# Warmest March on record



## Chris (Apr 18, 2010)

And the heat goes on: warmest March on record
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID (AP)  2 days ago

WASHINGTON  And the heat goes on.

Last month was the warmest March on record worldwide, based on records back to 1880, scientists reported Thursday.

The average temperature for the month was 56.3 degrees Fahrenheit (13.5 degrees Celsius), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported.

That was 1.39 degrees F (0.77 C) above the average for the month over the 20th century.

NOAA researchers said the warmer-than-normal conditions were especially notable in northern Africa, South Asia, Tibet, Delhi, India and Canada.

Cooler-than-normal regions included Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United States.

Contributing to the record month was El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that, combined with changes in winds and air pressure, can affect weather worldwide.

The Associated Press: And the heat goes on: warmest March on record


----------



## elvis (Apr 18, 2010)

you're not convincing anyone, dumbfuck.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 18, 2010)

Good. Warm weather is good for playing golf.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2010)

And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis.


----------



## Chris (Apr 18, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis.



That's the dumbest post ever.

CO2's greenhouse effect was proven experimentally in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Chris (Apr 18, 2010)

March was the warmest March ever recorded worldwide, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported Thursday. NCDC records go back to 1880.

Another source, the University of Alabama-Huntsville, also reported that March 2010 was the warmest March since their climate records began in 1979.

According to the climate center, the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature in March was 56.3 degrees, which is 1.39 degrees above the 20th-century average of 54.9 degrees. Additionally, the worldwide ocean surface temperature was the highest for any March on record -- 1.01 degree above the 20th century average of 60.7 degrees.

This was the 34th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.

The warmth in northern Canada and the Arctic was also noteworthy. Temperatures there soared to as much as 15 degrees above average for the month, the University of Alabama-Huntsville noted. The UAH dataset uses satellite measurements of temperatures from the surface up to about five miles in altitude.

Report: March was Earth?s warmest on record - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis.
> ...



It should be a slam dunk.

Take 2 tanks side by side: one Earth atmosphere, the second Earth's atmosphere plus 300PPM additional CO2.

What you linked to has nothing Nothing NOTHING to do with your hypothesis.


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis.
> ...



LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!

Dude seriously... 1.39 degrees? How many glaciers you think melted due to that 1.39 degrees for one month? Do you really think that a place where temperatures routinely double digits below zero can melt uncontrollably over a 1.39 temp rise over a month?  or even worse over a total 1.4 degrees temp rise the last 150 years? Give me a break this whole premise is just reatrded to the point of lunacy now...

And that post I quoted... Did you actually read the findings of Tyndall there in that article, or did you just take headline and run with it? Or more importantly did you just take their explanation at face value? Well from now on eat supper before you grab the desert, its healthier for you... 

The findings:



> Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. *In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that.* *The most important was simple water vapor (H2O).* Also effective was *carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.*



Okay first, water was the biggest one not CO2.. yeah water vapor just like we say all the time on this, clouds contribute more to warming than CO2 and whenever we do your side tries to shout it down and post more crap about CO2.

Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.

Third, this little batch of unmitigated horse shit sentence..

_"Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."_

WTF? what in the hell kind of pseudo-science crap is that? Dude thats like saying concrete is hard so all hard things are concrete... its just retarded..

Enough of this crap already! its nonsense and its just ignorant to try and spread it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> And the heat goes on: warmest March on record
> By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID (AP)  2 days ago
> 
> WASHINGTON  And the heat goes on.
> ...


Every month is a 'record month' to someone it seems.  And all of them prove Global warming.

It's too hot
it's too cold
it's too wet
it's too dry
it's too stinky
it's too bright
it's too dark
it doesn't fit right
it's not the right color
do you have this in argyle?
It's too fat
It has too many calories
it corners horribly
it's likely to explode from a rear impact
it talks to much
it's after it's expiration date
it watches Letterman
it's too loud
it's too stupid...

but lastly... and most accurately...

It's proof global warming's bullshit.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> And the heat goes on: warmest March on record
> By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID (AP)  2 days ago
> 
> WASHINGTON  And the heat goes on.
> ...



And yet no increase in world wide temperatures since 1998. Go figure.


----------



## konradv (Apr 18, 2010)

_And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis. _
-------------------------------

That's untrue!  It's practically trivial to show that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation on a spectrophotometer.  If they do so in the lab, they'll do so in the atmosphere.  Considering that conservation of energy is a basic scientific principle, where's the trapped energy going?  Staistically only half would be emitted into space, while the other half goes toward heating the earth.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 18, 2010)

They must have applied the blow torches to all of the censors located on airport tarmacs again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2010)

konradv said:


> _And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis. _
> -------------------------------
> 
> That's untrue!  It's practically trivial to show that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation on a spectrophotometer.  If they do so in the lab, they'll do so in the atmosphere.  Considering that conservation of energy is a basic scientific principle, where's the trapped energy going?  Staistically only half would be emitted into space, while the other half goes toward heating the earth.



You're as dumb as Chris and Old Rocks and the Warmers continued failure to even do the experiment ONCE shows me how full of shit you all are.

You hypothesis is *NOT*: CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Your hypothesis is: de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes immediate, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in the climate. 

Just do one (1, uno, um) one single fucking repeatable experiment that demonstrates that.

Take a control tank with 280PPM CO2 then take another one with 600PPM and fuck, go apeshit and have a third tank with 1,000 PPM! And lets see if there is any discernible differences in temperature in the tanks.

*CAN YA DO THAT EVEN ONE TIME??????*


----------



## Chris (Apr 18, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis. _
> ...



Those experiments have been performed many times.

I know you don't read these links, but here it is again...

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



YOU need to read replies to your posts.... I already covered the fallacy in that link page in my last post you ignored....

Its fudged from start to finish, I laid all this out for you in that post. So why don't you address that post instead of pretending it wasn't there and repeating the BS...


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis.
> ...



LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!

Dude seriously... 1.39 degrees? How many glaciers you think melted due to that 1.39 degrees for one month? Do you really think that a place where temperatures are routinely double digits below zero can melt uncontrollably over a 1.39 temp rise over a month?  or even worse over a total 1.4 degrees temp rise the last 150 years? Give me a break this whole premise is just retarded to the point of lunacy now...

And that post I quoted... Did you actually read the findings of Tyndall there in that article, or did you just take headline and run with it? Or more importantly did you just take their explanation at face value? Well from now on eat supper before you grab the desert, its healthier for you... 

The findings:



> Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. *In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that.* *The most important was simple water vapor (H2O).* Also effective was *carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.*



Okay first, water was the biggest one not CO2.. yeah water vapor just like we say all the time on this, clouds contribute more to warming than CO2 and whenever we do your side tries to shout it down and post more crap about CO2.

Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.

Third, this little batch of unmitigated horse shit sentence..

_"Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."_

WTF? what in the hell kind of pseudo-science crap is that? Dude thats like saying concrete is hard so all hard things are concrete... its just retarded..

Enough of this crap already! its nonsense and its just ignorant to try and spread it.

RE-POST to get a response....


----------



## konradv (Apr 19, 2010)

_Okay first, water was the biggest one not CO2.. yeah water vapor just like we say all the time on this, clouds contribute more to warming than CO2 and whenever we do your side tries to shout it down and post more crap about CO2._
--------------------------------------

While that may be true, is it relevant?  There's ALWAYS water vapor.  AGW is concerned with the ADDED gases contributed by man.  Besides, more heat would mean more vapor, therefore, more heat, therefore, more vapor, etc. etc., etc.,  illustrating the possible magnification of the effects of small amounts of other gases on the total global temperature.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Okay first, water was the biggest one not CO2.. yeah water vapor just like we say all the time on this, clouds contribute more to warming than CO2 and whenever we do your side tries to shout it down and post more crap about CO2._
> --------------------------------------
> 
> While that may be true, is it relevant?  There's ALWAYS water vapor.  AGW is concerned with the ADDED gases contributed by man.  Besides, more heat would mean more vapor, therefore, more heat, therefore, more vapor, etc. etc., etc.,  illustrating the possible magnification of the effects of small amounts of other gases on the total global temperature.



So it should be easy to duplicate your "Small amounts" of CO2 hypothesis in a lab, no?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It is unimportant. There has been NO, I REPEAT, NO Increase in world wide temperatures since 1998. At that time the world temperature had registered an increase of a little over 1 Degree from 1900. Of course NOW temperatures will be higher then prior most of it not all of the 1900's, ONCE AGAIN, the temperature across the planet rose by a little over 1 degree from 1900.

Even a simpleton can grasp these concepts. Making me wonder what IQ ratings are for the Warmers?

Notice Chris, Old Rocks and the new fellow have NOT addressed the SCIENTIFIC FACT that world wide Temperatures have not risen since the end of 1998.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

Why? We have raised the level of CO2 in our atmosphere by 40% and now are seeing a steady increase in temperature. Seems that we have done a pretty definative experiment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Really? The warmest decade on record. 2000 to 2009. The second warmest decade on record. 1990 to 1999. The third warmest decade on record, 1980 to 1989. 

See a pattern there? And 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than all of the above.

1998 was the strongest El Nino on record. Yet, we are now looking at a year that may well eclipse that year with a moderate El Nino.

And we know what your IQ rating is, Sarge.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Okay first, water was the biggest one not CO2.. yeah water vapor just like we say all the time on this, clouds contribute more to warming than CO2 and whenever we do your side tries to shout it down and post more crap about CO2._
> --------------------------------------
> 
> While that may be true, is it relevant?  There's ALWAYS water vapor.  AGW is concerned with the ADDED gases contributed by man.  Besides, more heat would mean more vapor, therefore, more heat, therefore, more vapor, etc. etc., etc.,  illustrating the possible magnification of the effects of small amounts of other gases on the total global temperature.



MORON IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME THAN QUOTE ME CORRECTLY!

Your continued rudeness and disdain for using the accepted forum behavior on quoting is tiresome and completely asinine. If you can't figure it out ask someone, and if its just you wanting to be different grow up junior we are not amused.

Its entirely relevant! It was the OP source! And it was presented inaccurately. The fact is water vapor is the predominate factor in greenhouse gas effects on the planet. 

And if you want to go to the core of the problem.... You stated above more heat leads to more water vapor. And we already know CO2 rise follows temperature rise. We are back to the original question; what causes the original warming? If we are to assume both CO2 and H2O are both greenhouse gases and they in fact do keep heat or UV radiation on the planet. Than we must ask where the original warming which lead to their increase is coming from. Well the only viable answer we know of right now is the Sun, solar variance, solar winds, sunspot activity, and cosmic rays or outside influences from other bodies in the solar system, galaxy, and universe.

Thats the real problem with this crap you guys push. Its all ignoring the original factor and blaming the effects.

Using the logic of the AGW sect....

We find the following signs of bad science.

1. A=B... if we have a problem like a changing climate, and we find a trace gas adding to the effects, than the trace gas must be the cause...

2, Causality ... As the planet warms the CO2 levels increase, water vapor increases, which causes more warming. Using AGW cult logic we ignore the original and most pertinent question of what caused the warming and focus on  one of its effects and blame it.

Now look moron either follow the thread and comment with some understanding of whats going on or don't. But don't troll like an idiot..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Why? We have raised the level of CO2 in our atmosphere by 40% and now are seeing a steady increase in temperature. Seems that we have done a pretty definative experiment.



Repeat it in a lab.  Take one tank with Earth Atmosphere take a second with a 40% increase, not 40% CO2, and see if temperatures increase by the 1.3 degrees you're supposing.

Just one time!

One repeatable experiment, just one!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



And yet no raise in world wide temps, go figure, or link to the statement showing I am wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

OK, gslack, I will speak to you as if you were someone that I worked with. 

