015)

IanC said:


> More to the point in your recent postings- your claim that sea surface temps have been adjusted up is a none starter. We have practically no information on ocean temps in the past, especially far past. Replacing one guess for another doesn't mean much.



More to the point is that you keep using that red herring to evade the issue about how your conspiracy theory makes no sense.

From the POV of evaluating your conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter if the past sea temperature adjustments are valid or not. It just matters that they are the adjustments that get used to calculate a global average, and that they make the warming look smaller. 

Your conspiracy theory says scientists are deliberately adjusting the data for nefarious purposes. So can you explain why scientists would be adjusting the data to make the warming look smaller?

I imagine you can't. Or, more correctly, you won't. Without your conspiracy theory, you have nothing to talk about, so you're not going to admit it makes no sense.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > To debunk, or not to debunk?  That is the question.....
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2015)

IanC said:


> Land only temps are massively adjusted to increase the trend. Lowering past readings may not seem like adding to the increase but it does.


Now hold on just a minute there Slick!
You keep saying the land temps are high due to the UHI effect and they should be removed from the past data as the poorly sited stations are found, but now you are claiming foul when removing the high UHI data lowers the past data, and worse yet you are making false accusations or at least implying a conspiracy is afoot!!!


----------



## PredFan (Jun 4, 2015)

24 pages and the OP still fails to debunk anything.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> If Ian doesn't don't like some data -- which would be nearly all the data now, being nearly all the data contradicts him -- he simply declares it's part of the conspiracy. He devolution to conspiracy cultist is complete.
> 
> As far as satellite temperature data goes, Carl Mears, the lead scientist for the RSS data set (the one so beloved by deniers), says that the surface data sets are more accurate,
> 
> ...


Global Temperature Report UAHuntsville
In cooperation with NASA and NOAA, who have screwed data as well have been studying and reporting Satellite temperatures since 1979...........Via Satellite..........

On this thread or another........I reported how one of the frauds was using 1 surface temperature monitoring device for 12,000 square miles of surface temperatures.............

So...........let's guess the rest of the temps for the 12,000 square miles.......or use Satellite data imaging................

And you have called NASA and NOAA frauds as well as they are involved in the studies..................LOL


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04...ade-you-that-man-made-climate-change-is-real/

I just found out that Ron Bailey at Reason.com published an article a few days ago entitled, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

The first problem I have is with his premise: that skeptics believe humans have no role in climate change. I don’t know of any serious skeptics who hold such a view. Now, maybe he is addressing people who deny any human involvement in global warming. His article is vague, and maybe he can clarify his intent for us.

The second problem I have is with Ron’s list of a variety of evidences of global-average warming, which (again) no skeptic worth their salt disputes. *The science dispute is over how much of the warming is manmade versus natural. Like too many others, Ron conflates climate change with human-caused climate change, which are not the same thing.*

Regarding his list, *he seems to believe they are independent evidences of manmade warming. Wrong*. To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.

These things would all occur together anyway, no matter the _cause_ of the warming, Ron.* And causation is, indeed, the question which science so far cannot answer.*


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

My Global Warming Skepticism for Dummies Roy Spencer PhD.

*Concluding Remarks*

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.

The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!

Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.

Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″.

Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



LOL  He cites Mann's work as proof... and narrowly identifies small areas while ignoring areas that are growing...

The Desperation...  Is breathtaking..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Deniers hate context.



What a load of crap... he debunked nothing. He did however prove he knows how to spew talking points and fraudulent works..


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

*NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’*

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

NOAA Tampers With Data To Erase The Global Warming Hiatus The Daily Caller


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

Don't like the data because it doesn't support your position................need more Global Warming to make the computer models look stupid..................

Simple............................

*COOK THE BOOKS..............
*


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

PredFan said:


> 24 pages and the OP still fails to debunk anything.