When you have real information, and referances for it, I will pay attention. Otherwise, you have been a waste of time, and I will not waste time on your nonsense any longer.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, gslack, I will speak to you as if you were someone that I worked with.
> 
> When you have real information, and referances for it, I will pay attention. Otherwise, you have been a waste of time, and I will not waste time on your nonsense any longer.



Waste of time, you ADMITTED last year that no increase has occurred since 1998. Go ahead do what you are asking for, PROVIDE the data supporting your claim that temperatures world wide have risen since 1998.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the links you could wish in this one article.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Why? We have raised the level of CO2 in our atmosphere by 40% and now are seeing a steady increase in temperature. Seems that we have done a pretty definative experiment.



No dumazz, we see the CO2 levels rose as the planet warmed, just like at any other time in history.... CO2 is an effect not an original cause. Planet warms, CO2 and water vapor levels increase, and the added factors of increased CO2 and water vapor adds to that warming effect and hold us in a warming trend longer than we would have without them. Again those are effects of the original warming and not the cause of it.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, gslack, I will speak to you as if you were someone that I worked with.
> 
> When you have real information, and referances for it, I will pay attention. Otherwise, you have been a waste of time, and I will not waste time on your nonsense any longer.



Translation: Oldsocks has no time for logic and anything that requires him to think. He has a very tight schedule of propaganda posting. He gets his knowledge from the "experts" already pre-packaged and ready for safe consumption.

We went over your BS claims and wordplay used to claim decades warmer or whatnot didn't we? Yeah we did....

NASA GISS: Research News: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade



> 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
> 
> Jan. 21, 2010
> 
> ...



THe bold part tells the tale all too clearly..... 2005 was the warmest year on record (since 1880) and 2009 is tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 as the second warmest on record.....

So its in a 5 way tie for second warmest since 1880? LOL, dude you sure its even warming?

HAHHAHAHAHAA! I bet its in a 10 way tie for the wildest stretch to prove AGW in the past 10 years...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Why? We have raised the level of CO2 in our atmosphere by 40% and now are seeing a steady increase in temperature. Seems that we have done a pretty definative experiment.



You know that's not science.


----------



## Patriot214 (Apr 19, 2010)

What about prior to 1880?  We have 130 years of temperature records to attempt to prove man-made global warming; but what about the 4.5 billion year life span of our planet?  Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?

Layers of snowfall extracted from the arctic provided excellent data for temperature records and CO2 levels over the past 400-500,000 years.  They concluded that, during this time, the earth had experienced approximately a dozen warming periods as well as a dozen cooling periods.  Strange, considering SUV's, private jets and evil corporations were non-existent then.  There is a major difference between global warming and "man-made" global warming.  Our global temperature varies.  But, it is natural.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

Patriot214 said:


> What about prior to 1880?  We have 130 years of temperature records to attempt to prove man-made global warming; but what about the 4.5 billion year life span of our planet?  Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?
> 
> Layers of snowfall extracted from the arctic provided excellent data for temperature records and CO2 levels over the past 400-500,000 years.  They concluded that, during this time, the earth had experienced approximately a dozen warming periods as well as a dozen cooling periods.  Strange, considering SUV's, private jets and evil corporations were non-existent then.  There is a major difference between global warming and "man-made" global warming.  Our global temperature varies.  But, it is natural.



Strange that you are so damned ignorant. 

The ice core record, from the Antarctic, go back accurately, about 650,000 years. There are cores being studied right now that will extend this a bit further. However, at no time in that period has the CO2 been above 300 ppm, nor CH4 above 1000 ppb. We are above 385 ppm of CO2 right now, with 1800 ppb of CH4. On top of that we have introduced many millions of tons of industrial GHGs, some of which are 10,000 to 20,000 times as effective GHGs as CO2.

We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

Science: CO2 levels haven&#8217;t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher &#8212; &#8220;We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels 

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today  and were sustained at those levels  global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland, said the papers lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

elvis said:


> you're not convincing anyone, dumbfuck.



of course, close minded people have made up their minds and don't care about a little thing called facts and scientific evidence


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 19, 2010)

Only 'highly' educated people are so smart they can ignore common sense and logic and talk themselves into any damn fool thing they put their mind to.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Patriot214 said:
> 
> 
> > What about prior to 1880?  We have 130 years of temperature records to attempt to prove man-made global warming; but what about the 4.5 billion year life span of our planet?  Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?
> ...



YOU IGNORED THE POINTING OUT OF TROUBLE IN YOUR OWN POSTS AGAIN!!!!

What a pathetic example of non-science ..... YOu have just shown once again you are a algorian faithful and NOT a scientist or even someone interested in the actual science...

The very place you claim your blogs get data from says something that all but refutes all of what your green blogs say and you ignore it like a punk.... Pathetic, truly pathetic...


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > you're not convincing anyone, dumbfuck.
> ...



You would know about close mindedness wouldn't you fake...


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Patriot214 said:
> 
> 
> > What about prior to 1880?  We have 130 years of temperature records to attempt to prove man-made global warming; but what about the 4.5 billion year life span of our planet?  Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?
> ...



OMG!!!!!

Dude twice now in as many days you have been caught red-handed lying about what an article you link to states...... DO you have any excuse at all for this?

Above you said this, either in regards to the article claims or you just wanted to make crap up.....

_*"We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2."*_

Your words... Correct??? Of ocurse they are we can see that just above and in the post in question. You said that and that was your claim....

The article YOU linked to as reference or to give weight to your claim. 

Science: CO2 levels haven&#8217;t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher &#8212; &#8220;We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels 

The article says a lot of things and after reading it carefully I found the only mention of that 450 ppm to be here in this statement....

_"So we need to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as low as possible &#8212; and *if we do go above 450 ppm*, we need to get back to under 350 ppm as rapidly as possible, preferably by century&#8217;s end, though that would be no easy feat."_

WTF man? You going to outright lie like that you shameless pig???

The only real reference to today's actual ppm was much later when they said this....

_&#8220;A slightly shocking finding,&#8221; Tripati said, &#8220;is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the *modern level of 387 parts per million* was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.&#8221;_

Now you lowlife lying little hack! You are a proven and documented liar and completely unethical POS.... YOU deliberately lied again just like before over the qualifications of the AMS certification. 

You are going to be remembered by me for this instance for as long as I am a member here. Twice I have caught you lying intentionally to push your BS agenda on people..... Good day to you sir....


----------



## konradv (Apr 20, 2010)

_ Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?_
-----------------------------------

No it wasn't, but that's irrelevant.  We're concerned about the climate under which humans evolved, relatively cool compared to some earlier times, and would like to keep it that way.  Sure the earth will survive and go back to its own ways regardless, but WILL WE?  Increased gases trap more solar radiation.  More radiation means more heat.  The concern of AGW believers is that the ADDED gases that are the result of man will upset the balance under which humans have thrived.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2010)

Again I ask, can the Wamers give us a single repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating that 450PP of CO2 causing a 5 to 10 degree increase in temperature?

I'll let you go to 1,000 even 2,000 PPM.

Show us the real science behind your hypothesis


----------



## konradv (Apr 20, 2010)

I'd like you to acknowledge that the question has been already answered, but honesty isn't usually the deniers' forte.  Showing that CO2 traps radiation is a SIMPLE lab experiment.  It's already been done millions of times.  More CO2 means more trapped radiation.  What more do you need???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> I'd like you to acknowledge that the question has been already answered, but honesty isn't usually the deniers' forte.  Showing that CO2 traps radiation is a SIMPLE lab experiment.  It's already been done millions of times.  More CO2 means more trapped radiation.  What more do you need???



But your hypothesis is that de minimus increases in CO2 causes cataclysmic effect on climate, show me one time how this is supposed to happen, show me on lab experiment where you increase the CO2 to 450PPM and cause a measurable increases in temperature as you allege.

You can't! 

Because the additional CO2 is an *EFFECT* and not a *CAUSE* of warming, that's why Warmers continue to ignore the request.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> _ Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?_
> -----------------------------------
> 
> No it wasn't, but that's irrelevant.  We're concerned about the climate under which humans evolved, relatively cool compared to some earlier times, and would like to keep it that way.  Sure the earth will survive and go back to its own ways regardless, but WILL WE?  Increased gases trap more solar radiation.  More radiation means more heat.  The concern of AGW believers is that the ADDED gases that are the result of man will upset the balance under which humans have thrived.



If you are not mature enough to quote people correctly, why should anyone respond to you? Dude I am asking you once more to stop acting like an annoying child and use the dam quote feature...


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> I'd like you to acknowledge that the question has been already answered, but honesty isn't usually the deniers' forte.  Showing that CO2 traps radiation is a SIMPLE lab experiment.  It's already been done millions of times.  More CO2 means more trapped radiation.  What more do you need???



I would like you to stop being a little twerp and use the quote feature like a big boy now......

You have the nerve to call others liars after the display by your pal... Any comment on that? Oh thats right honesty isn't part of your forte is it....

You come crying every time someone questions his posts, but suddenly you ignore it... Why is that? Why the hell aren't you defending the algorian this time? Why you haven't even mentioned any of it just kept right rambling trying to change the direction of the thread.....

Well tough I refuse to let this one go..... He was busted flat-out and undeniably lying with no excuse for it. He can't make a semantic little BS excuse this time, he is busted... And you can try to misdirect, confound, or divert to your hearts content. I will just re-post the evidence accordingly...


----------



## konradv (Apr 20, 2010)

_But your hypothesis is that de minimus increases in CO2 causes cataclysmic effect on climate, _
-----------------------

Hardly "de minimus", humans put out much more CO2 in a year than something like volcanic activity.  Plus, a small rise in temp due to CO2 can lead to melting and release of even more gas like we're seeing with methane in Siberia.

_&#8220;Methane Hydrate is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than C02 and represents an unimaginable 10% of the entire biomass of the planet. Much of it buried in the frozen Tundra of Alaska and the Artic lakes region of Siberia, which by itself contains an estimated 70 billion tons of methane. There are countless more giga tons of methane located in the shallow seas around the world like in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Calif. and Louisiana just waiting for warmer temperatures to melt the lattice ice crystals that holds the methane molecules safely in place. Once released, if the disassociation is large enough, it will have an immediate impact on temperature sending it soaring another 3 to 10 degrees higher than the scientists are predicting. _

Lost Opportunities at Copenhagen, Life at 3.6 Degrees Warmer


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> _But your hypothesis is that de minimus increases in CO2 causes cataclysmic effect on climate, _
> -----------------------
> 
> Hardly "de minimus", humans put out much more CO2 in a year than something like volcanic activity.  Plus, a small rise in temp due to CO2 can lead to melting and release of even more gas like we're seeing with methane in Siberia.
> ...



Stop changing the point. You made CO2 the point, now defend it before you go and switch to methane. And quote people right ....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> _But your hypothesis is that de minimus increases in CO2 causes cataclysmic effect on climate, _
> -----------------------
> 
> Hardly "de minimus", humans put out much more CO2 in a year than something like volcanic activity.  Plus, a small rise in temp due to CO2 can lead to melting and release of even more gas like we're seeing with methane in Siberia.
> ...



Doc, 250 part per MILLION is a de minimus increase.

In the study you love to site from the mid 1800's they measures in part per ten thousand.

I know you Warmers are full of crap because if you could repeat the effects in a lab I'd never hear the end of it. But since you cannot repeat it you cart out something not at all on point from Civil War days.

Also, you're boring me


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Patriot214 said:
> 
> 
> > What about prior to 1880?  We have 130 years of temperature records to attempt to prove man-made global warming; but what about the 4.5 billion year life span of our planet?  Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?
> ...



OMG!!!!!

Dude twice now in as many days you have been caught red-handed lying about what an article you link to states...... DO you have any excuse at all for this?

Above you said this, either in regards to the article claims or you just wanted to make crap up.....

_*"We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2."*_

Your words... Correct??? Of ocurse they are we can see that just above and in the post in question. You said that and that was your claim....

The article YOU linked to as reference or to give weight to your claim. 

Science: CO2 levels haven&#8217;t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher &#8212; &#8220;We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels 

The article says a lot of things and after reading it carefully I found the only mention of that 450 ppm to be here in this statement....

_"So we need to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as low as possible &#8212; and *if we do go above 450 ppm*, we need to get back to under 350 ppm as rapidly as possible, preferably by century&#8217;s end, though that would be no easy feat."_

WTF man? You going to outright lie like that you shameless pig???

The only real reference to today's actual ppm was much later when they said this....

_&#8220;A slightly shocking finding,&#8221; Tripati said, &#8220;is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the *modern level of 387 parts per million* was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.&#8221;_

Now you lowlife lying little hack! You are a proven and documented liar and completely unethical POS.... YOU deliberately lied again just like before over the qualifications of the AMS certification. 

You are going to be remembered by me for this instance for as long as I am a member here. Twice I have caught you lying intentionally to push your BS agenda on people..... Good day to you sir....

_* sorry if this is considered spamming but I am going to re-post this to force old socks to respond to it...._


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 20, 2010)

Gsuck doesn't know shit about science, so don't even bother. He doesn't think anything has to be supported by scientific data, just spout bullshit on the internet, and that makes it so


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Gsuck doesn't know shit about science, so don't even bother. He doesn't think anything has to be supported by scientific data, just spout bullshit on the internet, and that makes it so



And you were caught lying too.... So what's that tell us? Two of you sharing the same belief in AGW are known and documented liars... Coincidence? Or a sample of the greater whole?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 20, 2010)

AWESOME!!!

I've had my heat turned off for weeks.


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2010)

To all the warmists who will never ever believe anyone who disagrees with their preconcieved notions i offer you these words from your very own guru's.

Dr. Pachauri head of the IPCC said on November 23, 2009: "The question is whether the additional time that the world would now have to arrive at an agreement at the next Conference of the Parties in Mexico will give us time and space to look at the larger problem of unsustainable development, of which climate change is at best a symptom. Human society cannot continue to ignore the vital dependence that exists between human welfare and the health of our natural resources."

Peter Tatchell of the UK's Green Party said....'There exists a more serious crisis than the 'CO2 crisis': the oxygen levels are dropping and the human activity has decreased them by 1/3 or ½ - By Peter Tatchell of the UK Green party - UK Guardian - August 13, 2008

Then of course there is the "Nitrogen" problem..... Laughing Gas Knocks Out CO2 - By Doug Hoffman - Oct. 30, 2009 - Excerpt: "In the face of ever mounting evidence that CO2 is incapable of causing the level of global devastation prophesied by climate change catastrophists a new villain is being sought. The leading candidate is nitrous oxide (N2O), better known as laughing gas. A report in Science claims that N2O emissions are currently the single most important cause of ozone depletion and are expected to remain so throughout the 21st century. The IPCC rates N2O as 310 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 on a 100 year time scale. Is this a greenhouse gas bait and switch, or are the global warming alarmists trying to up the ante."

So you see even your own side is turning against the dogma.  Why?  Becaue they realize that the argument is lost.  No one who has a brain and is capable of logical thought believes the BS anymore.
So... to continue to make their money (which is in the end what this is all about) they have to foment another crisis.

Even The Rolling Stone has an excellent article by Matt Taibbi titled  &#8220;The Great American Bubble Machine&#8221; with a subtitle of &#8220;From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression.&#8221;  His take on Gore and company is particularly telling....  The global warming scam passed by Congress last week.  Goldman Sachs is in the middle of it, as usual-- a potential trillion dollar sure thing.  He also whacks Former Vice President Al Gore who will profit from the cap-and-trade plan through his company, Generation Investment Management,-- Gore is joined by three former Goldman Sachs heads in their carbon offsets business.

So there you go.  Your own folks turning traitor on you.  Maybe they have actually read some of the crap that Jones, Mann, Hansen, and the rest of the AGW fraudsters have been pushing and decided they had had enough.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 21, 2010)

Had to start my AC last week.  In MN.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2010)

And I had three inches of snow in Nevada TODAY!  What do either have to do with anything?





Big Fitz said:


> Had to start my AC last week.  In MN.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 22, 2010)

The science clearly shows that CO2 increases are an effect, not a cause, of Global Warming


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2010)

The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.  More CO2, more trapped energy.  Where's it going, if not to heat the earth?  If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop.  Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 23, 2010)

konradv said:


> The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.  More CO2, more trapped energy.  Where's it going, if not to heat the earth?  If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop.  Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!



Can you demonstrate your hypothesis in a Laboratory Setting?

Can you show any discernible difference in temperature across tanks containing varying CO2 amounts from 280PPM up to 600PPM?

Can ya do that one single time?


----------



## gslack (Apr 23, 2010)

konradv said:


> The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.  More CO2, more trapped energy.  Where's it going, if not to heat the earth?  If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop.  Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!



Oh good the parrot is here.... look Mr. Self-proclaimed lab assistant/expert on climate science, don't try oversimplification ploy... its ignorant and shows your aptitude.

We are talking on the scale your side tries to claim. The fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas or can trap some radiation is not the same as claiming a substance making up 0.0387 estimated percentage of our atmosphere can bring about the kind of warming levels they claim.

Thats the difference, and a lab assistant should be able to comprehend that...


----------



## froggy (Apr 23, 2010)

Its the most mixed up weather also.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2010)

konradv said:


> The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.  More CO2, more trapped energy.  Where's it going, if not to heat the earth?  If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop.  Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!


About as intelligent as saying, you know... the one factor in all cases of divorce is marriage.  If we would ONLY find a way to ban marriage there'd be no more divorce!  

BRILLIANT!

And yes, Froggy.  I never trust march weather.  2 years ago, it was like January for the middle of the month, but then got back to normal.  Wierd stuff happens when the seasons change.


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2010)

I am sorry to tell you this but the actual science does not support this.  Below are some papers you can look up that will educate you further on the subject.

R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the  Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95  

 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed.  That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics.  It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" 

Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme also published a report titled "Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics"

There are plenty of others but that will get you started.

Cheers!














konradv said:


> The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.  More CO2, more trapped energy.  Where's it going, if not to heat the earth?  If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop.  Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> I am sorry to tell you this but the actual science does not support this.  Below are some papers you can look up that will educate you further on the subject.
> 
> R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the  Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95
> 
> ...


oh no no no... they're all full up on edumication.  There's no need to lean something that may damage their calm.  The heroes of the AGW cause have spoken, and logic, common sense and different theories cannot be allowed to exist.


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2010)

Oh that's OK...Jayne is one of us don't you know

Cheers





Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry to tell you this but the actual science does not support this.  Below are some papers you can look up that will educate you further on the subject.
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2010)

ROFL... Why is there a 10 foot tall statue of you in the middle of town looking at me like I owe you money?


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2010)

One of my favorite episodes!

Simon to Jayne: My god. You're like a trained ape. Without the training.

Mal: Jayne?
Jayne: Yeah?
Mal: You wanna tell me why there's a statue of you here lookin' like I owe him something?
Jayne: Wishin' I could, Captain. 





QUOTE=Big Fitz;2241133]ROFL... Why is there a 10 foot tall statue of you in the middle of town looking at me like I owe you money?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2010)

Here's the sad part.  I didn't like the show.  But my friends LOVE the quotes.  I loved the movie.  The misquotes are good too.


----------



## konradv (Apr 26, 2010)

westwall said:


> Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed.  That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics.  It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"




Turns out the paper is a piece of crap.  What this, the deniers' version of the Hockey Stick Grasph?  LOL!!!

arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_arrogance_of_physicists


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2010)

Well gee.  Shumway is not exactly what I would call a disinterested person in this area would you?  He gets millions of dollars to support the AGW program...soooo what does this prove?  Not a damn thing.  He has a vested interest in supporting AGW theory.

Now you folks allways love to trot out your 'warmst this time this and warmest time that' how about the very basic problem of no raw data.  GISS (that is a NASA organisation) publicly admitted that their data was inferior to that of the CRU at Hadley and now we have Phil Jones publicly admitting that the only data they have is "VALUE ADDED" data.  They "LOST" the raw data!  Have you ever heard of a more absurd admission coming from an institute of higher learning?

C'mon, get some basic common sense!  They have been baffling you with bullshit for so long you can't see straight.  No University would ever allow raw data to be lost.  Period!  It takes too long and costs too much to generate it.  Academic lives are spent generating raw data so to have a academic cavalierly state that he has lost the data is patently a LIE.
He has hidden it or destroyed it becausae it proves the hypothesis wrong.

One other thing that should concern you is this.  The Scientific Method requires multiple lines of research to obtain results which we hope will be the closest result to the truth we can get.  Why is it the AGW scientists have never even considered that the temperature changes might be something other than human caused.  They began with that as their hypothesis and have never tested a single other one.

Additionally their computer models have never been able to accurately reproduce past climate.  NEVER!  At no time has a computer model ever been able to accurately predict what the weather will be in 20 days, much less 10 years.  And when you add to that the fact they can't reproduce what we know occured in the past you must at some point begin to wonder what is wrong with the wagon you jumped on.

However a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark has found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years. 

Finally the overall goal for the AGW crowd was nicely stated by Emma Brindal, the climate justice campaigner for the green organisation Friends of the Earth, a NGO,  who said "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

So there you go in plain english.  The goal is to steal your money and give it to someone else.  Currently that other person is Al Gore and his minions.  Goldman Sachs is heavily involved in the Carbon trade and the trade itself was proposed by Ken Lay of ENRON fame.
How much more evidence do you need of the perfidy of this whole scheme?















konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed.  That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics.  It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 26, 2010)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed.  That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics.  It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
> ...



So you admit the hockey stick graph was bullshit? THanks for that...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2010)

Westwall;

R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95 
..............................................................................

R. W. Wood: Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse

Refutation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2010)

The science concerning the absorbtion spectra of CO2 was established in 1858 by Tyndal.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is the American Institute of Physics site. Perhaps you know more than degreed Physicists?


----------



## gslack (Apr 26, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot214 said:
> ...



Everytime you try and sneak back into this thread and ignore the lie you told, I will re-post that lie for all to see.... Weasel....


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 26, 2010)

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gslack again



Keep using the hammer of truth on the anvil of dumbassitude.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2010)

Please answer the simple historical record that is known that Mann was trying to obfuscate with his now completely disproven and widely ridiculed graph.  Please explain how the temperatures were higher way back when without mans input.  Just a simple little question why do you avoid it?





Old Rocks said:


> Westwall;
> 
> R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95
> ..............................................................................
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2010)

gslack said:


> LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!


WOW, you must be the resident forum slack jawed idiot or something. The article clearly said: "Last month was the warmest March on record *worldwide*, based on records back to 1880". Do you understand what "worldwide" means, little slack jawed idiot? Many area got warmer and some area got cooler but overall there was more warming to the point where the planet experienced the warmest March on record. OMG! you're stupid.





gslack said:


> Dude seriously... 1.39 degrees? How many glaciers you think melted due to that 1.39 degrees for one month? Do you really think that a place where temperatures routinely double digits below zero can melt uncontrollably over a 1.39 temp rise over a month?  or even worse over a total 1.4 degrees temp rise the last 150 years? Give me a break this whole premise is just reatrded to the point of lunacy now...


LOL. The glaciers are melting. That is observed reality. Your inability to understand what is happening doesn't make it not happen. It is obvious that *you* are retarded to the point of lunacy.





> the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand





gslack said:


> Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are unbelievably moronic. CO2 levels are around 390 parts per million now which is 3.9 (or "a few") parts per ten thousand. This mistake of yours alone shows that you are a clueless numbskull with pretensions of knowing something and makes everything you have to say from now on worth less than a cup of warm spit.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2010)

Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?





RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!
> ...


----------



## Chris (Apr 27, 2010)

westwall said:


> Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Responding to facts with personal attacks only makes you look silly.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2010)

westwall said:


> Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?


LOL. I do believe you're even more retarded that I first thought. LOL. I see you have no real response when your nonsense gets demolished.


----------



## Chris (Apr 27, 2010)

Hey Westwall, here's a little movie for you to watch...

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure6.mov


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!
> ...



Oldsocks at it again?

Dude you tried this lame tactic before.. Another sock? Or is this a family member/friend/co-worker?

Give us a break douchebag, you did this last time you showed your ass and needed to get out of it..... Grow up weasel....


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?
> ...



Konradv, or oldsocks, or his brother/sister/mommy; tell your little alter ego panty waist little coward to face his lie like a man and stop trying to hide it with puppetry....

He is busted again as a known, willing and deliberate liar out to post propaganda and nothing more. Now if the little coward wants to act like an adult and face the evidence against him, he should do that and at least earn some respect for it. Or he can send his little sock army in and earn nothing but disdain...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2010)

gslack said:


> Oldsocks at it again?
> Dude you tried this lame tactic before.. Another sock? Or is this a family member/friend/co-worker?
> Give us a break douchebag, you did this last time you showed your ass and needed to get out of it..... Grow up weasel....



You imagine that there is only one person in the world who thinks you're a retard? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....I'm sure there are legions who would agree if they happened to read any of your pathetic, lame, loony and extremely ignorant drivel.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2010)

gslack said:


> Konradv, or oldsocks, or his brother/sister/mommy; tell your little alter ego panty waist little coward to face his lie like a man and stop trying to hide it with puppetry....
> He is busted again as a known, willing and deliberate liar out to post propaganda and nothing more. Now if the little coward wants to act like an adult and face the evidence against him, he should do that and at least earn some respect for it. Or he can send his little sock army in and earn nothing but disdain...



Ha, you are such a silly cretin. Do 'socks' haunt your dreams, douche bag?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Westwall;
> 
> R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95
> ..............................................................................
> ...



But that's not the issue. 

You've yet to prove causation between deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 and "Climate Change" (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean)

Pointing to places where it's warm and saying, "See that?! Global Warming!" is neither global nor warming and clearly isn't how science is conducted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate

There's a growing consensus that the Warmers are full of crap


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Oldsocks at it again?
> ...



 I know a sock when its this obvious, and especially when its twice in a row.... Twice now with me this little twerp came after me with a sock... Same MO, a few posts and just like the other one he will be gone when it fails...

Only a true cowardly little twerp would try it twice so close together..... And all because he doesn't want to face his lies...... Wow what a wuss......


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Konradv, or oldsocks, or his brother/sister/mommy; tell your little alter ego panty waist little coward to face his lie like a man and stop trying to hide it with puppetry....
> ...





A silly cretin? You got your thesaurus out junior?  Ya know the last sock used similar insults...

Seems you both have the same social ineptitude. Coincidence? Nah, doubt it....

lets tally this shall we? 

1. The first time I embarrassed oldsocks konradv appeared with only a few posts under his belt.... In fact his first day he came straight after me, defending oldsocks like I slapped his mother....

2. The second time I embarrassed oldsocks the other socially inept juvenile with a newly opened thesaurus, and a losing record at scrabble showed up... he basically did exactly what you did just now... he came in started right off insulting me (badly I might add) like an idiot, trying to pretend he just came and joined and happened to find this thread in all the mass of threads. And in that brief second between finding it and posting to me, he was able to immediately grasp the entire situation. Including the posting habits of all involved.... Yeah sure ....

3. This time the little idiot stuck his foot so far in his mouth, he can't deny, obfuscate, or pretend it didn't happen. And whats worse its a blatant and undeniable lie, which makes whatever else he posts from here on out in the very least suspect. So now running away and posting more garbage will not work either..... Because I will follow him until he faces his lie.....


Now junior go get your puppet master like a good little socko, he has to answer for this....

And BTW, get a real idea of how to use a proper insult like an adult....


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2010)

Gslack, you are SOOOOOOO lame.  Why can't you manage to argue the topic?  The only reason I can see is that you KNOW it's a loser and ad hominem attacks is all you have!


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> Gslack, you are SOOOOOOO lame.  Why can't you manage to argue the topic?  The only reason I can see is that you KNOW it's a loser and ad hominem attacks is all you have!





Juvenile little toady, why don't you really show your age and call me a dummy-dumhead... 

Now once more for the deaf puppets.... GO get the real person and bring them here to fight their own fights like a man.....


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2010)

What would you know about being a man?  You argue like a teenager.


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> What would you know about being a man?  You argue like a teenager.



AAWW, you used big words that time..... "sniff" We are so proud of you little fella....

now once more, go get the puppet master and let him defend himself like a man.....

Go on now sybil, I want to talk to oldsocks now... Is he in there?..


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2010)

_go get the puppet master and let him defend himself like a man....._
--------------------------------------

Are you having some sort of mental collapse?  Who is this puppet master you're talking about?  Why do you post these foolish messages, while failing to tell us what would happen, if CO2 continues to rise?  Is that the problem?  You have no answer?  I guess that explains why you post more insults than usable arguments.


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> _go get the puppet master and let him defend himself like a man....._
> --------------------------------------
> 
> Are you having some sort of mental collapse?  Who is this puppet master you're talking about?  Why do you post these foolish messages, while failing to tell us what would happen, if CO2 continues to rise?  Is that the problem?  You have no answer?  I guess that explains why you post more insults than usable arguments.



If it continues to rise we plan on slapping you for it... Turns out your yammering nonsense adds to the problem you are crying about.... Now be quiet junior.... You have nothing intelligent to add you have shown this over and over......


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2010)

Nah, ol' gsucks is not suffering a mental collapse. He has never been any better.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2010)

gslack said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Please do repeat that post whenever possible. The information in it make cause some that are capable of thought to realize what the future holds.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

I live for the day when real scientists insist that their respective Colleges and Universities boot the Warmer off the science campus and force them into the phrenology or palmistry departments where their brand of "Science" is more accepted.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2010)

Answer the question fool...





RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2010)

konradv,

Answer the question.  You are avoiding and avoiding and avoiding...just answer the question..





konradv said:


> _go get the puppet master and let him defend himself like a man....._
> --------------------------------------
> 
> Are you having some sort of mental collapse?  Who is this puppet master you're talking about?  Why do you post these foolish messages, while failing to tell us what would happen, if CO2 continues to rise?  Is that the problem?  You have no answer?  I guess that explains why you post more insults than usable arguments.


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yeah a future of a tax on life and absolutism if people like you get their way.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

I'm stimulating the "I believe mankind is responsible for Global Warming" cortex


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

Ahhh, you have a long Global Warming line


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

As you can see by the reading, an increase in CO2 to 350 PPM will melt the Ice caps


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

Let's play everyone's favorite Game

WHEEL  

OF 

CLIMATE CHANGE!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm stimulating the "I believe mankind is responsible for Global Warming" cortex


Awesome!  Phrenology!

As for the Tarot, where's the 10 of jackasses card?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm stimulating the "I believe mankind is responsible for Global Warming" cortex
> ...



See how the Ace of Cups looks like the melting polar ice caps? Freaky, no?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Let's play everyone's favorite Game
> 
> WHEEL
> 
> ...


LOL


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2010)

Those are good!


----------



## Chris (Apr 28, 2010)

This is better...

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure6.mov


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> This is better...
> 
> http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure6.mov



LOL.... THis is the kind of so-called evidence I talked about before....

An Animation showing September ice coverage over 2o years, from 1979 to 2009. 

First, you guys try and tell us short term like that is inaccurate in regards to climate....

Second, September is in the ending of the melting season for polar ice....

Third, If you look at the animation and let it go by 1 frame at a time you find variances going both ways. 

For instance, all through the eighties we had nearly the same amount of ice coverage as 09', only it would be bigger in some areas and smaller in others....

In the 90's we see the same thing, variances going both ways and differences in ice regarding the different areas... one year the canada side had more ice, the next the european side had mire ice. And some years both had more or both had less ice..... its a pattern alright a pattern of natural variance...

Don't take my word for it look for yourself, look it over one frame at a time.....

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure6.mov

Do that and you see the reality.....


----------



## konradv (Apr 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> konradv,
> 
> Answer the question.  You are avoiding and avoiding and avoiding...just answer the question..
> 
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv,
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2010)

I think that when those "scientists" start getting sued for fraud and the "exonerations" given to them by their fellow travelers begin to unravel you will start singing another tune, 'till then enjoy your little sojourn in fantasyland...it will come to an end soon enough.

And you might care to look into why the Germans have pulled out of any climate change negotiations....it seems the Germans think Climategate actually means something.  Oh yes the Australians have also decided to shelve any proposed regs till 2013, even Jon Stewart is sounding like a climate skeptic now....for shame...






konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv,
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

LOL. Well, the posters in denial have certainly shown the parameters of their logic. Not only that, the limits of their evidence concerning global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> I think that when those "scientists" start getting sued for fraud and the "exonerations" given to them by their fellow travelers begin to unravel you will start singing another tune, 'till then enjoy your little sojourn in fantasyland...it will come to an end soon enough.
> 
> And you might care to look into why the Germans have pulled out of any climate change negotiations....it seems the Germans think Climategate actually means something.  Oh yes the Australians have also decided to shelve any proposed regs till 2013, even Jon Stewart is sounding like a climate skeptic now....for shame...
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Well, the posters in denial have certainly shown the parameters of their logic. Not only that, the limits of their evidence concerning global warming.



Can you show us one repeatable laboratory experiment that supports your "Doubling atmospheric CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in the climate" hypothesis?

Remember, pointing to places where it's warming and saying: See that! Global Warming!! isn't real science


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2010)

How about a CIVIL RICO case brought forth by the taxpayers for one.  These criminals have been perpetrating a fraud on the country for 20 years and have been taking taxpayer monies by fraudulent means.  The US government is also looking into criminal indictments for the same reason.

We have shot nothing Old Chum...we are just getting started...get ready for a long hard ride.

And you are the person who keeps trotting out BS graphs that have been proven false.  Grow up.





Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I think that when those "scientists" start getting sued for fraud and the "exonerations" given to them by their fellow travelers begin to unravel you will start singing another tune, 'till then enjoy your little sojourn in fantasyland...it will come to an end soon enough.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2010)

Kind of the plot calling the kettle black don't you think?  In 20 years your gurus havn't been able to do one thing they said they could.  Well... other than steal a whole bunch of money of course...they're real good at that.





Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Well, the posters in denial have certainly shown the parameters of their logic. Not only that, the limits of their evidence concerning global warming.


----------



## Chris (Apr 28, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > This is better...
> ...



Pretty lame bullshit. I feel bad for you.


----------



## Chris (Apr 28, 2010)




----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2010)

I think these are more appropriate now don't you?

Another polar rescue must send chills down spines of alarmists | Herald Sun

And this group is not political..they just care about the science of it all they're not out to loot anybody

Welcome to Arctic ROOS &mdash; Arctic ROOS

And even the warmist NSIDC admits that this is the latest Arctic Sea Ice Melt start on record

Sea Ice Index

You may want to reaquaint yourself with some real data.







Chris said:


>


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Oooooh....the little slack jawed idiot has his panties in a twist. LOL. You are such a crazy retard. I demonstrated just how completely clueless you are and all you've got as a comeback is to accuse everyone who thinks you're an idiot of being one person is many guises. LOL. 



RollingThunder said:


> > the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You just can't deal with someone showing your idiotic errors for all to see. 