No, your wrong, just like all the deniers are all the time.  What's happened here is that the deniers have failed to debunk the debunkers.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers hate context.
> ...


The only fraud in that statement is yours.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > *NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’*
> ...


They sited sources...........


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Your source is a joke.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> *NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’*
> 
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.
> 
> ...



Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus  a link to the actual NOAA study

The study's abstract


ABSTRACT
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

The full text (no paywall)

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

The first six paragraphs explain the new data sources and the reasoning and methodology for adjustments to temperature data.  Before you assume these adjustments were all made to achieve some dishonest aim, you need to read this material and then show it to be false or erroneous.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 4, 2015)

Climate change deniers always simply state that the proponents of climate change science are dishonest and duplicitous.   I say the same applies to deniers, with one big difference.....evidence.  Deniers have none.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers always simply state that the proponents of climate change science are dishonest and duplicitous.   I say the same applies to deniers, with one big difference.....evidence.  Deniers have none.








  Sure we don't.



*"And as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”*



You're so full of shit I'm surprised you can see.

The U.N. s Global Warming War On Capitalism An Important History Lesson - Forbes


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2015)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632/F1.large.jpg





Kinda throws out the charge that such corrections make the warming look worse by making the past look colder.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2015)

*ADDRESS THE OP BOYS AND GIRLS.  I deleted all the off topic posts, *mine included* and will continue to do so.*


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Here are eight reasons why.
> 
> Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com


Why are people like you, who are admittedly ignorant regarding the subject of climate change, influenced so easily by strawman arguments?

Please explain.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2015)

The Daily Caller?  It's not Liminal who's the joke here Billy


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Here are eight reasons why.
> ...


I don't understand the science any better than you do, so I rely on people with actual expertise.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> The Daily Caller?  It's not Liminal who's the joke here Billy


Tisk tisk, that almost sounds like a personal remark.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


How the fuck would you know who has expertise if you are so ignorant regarding the subject?

Myself, I am an expert.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Maybe some climate change deniers are simply ignorant and misguided......they might not all be completely dishonest.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632/F1.large.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Let's presume that those charts are anywhere close to realitiy. Do you have any proof whatsoever that it is a bad thing, rather than a good thing?

Do human civilizations tend to develop when it is cold, or warm?

Humans are warm-blooded mammals. By definition that means we must warm our environment.

Global warming nutters are idiots.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...







And if his predictions weren't 300% off with more CO2 than even he could have imagined his opinion might matter.  However, he abandoned science for political activism long ago.  He is no longer credible.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632/F1.large.jpg
> ...


On second thought I really should apologize, I can see that I've underestimated you.  It's clear to me now, your professional demeanor and meticulous, detailed analysis of this question verify your bonafides as a true scholar.  I don't know why I didn't see it before.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Or perhaphs those of you who have admitted to be ignorant of the subject should make an effort to become less ignorant.

Here's a few tips if you wish to become less ignorant regarding the subject.

1) Go to your local public library.

2) Get a library card.

3) Request a book entitled "The Hockey Stick Illusion".

Educate yourself or remain ignorant.



Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Uh huh


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


As you well know, the Daily Caller got caught paying "sources" to lie.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Can you quote the specific lie and prove that it is a lie?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Why yes, yes I can, as if you didn't already know since the Right claim to be the most informed people on the planet and every low-information voter on Earth knows about this.

Dominican police 3 women paid to make false claims about Menendez - The Washington Post

*Three Dominican women were paid to lie about having sex for money with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)* and a close friend, Dominican police said Monday, citing statements from the women and other evidence.

At a news conference in the Dominican Republic, National Police spokesman Maximo Baez Aybar said authorities had determined that the women were paid hundreds of dollars by a local lawyer to make the false claims in videotaped interviews. The women said the lawyer coached them on what to say in their recorded statements, taped in a Dominican shopping mall in La Romana province.