The fact is that anyone who reads even one of your posts can immediately tell that you are a flaming retard with his head up his ass. The fact that you think everyone who writes coherently and uses big words must be the same person is hilarious and extremely pathetic. Stuff a sock in it, gsock.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?
> ...



Thinking that anything the slack jawed idiot says is a "fact" only makes you look as retarded as he is.


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2010)

No, we think you are the same person becaause you use the same ridiculous logic and resort to using the same type of insults.  Your use of language is not relevant to your choice of words.  Your intent is.





RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> No, we think you are the same person becaause you use the same ridiculous logic and resort to using the same type of insults.  Your use of language is not relevant to your choice of words.  Your intent is.



Well then, you are obviously just as retarded as the slack jawed idiot. Something that could probably be said about most of you delusional denier cult dingbats.

"_The same ridiculous logic_" - LOLOLOL...you mean like posting actual scientifc facts and evidence instead of just posting ignorant opinions and the anti-scientific drivel you get off of denier cult blogs like you nitwits do? LOL.


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2010)

Ah yes the ever present degeneration into personal insults.  The persistent lack of facts.  The incomperable belief that "their" blogs are correct and all others are "cultist deniers".
Old Rocks, you are truly pathetic.  I actually am beginning to fell sorry for you, I really am.
To be so wrapped up in a fraud as you clearly are and to have it unravel around your very ears must be psychologically damaging.

Germany has bailed, Australia has bailed, the rest of the nations are locked in pointless debate over basically nothing....your last hope is to have the misguided Senate of the US continue the pursuit of the fraud (which they probably will as they are deeply invested in it as well) oh the pain and agony of it all when it finally is put down like the dead horse it is.

Al Gore film sparks controversy in NZ | The National Business Review - New Zealand - business, markets, finance, politics, property, technology and more

Newsletter: NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 244 by Vincent Gray | Climate Realists

And then there is this from Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: the proposed cure for global warming  reducing greenhouse gas emissions  will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses

But what would a NASA scientist (you know the ones you think are gods...so long as they agree with you) know about the climate.







RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, we think you are the same person becaause you use the same ridiculous logic and resort to using the same type of insults.  Your use of language is not relevant to your choice of words.  Your intent is.
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Hey!  for old times sake, let's trot out all the predictions at that first Earth Day in 1970!

You know... the ones were we were all going to die of disease and starvation as population spikes over a trillion and we die in a burning freezy hot flood with locusts from the heavens and soylant green for everyone while everyone rides bicycles because we used up all our fuel by 1980.  

Aren't we 20 years past dead now?


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No your response was pretty lame bullshit buddy.. And I don't feel bad for you. I feel you should be ashamed of yourself...


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No socko, I just don't tolerate fakes and liars.... "A few in ten-thousand" is na very general and non-scientific claim, and its incorrect in regards to the fact its always referred to as part per million. as in 387 ppm moron.....

Now socko why do you seem to have this desperate need to bump old threads that show your sides bullshit? I thank you and appreciate it, but it seems counter-productive to me...

Oh well thanks again socko....


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Yeah, they're not Sockpuppets, but probably Cass Sunstein's Parrot provocateurs.

So it's gonna be squawking and bird crap for a while.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Yeah, they're not Sockpuppets, but probably Cass Sunstein's Parrot provocateurs.
> 
> So it's gonna be squawking and bird crap for a while.



LOL, one way to find out..... I think its time for an expose' on Cass Sunstein.... LOL BRB!


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

OMFG! this guy is a nazi...... Just the little bit I read is pretty freaking daming....

here is a bit on him.... Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Legal philosophy
> Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. Some view him as liberal[10] publicly supporting some of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts, as well as supporting rights under the Second Amendment [11] and providing strong theoretical support for the death penalty[12]. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.
> In recent years Sunstein has collaborated with academics who have training in behavioral economics, most notably Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, and Christine M. Jolls, to show how the theoretical assumptions of law and economics should be modified by new empirical findings about how people actually behave.
> The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.[citation needed]
> ...




First, the guy is a total scumbag nazi.... he wants free speech limited to pro-government only, marriage not supported by the government, removing animal rights legislation because he feels its a waste of time, that conspiracy theories are a threat to national security, and supreme court justices shouldn't be allowed to decide on matters of federal law but that should reside with the president.....Sounds just like nazi dogma to me....

I bet the POS kicks old people and beats puppies too


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Already worked on that with this thread:

Cass Sunstein's Agents Provocateur


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

> I bet the POS kicks old people and beats puppies too



Oh no. he wants to euthanize old people and give puppies lawyers to sue their owners.  No kidding.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

The Blackboard  March UAH Temperature Anomaly: 0.653C

Spencer is busy making all sorts of adjustments to the UAH, making comparisons using the historical monthly data sort of useless. He &#8220;moved&#8221; a lot of temperature rise out of Jan,Feb,and Mar back to last fall and apparently spread it out over this year as well.

According to his adjusted numbers, September 2009 at 0.504 was the hottest September, November at 0.479 was the hottest November, January 2010 at 0.649 was the hottest January, and March 2010 at 0.653 is the hottest March in the UAH data. July 2009 is the second hottest July, and October 2009 is the third hottest October.

Looking forward to April, the April 1998 anomaly was very high at 0.76, but the runner-up month of April 2005 at 0.41 is quite a way back&#8230; Looks like April 2010 will end up the 2nd hottest April.

May and June of this year will be interesting, because some of the adjustment from JFM will increase reported anomalies in May and June.

To me, the important and interesting calculation, is the 13-month moving average&#8230; If April, May, June, and July average 0.62, the UAH 13-month average will set a new record high when the July report is issued. This may seem difficult, but remember the adjustments in Spencer&#8217;s new system are likely to add over 0.10 to each of those month&#8217;s anomalies.

Not a slam dunk, but the UAH data are likely to show 2010 as the hottest &#8220;year&#8221; ever recorded.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The Blackboard  March UAH Temperature Anomaly: 0.653C
> 
> Spencer is busy making all sorts of adjustments to the UAH, making comparisons using the historical monthly data sort of useless. He moved a lot of temperature rise out of Jan,Feb,and Mar back to last fall and apparently spread it out over this year as well.
> 
> ...



And according to your history of dishonesty and lying here, you have zero credibility. So anything you put up is suspect right from the start. And especially anything you try and claim comes from or is based on science. Since that is what your lies were about...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

I see, so Dr. Roy Spencer is a 'Warmer'. LOL


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> I see, so Dr. Roy Spencer is a 'Warmer'. LOL



I don't know really I do not know him and we travel in different circles... But I do know you are a liar and propagandist....

Oh and I also know you have been made the forum bitch lately.... HAHAHAHA! Your new name is Leslie... Now hush leslie! and go get my slippers!


----------



## Chris (Apr 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> I think these are more appropriate now don't you?
> 
> Another polar rescue must send chills down spines of alarmists | Herald Sun
> 
> ...



That graph is the "real data."

What you are saying is just bullshit.

And you fail to mention that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

But then you don't read much, do you?


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I think these are more appropriate now don't you?
> ...



LOOK if you don't like the post I made about your animation, then you shouldn't have used that animation..... It was your animation from your link, all I did was show the truth about it... if you think it wasn't real data than why did you post it??

Now graphs, charts, and data oh my!..... Seriously do you honestly want to do this with me? If you were not aware I do not take bullshit well. Every one of you guys who try to play science expert and the numbers or data game with me have either been shown to be complete liars, or unable to discern the reality of the data they post.

My job requires me to be a picky SOB. So if you think posting some graphs or numbers or any other such pseudo-science garbage from known liars is going to shut me down you haven't been paying attention....

For starters there is more to solar output and variance than simply watching sunspots, and the fact your side tries to make that claim shows the level of integrity they have. Along with sunspot activity (short term) 11 year cycle (the one your side cries about). There is also a larger 20+ year cycle (long cycle), the fact the sun is due to switch poles anytime now, cosmic rays from other celestial bodies as we track through the cosmos relative to our solar system galaxy, and various sections of the universe. Along with that we have the fact the sun varies in other aspects regarding heat output which we do not fully understand yet.

Your pseudo-science BS artists wanting grant money and fame, disregard all but the short 11 year cycles and then claim the sun has no real bearing on climate..... Un fuckin believable.... THe only reason we even have a climate is the sun if that isn't enough to make you wake up god help you...

Now as far as sun activity lowest in 80 years... Show me exactly who claims that and exactly what they base this on...  Are they talking about solar output (radiation), solar flare activity, or what exactly? Also one more point you need to understand before looking more ignorant.... Cosmic rays are deflected more by an active sun. more radiation from the sum means less outside cosmic rays hitting the planet and less radiation from the sun means more cosmic rays hitting the planet. Cosmic rays are the most dangerous forms of radiation that hit us. They are believed by many scientists to have a direct correlation to our ice ages and warming periods. 

Now please go back and do some reading on the workings of our cosmos before you try and argue about the suns impact.... or better yet look at the fact without it we wouldn't exist.... Dam man you people have become religious zealots over this now.. You deny all sense in favor of feel good rhetoric.....


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

We could certainly use some more heat here..We just had another two inches of snow last night.

Here is what a few others have to say about what is coming.....

Global Cooling until 2030 by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD | Climate Realists

Another Russian Scientist: Arctic Is Cooling  P Gosselin &#8211; NoTricksZone

So as allways there are two sides to any discussion.







Old Rocks said:


> The Blackboard  March UAH Temperature Anomaly: 0.653C
> 
> Spencer is busy making all sorts of adjustments to the UAH, making comparisons using the historical monthly data sort of useless. He moved a lot of temperature rise out of Jan,Feb,and Mar back to last fall and apparently spread it out over this year as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Yes solar activity is at a low ebb (though I don't think it's at an 80 year low I would like to see your evidence for that) and I posted data from scientific sites...even from the organization you got your graph from.  And they all say opposite of what you posted.  Even the NSIDC admits the sea ice is breaking up much later then they have records for.  And please stop the juvenile use of expletives...they truly are not needed and only serve to weaken your argument.





Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I think these are more appropriate now don't you?
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2010)

westwall said:


> Yes solar activity is at a low ebb (though I don't think it's at an 80 year low I would like to see your evidence for that) and I posted data from scientific sites...even from the organization you got your graph from.  And they all say opposite of what you posted.


No they don't but I guess you're not competent to grasp that. Chris was right - the graph is the real data and nothing you can find from the NSDIC, NOAA or NASA contradicts the fact that Arctic ice has been and still is declining, the sea ice is thinner, and the Arctic permafrost is thawing and melting.

Here's what the NSIDC actually has to say:

*Is Arctic sea ice really declining?*

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice. 






westwall said:


> Even the NSIDC admits the sea ice is breaking up much later then they have records for.


LOL. "_Much later_"??? LOLOLOLOL.  From the NSIDC: "Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on *March 31*, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on *March 29*, 1999."

And so what? "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) *below* the 1979 to 2000 average for March"

"Late-season growth spurt

The maximum Arctic sea ice extent may occur as early as mid-February to as late as the last week of March. As sea ice extent approaches the seasonal maximum, extent can vary quite a bit from day to day because the thin, new ice at the edge of the pack is sensitive to local wind and temperature patterns. This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions."

"Ice age and thickness

The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.

Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness&#8212;one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season."





westwall said:


> And please stop the juvenile use of expletives...they truly are not needed and only serve to weaken your argument.


They may not be absolutely *needed*, waspwalleyed, but they sure do feel good. Getting to abuse and insult you idiotic denier cultists and your politically motivated dogmas is one of the best things about this lightly moderated forum. No worries about "weakening" the scientific 'argument' as it is founded on hard evidence and is completely unshakable anyway no matter what names I choose to call you retarded denier douche-bags.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes solar activity is at a low ebb (though I don't think it's at an 80 year low I would like to see your evidence for that) and I posted data from scientific sites...even from the organization you got your graph from.  And they all say opposite of what you posted.
> ...



Oh look the resident "save oldsocks ass" troll is back fro another attempt at burying his boys screw up..... lets go to work...

Following your link we see some issues....

1. Your cited quote said briefly....


> Is Arctic sea ice really declining?
> 
> Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. *As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade,* or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.



However the very next FAQ you didn't show said the following....



> Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?
> 
> *In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. *Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?



Hold on.... If the ice was down 10% per decade since 1979, and it recovered 10% in 2008 and 2009 was greater than 2007 as well, what does that mean? Well it means they are trying to tell as much truth as they can and still give the impression of massive warming...

In other words bullshit......

There you have it in their own words and clear as crystal... Bullshit at its most asinine...

according to them arctic ice was down over 30% since 79. (10% per decade = 30%)

yet in one year it recovered 10% of that original 30% and in the following year they said it was greater than 2007 as well. (they left out how much)

so in the very least we have recovered more than 10% of the 30% it took 30 years to loose..... yep there you have it.... One year we made up a decade of warming... So whats that tell us? it tells us we can make up an entire decades worth of lost arctic ice in a single season, and that is even using their own numbers here...

So if we can and have recovered an entire decade of lost arctic ice, how in the hell does that show a drastic and cataclysmic warming? it doesn't..... Its bullshit....

please keep posting this kind of thing rolling blunder.... I make a living picking apart bullshit.....


----------



## onecut39 (May 14, 2010)

Your hypothesis is: de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes 

Just do one (1 said:
			
		

> CAN YA DO THAT EVEN ONE TIME??????[/B]



Compared to you a bucket of rocks is genius material.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2010)

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Ice-Volume-PIOMAS.gif

The volume of ice has been declining for many years.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Ice-Volume-PIOMAS.gif
> 
> The volume of ice has been declining for many years.



And it increased for many too.... I just showed that thanks to your pal trollingblunders source.... You guys are a great help at stopping this kind of bullshit, don't think I don't appreciate it....


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2010)

Don't you find it amazing how many puppets old fraud can create?  I mean no one (who is sane) can beleive the same blather and basically insult the same way as old fraud does and be real.  Besides as obnoxious as he(or she) must be in real life I don't imagine them having too many compadres.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

westwall said:


> Don't you find it amazing how many puppets old fraud can create?  I mean no one (who is sane) can beleive the same blather and basically insult the same way as old fraud does and be real.  Besides as obnoxious as he(or she) must be in real life I don't imagine them having too many compadres.



yeah he and his cronies/socks/proxies are pretty pathetic now.... I find it even more amazing that none of them even question the crap they post or swear to.. I mean come on man some of it has been so unbelievably ignorant it tells on itself.....


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2010)

Hmmmmmmm, 

I wonder how this March could be the "warmest on record" when the October through March was in fact the snowiest on record in the northern hemisphere?  According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab?  

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt

Oh, I know how the AGW folks could say that!!!  They were using southern hemisphere numbers (where it was SUMMER) to tell us how warm it was in the northern hemisphere!

Brilliant!  And it follows their normal methodology!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2010)

Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?

You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.

I suppose it does rankle you that over 90% of the scientists think you are full of shit. After all, what do their societies state? How about the Science Academys of the various nations, any support your point of view? Ever wonder why not? How about a major university? Any out there that are stating that AGW is not real? None at all? Now isn't that too bad.

Realizing that both of you came in on the short bus when it comes to science, it is understandable that you would not know the real history of the science concerning GHGs. However, you have been pointed to enough information by real scientist that you ignorance at present is a choice you have made yourselves.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?
> 
> You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.
> 
> ...



No now you just spent days telling me I don't post ANY science, and now you claim this??

Make up your mind...

The truth is (as you well know) I take what crap you post and show you what it really means.... And that pisses you off to no end as we have seen...


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?
> 
> You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.
> 
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL....you are such a funny little retard, gsock. Way to go with the ol' cherry-picking. LOL. Now why didn't you quote the rest of that FAQ that you sort of accursed me of deliberately not showing, I wonder? LOL. Let's look at *all* of what the guys at the NSIDC were saying about whether or not the Arctic ice is 'recovering'.

_*Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?*

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice._

*LOL. You are such a silly little weasel troll, slack-jawed. Did you really expect to get away with that? LOLOL.*





gslack said:


> In other words bullshit......


Yup, that about sums up your post. Just like all of your other posts. Total bullshit. 





gslack said:


> I make a living picking bullshit out of my teeth in a traveling freak show.....


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So after all this time your defense is.... TO re-post the same article and make up a fake quote and attribute it to me???

Wow... Impressive..... For a 12 year old.... Why not just say "unh-uh" and simplify the whole thing? Dude only an idiot like you and your alter egos would do something so asinine.....

Great work genius....

Not very bright are you? lets try again shall we??

If the ice dropped roughly 30% since 79' showing an average of 10% per decade until 2007 it maxed out at around 30% as stated in your article..... And then in in 2009 it increased 10%, after increasing in 2008 as well (which your side denied for the longest time and your article fails to give an amount for)..
THat would mean in one season we got back 10% of the 30% plus whatever percent we gained back in 2008. SO if we can get back 10% in a single season, how can this be considered drastic warming? It can't be and that's the simple and logical truth of it. Its a numbers and data manipulation to show show a false scenario. If it took 30 years to lose 30% of the ice and we got a third of it back in one season, it does not show a drastic warming at all. All the rest of the garbage they talk in that is double talk to hide or diminish this simple truth.

LOL, and you claim to be for the science.....LOL too funny...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

gslack;

If the ice dropped roughly 30% since 79' showing an average of 10% per decade until 2007 it maxed out at around 30% as stated in your article..... And then in in 2009 it increased 10%, after increasing in 2008 as well (which your side denied for the longest time and your article fails to give an amount for)..
THat would mean in one season we got back 10% of the 30% plus whatever percent we gained back in 2008. SO if we can get back 10% in a single season, how can this be considered drastic warming? It can't be and that's the simple and logical truth of it. Its a numbers and data manipulation to show show a false scenario. If it took 30 years to lose 30% of the ice and we got a third of it back in one season, it does not show a drastic warming at all. All the rest of the garbage they talk in that is double talk to hide or diminish this simple truth.

LOL, and you claim to be for the science.....LOL too funny... 

*What is funny is the facility with which you lie. We have not gained any ice back. The volume of ice has been steadily declining. This year will be very interesting. Because we will not only see a decline in coverage over the last two years and probably 2007 also, but we will see a drastic decline in volume.*

Will we see record low Arctic ice VOLUME this year?  Climate Progress


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack;
> 
> If the ice dropped roughly 30% since 79' showing an average of 10% per decade until 2007 it maxed out at around 30% as stated in your article..... And then in in 2009 it increased 10%, after increasing in 2008 as well (which your side denied for the longest time and your article fails to give an amount for)..
> THat would mean in one season we got back 10% of the 30% plus whatever percent we gained back in 2008. SO if we can get back 10% in a single season, how can this be considered drastic warming? It can't be and that's the simple and logical truth of it. Its a numbers and data manipulation to show show a false scenario. If it took 30 years to lose 30% of the ice and we got a third of it back in one season, it does not show a drastic warming at all. All the rest of the garbage they talk in that is double talk to hide or diminish this simple truth.
> ...



Really? I lie? Okay then you can explain how it was your pal's link not mine, and it was to the NSIDC the national snow and ice data center is one of your sides sites... Remember? yeah it is their claim not mine, I just pointed it out to you.....

Like I said before you don't understand this at all, and whats worse you don't even read what you bitch about on here.

And now you bring us a link to green blog to fight the findings of your own sides scientists at NSIDC.. Nice work genius....


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2010)

.





Old Rocks said:


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


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

westwall said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Si modo (May 17, 2010)

And, I'm still freezing my ass off.  58 degrees F.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2010)

gslack said:


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


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

Ah, come on, dingleberry, present some of that evidence. Preferably from scientific sources. Peer reviewed journals would be nice.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2010)

Guys, Crocks has finally blown a diode.  He's repeating the same tape loop over and over with no new evidence fear mongering everything going on in the environment.  I think it's high time we shelve ole crocks from the conversation as the crackpot moonbat he has proven himself to be since Climategate.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2010)

mmmm... 58 degrees and cloudy is ideal.


----------



## boedicca (May 17, 2010)

I want me some more global warming.  We've been having the coldest weather lately.   It frelling rained today here in the Bay Area, with a dismal forecast for the rest of the week.


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, come on, dingleberry, present some of that evidence. Preferably from scientific sources. Peer reviewed journals would be nice.



Don't have to... Remember I wait on you to post from them and knowing you don't read them and you grab them straight from your green blog or propaganda posting list, it is easy to show you what they say without the spin you try and push....

So please post more science you don't understand....


----------



## Si modo (May 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> I want me some more global warming.  We've been having the coldest weather lately.   It frelling rained today here in the Bay Area, with a dismal forecast for the rest of the week.


Tell me about it.  An all day rain here, and it never even broke 60.

The rain is good for my flowers and tomatoes, though.  Got me two heirloom varieties.  Hope I don't kill them.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, come on, dingleberry, present some of that evidence. Preferably from scientific sources. Peer reviewed journals would be nice.






Yes yes, the Ed Begley defence.  Your problem old fraud is your AGW boys have been found to have conspired to prevent any dissenting study from being published in a peer reviewed journal.  That is illegal, that is going to bite them in the ass, that negates your argument entirely.


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, come on, dingleberry, present some of that evidence. Preferably from scientific sources. Peer reviewed journals would be nice.
> ...



Not really.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

What part of this is not true?


----------



## Si modo (May 18, 2010)

May 18th.  Still freezing my ass off.


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

Chris said:


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



40% of a trace gas over 200 years..... So..... We didn't double it? We didn't triple, quadruple or anything? just added less than hlf what was already there..... okay wake me when it gets bad....


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2010)

Chris said:


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







Prove it to me in the lab that CO2 causes the the earth to retain heat.  If what you are saying is true the simple expedient of doing a controlled lab experiment will demonstrate that that particular hypothesis is true.  When you look at all of the different chemistry class experiments and all the AGW experiments you find one very interesting thing.  The theory has never been proven in a lab experiment.

If you can't demonstrate your theory in the extraordinarily favorable confines of the lab, where you get to control all aspects of the experiment and you STILL can't get your artificial atmosphere to get warmer.....buddy, you've got a problem!


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You must be joking.

CO2's ability to absorb heat was proven experimentally in 1859.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



He said proven in a lab, the article you linked to has already been dealt with in this thread...

As mentioned here before.... Take an air tight aquarium fill it with normal air. Take the second and add 40% more CO2 to it. THen measure the temperature under direct sunlight of each and see if there is a difference...

That is what he is talking about here....


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

_Prove it to me in the lab that CO2 causes the the earth to retain heat. If what you are saying is true the simple expedient of doing a controlled lab experiment will demonstrate that that particular hypothesis is true. _
--------------------------------------

You're being intellectually dishonest.  This question has been asked and answered many times.  It's a truly trivial experiment, only requiring a few minutes and a spectrophotometer to demonstrate.  Given that CO2 does absorb infra-red radiation and only half would likely be re-emitted into space, the other half would, of necessity and a consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy, go towards heating the earth.  QED


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

Konrad, these morons equate Limpbaughs words to that of God, and believe that all scientists are aprentices of the devil. 

And it's all a plot by the Illumanti to put all of mankind into slavery, that is why they had Tyndal run that experiment back in 1858.