The announcement by police came two weeks after Dominican authorities released an affidavit from one of the escorts saying she had been paid to appear in a video and claim that she was paid to have sex with Menendez. The woman, Nexis de los Santos Santana, said that the claims were false and that she had never met the senator or his friend and political donor, Salomon Melgen, according to court documents and interviews.

Allegations that Menendez patronized prostitutes in the Dominican Republic began circulating last year while he was running for reelection and resurfaced in recent weeks, after he became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

*The videotaped claims of two women, made with their faces obscured, were posted last fall on the conservative Web site the Daily Caller. The site reported that “the two women said they met Menendez around Easter at Casa de Campo, an expensive 7,000-acre resort in the Dominican Republic. . . . They claimed Menendez agreed to pay them $500 for sex acts, but in the end they each received only $100.”*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


LOL. Dr. James Hansen is an internationally respected scientist, with many published articles to his name. He is also considered to be a leading authority on atmospheric physics. And who are you, Walleyes? A anonymous poster on the internet that doesn't even bother to back up his claims with links.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2015)

Right for 27 years 1981 Hansen study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels ThinkProgress

In fact, 27 years ago Thursday, James Hansen and six other NASA atmospheric physicists, published a seminal article in _Science_, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” The paper has a number of caveats, as befits a major projection before modern climate models and modern supercomputers were available, before we had decades of verifying observations, and before we knew just how fast greenhouse gas emissions would rise. But the analysis bears up unbelievably well — any one of us would be delighted if we published something a quarter century ago that was this prescient:


The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated 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 1980s*. 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*.

The 1980s warmed, the Northwest passage opened, the drought prone-regions have emerged, and sea level rise is a top worry (even if Greenland has emerged as more troublesome than West Antarctica). I believe the threat of drought and sea level rise remain the to gravest threats that climate change poses.

*When Dr. James Hansen made those predictions in 1981, obese junkies on the radio were claiming that there was no warming at all. And continued to make that claim for another 20 years. Then it became evident to everyone that there was, indeed, a warming going on. So then, the tune changed to 'It's all natural'. The deniers have failed for the last thirty years to contribute anything at all credible to understanding the climate. All they have done is stand in left field doing the 'neener, neener' routine. 

In the meantime, the real scientists have continued to increase our understanding of the climate. And the deniars have continued to flaunt their incredible ignorance and ability to pull lies out of their asses. 
*


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Hanson is respected by foolish morons.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


What does a prostitute getting short-changed have to do with the Earth's climate?


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








You mean like his former superior at NASA who had this to say about your hero?

*"Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009:* NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and * declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”* Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears".


http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=B6A8BAA3-802A-23AD-4650-CB6A01303A65


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


All part of the wider conspiracy, which you have been so diligent in uncovering.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Says the  who thinks the Daily Liar is a respected source!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


It goes to the credibility, or actually the lack there of, for the Daily Liar that Eagle cited in his claim that the data was fudged. The Daily Liar pays their sources to lie.
Pay attention if you are going to post.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Hockey huh, well I couldn't find that one.  Will this book do?
The Magic Hockey Stick Paperback by Peter Maloney Puffin Books United States 9780142300152 Paperback Reprint - The Book Depository US


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Right for 27 years 1981 Hansen study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels ThinkProgress
> 
> In fact, 27 years ago Thursday, James Hansen and six other NASA atmospheric physicists, published a seminal article in _Science_, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” The paper has a number of caveats, as befits a major projection before modern climate models and modern supercomputers were available, before we had decades of verifying observations, and before we knew just how fast greenhouse gas emissions would rise. But the analysis bears up unbelievably well — any one of us would be delighted if we published something a quarter century ago that was this prescient:
> 
> ...


good point/s. Thank you


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Your concession is respectfully accepeted.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


you all crack me up when you think you can pofo some news organization.  Yet you have no counter point except to make fun of them.  Truly classless.  When is it you all will get some character?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

still haven't seen anything debunked in this entire thread.  interesting.  No valid arguments from the OP I see.