None here will argue with real experimental evidence and observations from nature. Si even claims to be a scientist, but shows absolutely no evidence of that being the case in her posts.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Prove it to me in the lab that CO2 causes the the earth to retain heat. If what you are saying is true the simple expedient of doing a controlled lab experiment will demonstrate that that particular hypothesis is true. _
> --------------------------------------
> 
> You're being intellectually dishonest.  This question has been asked and answered many times.  It's a truly trivial experiment, only requiring a few minutes and a spectrophotometer to demonstrate.  Given that CO2 does absorb infra-red radiation and only half would likely be re-emitted into space, the other half would, of necessity and a consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy, go towards heating the earth.  QED



No junior you are the one being dishonest... you make a claim you cannot back up and then repeat it like an idiot, ignoring all challenges to it....


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Konrad, these morons equate Limpbaughs words to that of God, and believe that all scientists are aprentices of the devil.
> 
> And it's all a plot by the Illumanti to put all of mankind into slavery, that is why they had Tyndal run that experiment back in 1858.
> 
> None here will argue with real experimental evidence and observations from nature. Si even claims to be a scientist, but shows absolutely no evidence of that being the case in her posts.



Don't like limbaugh or hannity, or whoever else you want to name... I don't listen to talking heads but we see you do....


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

_No junior you are the one being dishonest... you make a claim you cannot back up and then repeat it like an idiot, ignoring all challenges to it.... _
---------------------------

What claim am I not backing up?  You're making an assertion with no back up!  LOL!!!


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _No junior you are the one being dishonest... you make a claim you cannot back up and then repeat it like an idiot, ignoring all challenges to it.... _
> ---------------------------
> 
> What claim am I not backing up?  You're making an assertion with no back up!  LOL!!!



THats it show your age asshole..... See how we get you every time? When you are challenged you turn into an idiot.... What you just did was stick your fingers in your ears and say nah nah nah...... parrot....


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

When I get challenged I turn into an idiot?  Are you looking in the mirror?  LOL!!!  ALL you do is add confusion to the discusssion and refuse to make a case.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> When I get challenged I turn into an idiot?  Are you looking in the mirror?  LOL!!!  ALL you do is add confusion to the discusssion and refuse to make a case.



LOL, thats funny because you haven't added anything but to say "yeah what he said" after every one of your daddy oldoscks posts... pretty clear you two are a team junior....


----------



## Si modo (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > When I get challenged I turn into an idiot?  Are you looking in the mirror?  LOL!!!  ALL you do is add confusion to the discusssion and refuse to make a case.
> ...


Looks like konrad is easily confused.


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

Si modo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



LOL!!!  Neither of you have added ANYTHING to the discussion, but I'm the one that's confused?!?!  I guess that's the denier M.O.!!!  You haven't got a leg to stand on, so you have to trash the oppositon's character, since it's obvious the science is secondary to your personal political views.


----------



## Si modo (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Actually, I've told you that I've been freezing my ass off during April and May.

You've just been a cheerleader for illogical conclusions by others.  As far as those go, you do your faithful cause more damage than I could ever hope to do.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

So you are a cold assed bitch. What else is new

And we had a very warm January, February, and March. A cool April, and May is turning out to be about average on temps, but a bit wetter than normal, with more wind than we are used to. None of which proves a thing. Local weather.

The average temperatures for the whole globe, land and sea, is higher than it has been in instrumental history. And this decade, 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than the last, which was warmer than the prior decade, which was warmer than the decade before that.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Si actually states that she is a scientist, yet her posts show nothing at all to indicate that is the case. Another posier.


----------



## boedicca (May 19, 2010)

Si modo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




Indeed.  We've had absolutely miserably cold weather here in the Bay Area throughout April and March.


----------



## Si modo (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Irrespective of your baseless opinion of my profession, YOU are posting that preliminary data for this year, measured with inconsistent methodology, and YOU conclude that there is no global cooling and that this year will be the warmest on record.

Scientists laugh, while you play at it.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> So you are a cold assed bitch. What else is new
> 
> And we had a very warm January, February, and March. A cool April, and May is turning out to be about average on temps, but a bit wetter than normal, with more wind than we are used to. None of which proves a thing. Local weather.
> 
> The average temperatures for the whole globe, land and sea, is higher than it has been in instrumental history. And this decade, 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than the last, which was warmer than the prior decade, which was warmer than the decade before that.







Your temperature data is fraudulent old fraud for the umpteenth time.  Until you AGW proponents clean hose of all of the fraud and "value added" data what you say doesn't matter as it has all been tainted by the people spewing it out.  Contrary to you I am a scientist, I actually value the scientific method which your guru's have thrown under the bus in pursuit of money.  Pathetic.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Old Fraud the broken record, purveyor of prevarications, suckee at the trough of the AGW scientific fraud, determiner of all that is wrong with the world......yeah right...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

And, in spite of the political driven yappers and posiers, the ice melts, the world gets warmer, and the precipitation events increase in number and severity.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And, in spite of the political driven yappers and posiers, the ice melts, the world gets warmer, and the precipitation events increase in number and severity.






In point of fact other than your twisted demented fantasy world no it doesn't.  And your side is the one that is both politically AND FINANCIALLY DRIVEN.  So take your holier than thou attitude and shove it up your keester.


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So you are a cold assed bitch. What else is new
> ...



Sorry, the temperture data is not "fraudulent."

And why are the North Polar Ice cap and the glaciers melting?


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Well then please point to anything other than your mouth you added here? Come on junior show us.... All you do is give support to oldsocks....


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



And all you have done is nothing.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



And you do not stand by anything you claim in any of this... All you do is make a statement and then when called on it you disappear... So excuse me if I do not take your views on this too seriously.....


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I couldn't care less what you think.

I work seven days a week, so I am too busy to spend much time here.

Why are the glaciers and the ice cap melting?


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Are they melting? Seems according to your side they actually grew 10% back in 2009 of the 30% they lost the previous 30 years.....

So if it took 30 years to loose the 30% and we grew a third of it back in one season, where is the drastic melting?  There isn't any drastic melting.....

I mentioned this before.... yeah musta missed that huh.... Also....

If it took a million years and 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 to create the conditions we had millions of years ago that your side claims we will cause this time with burning fossil fuels. How can we duplicate or even get close to that if according to your side, if we burn up all the fossil fuels on the planet we will only contribute a total of 5,000 gigatons of CO2?

yeah mentioned that before too.... Once again you should read what I write before making accusations and assumptions.... In reality I do more actual thinking on this than any of you warmers... All of you post straight from your blogs and media with out even checking it. you take the actual science which was twisted in the media and post it without reading it.. How the hell do you think I figured this shit out? I read what you guys post....


----------



## del (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And, in spite of the political driven yappers and posiers, the ice melts, the world gets warmer, and the precipitation events increase in number and severity.



yes it does, so why don't you shut the fuck up already?


----------



## del (May 19, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



because god hates you


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You didn't figure it out.

And yes, the pole and the glaciers are melting.

Do you deny this?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 20, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And the Warmers still can't come up with a single repeatable laboratory experiment to justify their hypothesis.



Here you go, enjoy!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...xISBCw&usg=AFQjCNGYUnPwtf6Z2xEzw0wE2YzRwaczZA


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



LOL, slow aren't ya..... okay lets go over this again... your side "the NOAA scientists" said that over the last 30 years we lost 30% of the polar ice... But they concede that in 2008 and 2009 we increased polar ice. In fact in one of the winter seasons we got back 10% of the 30 we lost..

SO...if we got back 10% in one season of the 30 we lost over the previous 29 years, and we got back some more the following year, how does that show a drastic warming?

it doesn't.... So its not me who denies melting, its the NOAA.....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

Your data is a little out of date. And there is nothing slow about me, my friend....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> Your data is a little out of date. And there is nothing slow about me, my friend....



Dude what's your point?


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> Your data is a little out of date. And there is nothing slow about me, my friend....



TO make the claim of drastic constant warming, they first have to show the warming as being drastic... And taking 30 years to loose 30% and getting 10% back in one season is not drastic and continuous warming....

And if my data is out of date you should take it up with rollingthunder.. he is one of your guys and he posted it.. All I did was read it and see it in their own words....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Your data is a little out of date. And there is nothing slow about me, my friend....
> ...



Who's made the claim of "drastic constant warming" ? I've never seen that.


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Your data is a little out of date. And there is nothing slow about me, my friend....
> ...



Ok, I have now disproved your premise. The ice did not gain back 10% in one season. It is now at the 2007 level which was the lowest in recorded history.

Do you know what is most remarkable about this?


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That you failed to notice I said 2008 and 2009? Or the fact it was lowest in 2007 makes no difference in what went on in 2008 or 2009?


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

The ice coverage was thin ice, not thick permanent ice, so there was no return of 10%.

But be that as it may, the ice has returned to its lowest recorded level.

Do you know what is remarkable about this?


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> The ice coverage was thin ice, not thick permanent ice, so there was no return of 10%.
> 
> But be that as it may, the ice has returned to its lowest recorded level.
> 
> Do you know what is remarkable about this?



No now see there you just lied..... It is not at its lowest level again... And even the temps from NOAA show it is the fourth warmest since they been recording it.. THey made a big press release about it....

Well the most remarkable thing is you tried to imply that 2007 record lows negated the 2008 and 2009 recovery somehow...... Try and be honest here ....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

As I figured, you don't know.

The Sun has been at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

And yet the ice has returned to the lowest level on record. 

And my guess is that this summer it will go even lower.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> As I figured, you don't know.
> 
> The Sun has been at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.
> 
> ...



Again honesty chris...... Where is the link showing I posted the article in the other thread as you claimed..... And what does that have to do with this argument over polar ice melting as your side claims.... 

Your being vague chris....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > As I figured, you don't know.
> ...



Hardly...

The slight rebound in the ice was caused by the fact that the Sun went through its lowest level of activity in 80 years. Now that the Sun's activity is coming back, the ice will continue its downward trend.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I bolded the key word in that chris... WILL as in could, or might, or even should, but right now we don't know and cannot prove nor be positive. Just as they claimed 2008 would bee worse than 2007 and it was far better.....

you don't know, you believe and they tell you it will... just like in 2007 when they said 2008 would be worse and it wasn't....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You're trying to find something statistically significant in a 3 year same. You're a fucking moron.


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Who are they?

That fact of the matter is that I predicted on this message board that this past winter would be colder than we had seen for a while because of the Sun's low activity.

Now that the activity has picked up, the ice has returned to the lowest level in recorded history.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Show me the lowest level in recorded history evidence chris...... You keep saying it so please show us this...

And "they" are those like the NOAA and such....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Did you read the graph?

2007 was the lowest level of ice in recorded history, and the ice has returned to that level.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Look closely at it chris..... See the ice coverage growing over the winter months and the leveling off at nearly the same levels in may.... yeah MAY chris.... A lot of freezing goin on in MAY chris? Also how much do you think they can tell in preliminary readings? LOL they are usually wrong in those as we can all attest to....Ice coverage till may is not evidence of the year... When 2010 is over come back with a real graph that shows 2010 and not a best guess....

Did you forget what year this was?


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



They are usually wrong? No they are not.

There was one time they had an equipment failure for about six weeks, that is the only time they had to change it.

Nice try though.

Meanwhile, the ice cap continues to melt...


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Nice.... so you just going to pretend it is all make believe....

Add this little example of mindless denial of truth to all the rest of the things giving AGW theory a black eye these days..

things like removing 80% of the stations they measure temps with (most of them rural) and relying more on heat islands to get their temps.Or the way they changed the datasets this past year because they were getting too low temp readings and it didn't fit in their hypothesis. And the way they continue to deliberately mislead with their data and claims. Then their own emails saying they doctor data and twist the findings.... And all the rest of the claims that do not match up to data or anything in reality, all the predictions that are never even close, all the lies and exaggerations over the years, and we see all too clearly why the theory is so full of shit...

Thanks for helping to out this for the BS it is chris...


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



The melting ice has no agenda.