----------



## hadit (Jun 5, 2015)

Only the retarded believe that the climate doesn't change.  It does change, and has been for a very long time.  Be honest and use words that mean what you're actually talking about, Man Caused Global Warming.  Short of that, you're not making a solid point.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> still haven't seen anything debunked in this entire thread.  interesting.  No valid arguments from the OP I see.


That's because denier followers don't see anything they don't want to see.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > still haven't seen anything debunked in this entire thread.  interesting.  No valid arguments from the OP I see.
> ...


not sure what you're actually trying to debunk.  You failed by the way since no one knows what it is your point is.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


If you pay attention to the video in #273 you will find out why the whole contrived Climategate scandal is complete BS.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The real problem is that climate change deniers have to lie about everything all the time.
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the Climategate Manufactured Controversy Union of Concerned Scientists


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Still don't know who's targeted here I believe there's climate change


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The imaginary "Climate gate" scandal is a complete fabrication.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion? Please do so, so that I may tear it to shreads and throw it in your face.

But then again, you're admittedly ignorant regarding the subject of climate science. So anything you post here is by definition, a post from an ignoramous, and therefore not to be taken seriously.

Go to a library!

You look very foolish when you post at length about subjects you know nothing about.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


that wasn't your OP.  are you changing that?  You're moving around on us.

And are you saying there wasn't an email controversy?

Credit Wikipedia,
"The *Climatic Research Unit email controversy* (also known as *"Climategate"*)[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[4][5]"  This didn't happen?  Is that what you're saying?  hmmmm wonder why it made it to wikipedia.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Golly gosh gee whiz, does that mean we aren't following your rules again?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


dude, you're jumping all over the place golly gee.  What is it you're debunking?  I asked once and you haven't answered I guess since you won't, right?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  The whole Climate gate e-mail thing is complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  The whole Climate gate e-mail thing is complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal.


So you're saying it didn't happen?  Is that what you're saying?  BTW, if that was your intent, you should have made the title of the thread that.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  The whole Climate gate e-mail thing is complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal.
> ...


Thanks for the helpful advise, next time I start a thread you can comprehend.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


it would, because I know of no one who doesn't believe climate changes, so saying debunking that is simply wierd because you have no audience.   And Climate gate is not climate change.  So hence you're bouncing all over the place. So is it that you don't believe Climate gate happened?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I'm sorry you can't keep up, perhaps an attention deficit prevents you.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Climate Gate isn't Climate change I see organizational skills are lost on you!

Just so you know the Title:
*Climate Change Deniers Debunked *


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  The whole Climate gate e-mail thing is complete horse shit, a manufactured scandal.


so again, what is horse shit?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Uh huh, but the contrived Climate gate scandal is the foundation of the denier's alleged arguments.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2015)

JC, Luminol snorts the AGW KoolAid straight out of the can


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JC, Luminol snorts the AGW KoolAid straight out of the can


Have you ever tried saying anything of any significance?  Or are you just another internet jester.....a clown with a keyboard.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


credit Wikipedia:

"Patrick J. Michaels who was criticised in the emails and who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming, said "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud". He said that some emails showed an effort to block the release of data for independent review, and that some messages discussed discrediting him by stating that he knew his research was wrong in his doctoral dissertation, "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very serious ways."[20]

Judith Curry wrote that in her opinion "there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process." She hoped that the affair would change the approach of scientists to providing their data to the public, and their response to criticisms of their work. She had herself learned to be careful about what to put in emails when a "disgruntled employee" made a freedom of information request. Mann described these comments as "somewhat naive" considering that in recent years scientists had become much more open with their data. He said that sceptics "will always complain about something else, want something more. Eventually, as we see, they've found a way to get access to private communications between scientists."[63]

Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming,[71] said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said."


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Oh, uh huh.
 Climategate


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I just want to know are you calling Judith Curry a denier?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Again, are you stating that climate gate didn't happen?  Sorry, still not sure what you're calling bull shit.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I don't know her.  Why would I call her filthy names like that?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Again, are you stating that climate gate didn't happen?  Sorry, still not sure what you're calling bull shit.


It seems we could compile a huge list of things that you are evidently not too sure about.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...










Not according to the rest of the world.  It's only a fabrication in the minds of the mindless.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Thank you for contributing another completely unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

eyeopener said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Here are eight reasons why.
> ...


I guess you could say the one's who actually believe it would have to be pretty stupid.  The rest are simply dishonest.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...









CLIMATEGATE destroyed the Copenhagen climate meetings.  It has been the primary reason why there has been no meaningful laws passed anywhere in the world dealing with so called global warming and is furthermore the reason that there has been a full court press of propaganda in the media trying to frighten the natives yet again.

So, once again, you are proven wrong.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

eyeopener said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Here are eight reasons why.
> ...








Oh goody!  Yet another sock puppet.  So, socko, what evidence do you speak of?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No, I'm sorry but you are incorrect.  As the video and links clearly show.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








I'll trust the actual historical record and the collapse of carbon trade legislation the world over, and the closing of the carbon trading desks in the commodities markets all over the world as my proof that your propaganda video is full of poo.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Oh I see......because market forces prove science.  Why didn't I think of that?


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...









CLIMATEGATE showed the WORLD that the AGW alarmism was a fraud.  The world reacted accordingly.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Thank you for another vague, unsubstantiated, knee jerk, generic pronouncement.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Unsubstantiated?  What, you don't know how to read either?  Wow, look at these closures.  Must suck to be you.

*London banks quit carbon trading*
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbb749ba-506b-11e3-9f0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3cE0B80Ym

*Carbon desk closures*

*There is increasing scepticism from within the market that carbon holds any trading future. Follow the latest carbon desk closures here.*

Carbon desk closures FERN


*Lehman Brothers shuts carbon trading desk*

Lehman Brothers shuts carbon trading desk Reuters


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Someone should tell them that the whole climate gate scandal has already been determined to be false, manufactured, contrived, made up BS.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Yes, there were LOADS of you drones telling them that.  THEY didn't believe you!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2015)

Ol' buddy boy Walleyes, when you have the scientific credibility of Mann, Hansen, or Alley, get back to us. Until then, you are just another anonymous poster on the internet, one that has been shown to consistently lie.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2015)

And, again, where is that cooling trend that you have been promising us?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


They wouldn't have any reason to believe either one of us, since neither of us is a scientist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2015)

Liminal, Walleyes claims to be a Phd Geologist. Something I find extremely hard to believe. And I do have a basis for that, as I am a student, taking classes at a University, towards a degree in Geology. My mentors are both Phd Geologists, as is my advisor. I have not found his posts to be credible, or his arguements presented with the rigor that I have come to expect from people with those credentials.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Liminal, Walleyes claims to be a Phd Geologist. Something I find extremely hard to believe. And I do have a basis for that, as I am a student, taking classes at a University, towards a degree in Geology. My mentors are both Phd Geologists, as is my advisor. I have not found his posts to be credible, or his arguements presented with the rigor that I have come to expect from people with those credentials.


His claims go way beyond straining credulity.    And you don't have to be expert at anything to know that.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Liminal, Walleyes claims to be a Phd Geologist. Something I find extremely hard to believe. And I do have a basis for that, as I am a student, taking classes at a University, towards a degree in Geology. My mentors are both Phd Geologists, as is my advisor. I have not found his posts to be credible, or his arguements presented with the rigor that I have come to expect from people with those credentials.


And still no debunkness in the thread


----------



## Liminal (Jun 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal, Walleyes claims to be a Phd Geologist. Something I find extremely hard to believe. And I do have a basis for that, as I am a student, taking classes at a University, towards a degree in Geology. My mentors are both Phd Geologists, as is my advisor. I have not found his posts to be credible, or his arguements presented with the rigor that I have come to expect from people with those credentials.
> ...


Because you're too lazy to read links or watch videos.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 24 pages and the OP still fails to debunk anything.
> ...



Spoken like a 12 year old failure.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal, Walleyes claims to be a Phd Geologist. Something I find extremely hard to believe. And I do have a basis for that, as I am a student, taking classes at a University, towards a degree in Geology. My mentors are both Phd Geologists, as is my advisor. I have not found his posts to be credible, or his arguements presented with the rigor that I have come to expect from people with those credentials.
> ...



Exactly correct.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Is that what they use to tell you eh?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



What an ignorant fool...  You disparage Willie Soon but its OK for your (just one scientist) side to take 53 million dollars and not declare from whence it came...  And you have been shown that it was the SMITHSONIAN who entered into the contract and demanded that the donors identity not be reveled , not Dr Soon. So your post is nothing more than deception and lies..  Go figure..  Your a liar and a deceiver...

You have proven you have no credibility or ethics....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> And, again, where is that cooling trend that you have been promising us?





Its been going on for some time.. When we remove the infilling by NOAA and GISS we find what is really occurring..


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

34 pages and not a single post showing what the title states! Now that's funny. FAIL


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You have proven that you have nothing.   End of story.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> 34 pages and not a single post showing what the title states! Now that's funny. FAIL


Thank you for reaffirming your insignificance.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal, Walleyes claims to be a Phd Geologist. Something I find extremely hard to believe. And I do have a basis for that, as I am a student, taking classes at a University, towards a degree in Geology. My mentors are both Phd Geologists, as is my advisor. I have not found his posts to be credible, or his arguements presented with the rigor that I have come to expect from people with those credentials.
> ...


Nothing your limited mentality could grasp anyway.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Spoken like another nobody with nothing to say.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> 34 pages and not a single post showing what the title states! Now that's funny. FAIL



This thread is an attempt to give themselves credibility where none exists..  It also proves that they will lie and deceive to gain their global socialist goals. I have resorted to using some of these threads in teaching students what is not acceptable behavior in science.  When some ask how i know that the hockey stick and other propaganda is wrong we do the math, search for the data, then ask why they hide it all or outright fail to make it available for review.  Its a wonderful lesson in credibility or the lack there of and what open, repeatable, verifiable, what the scientific process is supposed to be.

It is amazing how open minded students are and how smart they are.  I choose to teach critical thinking skills and not the left wing hack pseudoscience.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Your funny...  Projecting your ignorance.. Priceless..


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And, again, where is that cooling trend that you have been promising us?
> ...


So now we've gone from the ground to the lower troposphere and in your chart all the way up to the STRATOSPHERE!!!!!
As long as the deniers can find some place in the universe that is cooling they will claim it is cooling here on the ground.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 Assuming that any of the denier followers even begins to understand any kind of science.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

Confessions of a former denier.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the entire thread!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


There isn't anything to be said since you gave nothing worthwhile to refute. Maybe you could create another worthless thread.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Confessions of a former denier.


Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

Still dick


----------



## PredFan (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Typical AGW Believer, you never have an original thought.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Its cooling at all levels but some how it is magically warming in your little fantasy world.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Confessions of a former denier.



Seriously????

You posted an exposed outright fabricator as proof?



Next thing you know you will be citing SKS (John Cook) as a credible source too..  OH wait, You have....


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Oh just admit it, you got caught lying. You tried to pass off the stratosphere as the lower troposphere without the "infilling."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Epic fail.... try again..


----------



## Crick (Jun 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Rocks isn't the one with the epic fail.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


All these guys ever have are epic childish diversions.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Epic lie.....Lie again.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Oh, you and limo have it? Ok!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Fact base which you'll never have !


----------