Unlike you.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Okay..... So you just basically told me... No? What? LOL why not just pull out the big "I know you are but what am I " defense? LOL


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






Chris the melting ice may have no agenda but the people who want to control the carbon output of the planet certainly do.  They have lied about just about every aspect of the arctic ice.  Below is a blog page from a university and they found that in the area they explored the ice was 100% thicker than the scientists had predicted.  How much more info is either not being released or ignored?

The Reference Frame: North Pole: ice 100% thicker than expected


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

Sorry folks, but the volume of Arctic Sea Ice has been declining precipitously for the last five years, and this year appears to be setting up for a real banner year in that trend. 


Arctic poised to see record low sea ice volume this year  Climate Progress


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Sorry folks, but the volume of Arctic Sea Ice has been declining precipitously for the last five years, and this year appears to be setting up for a real banner year in that trend.
> 
> 
> Arctic poised to see record low sea ice volume this year  Climate Progress






Ahh yes Climate Progress who's Big Cheese uttered this memorable quote..

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'  

And that goes with this Canadian newspaper "article" claiming that 4.5 BILLION people could die by 2012 due to methane hydrate release.  Don't you see a problem here?  Goebbels said it best when referring to propoganda, "allways tell a big lie because are more inclined to believe it than a small lie."


The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

Fortunately people aren't that stupid to believe this kind of nonsense.

And here is a link to another arctic sea ice viewpoint.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-5/


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

Perhaps we should leave these drooling denier cult retards to sit in the corner circle-jerking while muttering their denier cult myths and delusions to one another while the rational humans consider the latest news about the topic of this thread. As is obvious, the world is on course for this to be the new hottest year on record, as scientists have been predicting for some time.

*NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

Also Warmest January-April*

NOAA
May 17, 2010

*The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last months average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.*

*Global Temperature Highlights  April 2010*

    * The combined April global land and ocean average surface temperature was the warmest on record at 58.1°F (14.5°C), which is 1.37°F (0.76°C) above the 20th century average of 56.7°F (13.7°C).

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was the warmest on record for January-April at 56.0°F (13.3°C), which is 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average.

* Separately, the global ocean surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average of 60.9°F (16.0°C) and the warmest on record for April. The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic.

* The global land surface temperature was 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average of 46.5 °F (8.1°C)  the third warmest on record for April. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, with the most prominent warmth in Canada, Alaska, the eastern United States, Australia, South Asia, northern Africa and northern Russia. Cooler-than-normal places included Mongolia, Argentina, far eastern Russia, the western contiguous United States and most of China.

* El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weakened in April, as sea-surface temperature anomalies decreased across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The weakening contributed significantly to the warmth observed in the tropical belt and the warmth of the overall ocean temperature for April. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to continue through June.





(Credit: NOAA)


*Other Highlights*

    * Arctic sea ice was below normal for the 11th consecutive April, covering an average of 5.7 million square miles (14.7 million square kilometers). This is 2.1 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the 15th smallest April extent since records began in 1979. It was, however, the largest April Arctic sea ice extent since 2001.

* Antarctic sea ice extent in April was near average, just 0.3 percent below the 1979-2000 average.

* Based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record (since 1967), and below the 1967-2010 average for the Northern Hemisphere for the seventh consecutive April. Warmer-than-normal conditions over North America, Europe and parts of Russia contributed to the small snow footprint.

* The North American snow cover extent for the month was the smallest on record for April. It also was the largest negative anomaly, meaning difference below the long-term average, on record for any month.

* According to Australias Bureau of Meteorology, Victoria and Tasmania had their warmest 12-month period since national records began.

* According to the Beijing Climate Center, China experienced its coolest April since 1961. Liaoning, Jilin and Shandong had their coolest April on record. Hebei, Anhui and Jiangsu had their second coolest April since records began in 1951.

* China had its wettest April since 1974 and Tibet had its wettest April since records began in 1951. Meanwhile, Germany had its second-driest April on record since 1901, behind 2007, according to the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst).





(Credit: NOAA)


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Trolling Blunder, tell me why they use "anomalies" ? Come on little fella tell me....LOL


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

Hah!  Trollingblunder is EdtheCynic!  

Busted!


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Hah!  Trollingblunder is EdtheCynic!
> 
> Busted!



LOL, is he?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Perhaps we should leave these drooling denier cult retards to sit in the corner circle-jerking while muttering their denier cult myths and delusions to one another while the rational humans consider the latest news about the topic of this thread. As is obvious, the world is on course for this to be the new hottest year on record, as scientists have been predicting for some time.
> 
> *NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record
> 
> ...



Funny all the record temps are within area's with few temperature stations, which are far apart. In the ones in Africa are garbage in and out. If this is the warmest march and april, I say congrats. I believe the planet is to cold and should get out of this long term ice age and get back to normal the way it was 25 million years ago.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

gslack said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Hah!  Trollingblunder is EdtheCynic!
> ...


Look at his posting style.  Exactly the same.   Subject matter and everything.  Explains why he came right in guns ablazing like he knew us too.

Whassamatta Ed?  Get banned?


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



lol


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

gslack said:


> Trolling Blunder, tell me why they use "anomalies" ? Come on little fella tell me....LOL



Well, slack-jawed, I was hoping we could hear the definition you made up for the word. Those are usually hilariously absurd. Oh well. Here's what it actually means. From two sources, since you're such a troll.

From the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology:
*Anomaly*
	The departure of an element from its long-period average value for the location concerned. For example, if the maximum temperature for June in Melbourne was 1 degree Celsius higher than the long-term average for this month, the anomaly would be +1 degrees Celsius. The current international standard is to use the 30 year average from 1961 to 1990 as the long-term average.


*a·nom·a·ly*
&#8194; &#8194;
noun, plural-lies.

6. - *Meteorology. the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.* 


So come on little trollie, tell me what you hallucinate your point was.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Hah!  Trollingblunder is EdtheCynic!  Busted!





gslack said:


> LOL, is he?





Big Fitz said:


> Look at his posting style.  Exactly the same.   Subject matter and everything.  Explains why he came right in guns ablazing like he knew us too. Whassamatta Ed?  Get banned?



See second paragraph *here*.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Trolling Blunder, tell me why they use "anomalies" ? Come on little fella tell me....LOL
> ...



So....Tell me... How is it I made the word up when its the proper plural of ANOMALY???

As in more then one so they are anomalies... Gee even your links say anomalies as plural..... LOL, how embarrassing for you...Again...

For a guy who claims he is so smart, you sure don't understand much do you? LOL

SO, beyond showing how ignorant you are I would like you to explain why they choose to measure anomalies rather then straight up temps.... Come on socko gives us an answer you're so smart should be easy....


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2010)

_Funny all the record temps are within area's with few temperature stations, which are far apart. In the ones in Africa are garbage in and out. If this is the warmest march and april, I say congrats. I believe the planet is to cold and should get out of this long term ice age and get back to normal the way it was 25 million years ago._
-------------------------

Humans weren't around 25 million years ago.  How do you that would be in our best interest?  Man evolved during a relatively cool era in earth's history.  I'd like to see it stay that way, thanks.  Jumping head first into warming as you want, doesn't seem prudent.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


I am quite frankly astonished. I never imagined that you could possibly post anything that was even more stupid than what you have already posted but I was wrong. 

I said "I was hoping we could hear the definition you made up for the word" and you are sooooo mentally incompetent that you imagine that I said that you made up the word. LOL. Gsock, you take the prize for the stupidest post ever.





gslack said:


> As in more then one so they are anomalies... Gee even your links say anomalies as plural..... LOL, how embarrassing for you...Again...


You just dig the hole deeper, gtard. Like you are so stupid you think I don't know the plural when I posted the definition:
"*a·nom·a·ly* &#8211;noun, plural -_lies_."







gslack said:


> For a guy who claims he is so smart, you sure don't understand much do you? LOL


I understand what 'anomalies' means in the context it was used, something you obviously didn't or you wouldn't have made your first post about it. You only reveal yourself to be an even more ignorant troll than we thought.






gslack said:


> SO, beyond showing how ignorant you are I would like you to explain why they choose to measure anomalies rather then straight up temps.... Come on socko gives us an answer you're so smart should be easy....


I understand why meteorologists and climate scientists use the term and you don't so I'm the ignorant one??? LOL. There are many really stupid denier cult trolls but gsock, you are their king.


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Trolling Blunder, tell me why they use "anomalies" ? Come on little fella tell me....LOL
> ...



Unfortunately 30 years or for that matter 100 years is not long term data. The temperature is only "anomalous" for the time period that the meters have been in play. In Human standard time it could be construed as "long term" In geologic time it is nothing.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 24, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



The definition of "anomalous" that you are using isn't the same as the one used in meteorology.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Hah!  Trollingblunder is EdtheCynic!  Busted!
> ...


Proves nothing. May as well have said "i liKe grapEs."


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Who said I was trying to prove anything, bigfistedass? I was just laughing at the obsession you trolls have for socks.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Ohhhkayyyy...?

whatever Ed.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LOL oh ok so the sun was in your eyes? You dog ate it? LOL excuses,excuses socko... Its all we ever see from you....

LOL all your big talk and long winded excuses and in all of it you didn't even address the question I asked you....

Moron, if you meant I make up definitions for words, it makes no sense... Seriously retard you questioned the use of the word and its meaning when I used it.... Ergo the challenge was yours you ignorant twit... Why in the hell would you ask such a retarded and and irrelevant question if it was meant as you describe? Are you retarded?

Now since you are incapable of being honest and it took you so long to weasel an excuse out of that one... I have to ask the question again.... I ask you once more socko..."Why do they measure anomalies rather than straight up temps?"

Answer it this time with no excuses rambling troll.....LOL or do you another lame ass excuse why you can't this time....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Sure it does, slack-jawed, you barely know the meaning of most words so you make up your own wacko definitions all the time. What I said was quite clear. You were just too stupid to understand it. See: "*Well, slack-jawed, I was hoping we could hear the definition you made up for the word. *Those are usually hilariously absurd. Oh well. Here's what it actually means. From two sources, since you're such a troll."





gslack said:


> Seriously retard you questioned the use of the word and its meaning when I used it.... Ergo the challenge was yours you ignorant twit... Why in the hell would you ask such a retarded and and irrelevant question if it was meant as you describe? Are you retarded?


No, you are retarded, slack-jawed, as I've explained to you many times. You made a mistake and now you're trying to stay in denial, like always, but you're just spewing more blithering idiocy.






gslack said:


> Now since you are incapable of being honest and it took you so long to weasel an excuse out of that one... I have to ask the question again.... I ask you once more socko..."Why do they measure anomalies rather than straight up temps?"
> 
> Answer it this time with no excuses rambling troll.....LOL or do you another lame ass excuse why you can't this time....


It is a way of organizing data to make it more useful and understandable but all that is way beyond your comprehension anyway. You mistakenly thought 'anomaly' meant something other than the meaning that meteorologists use. You fail again, fruitloops.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So.... you deliberately wanted to sound idiotic and avoid the question? LOL ok.... You are failing horribly man.... LOl bring back oldsocks he did better than you are doing.... how many excuses you going to have? Seriously you post crap you didnt read but according to you we can't understand it... THe piece says maybe and possibly but you tell us it means its going to happen and a fact... And now you tell us what you say is not what you mean unless it supports what you say now...???? WTF?????

LOL they call that floundering douchebag... And you and oldsocks been floundering for weeks now......

So no real idea why they use anomalies then... THought not.... look dude just admit you don't know dont be an idiot and ramble some half-assed general idea....LOL

Okay tool, they use charts of anomalies to show an implication that they do not have to back up 100% or even very clearly... Got that? Yeah its like this.... They take a 140 or so year average for a region and then they show the deviations from that average, and from that they show warming fluctuations in areas as anomalies. Anomalies as in variations from the established norm... 

Well first 140 years is no way to make an assumption of what is a normal average temp in regards to climate of a planet...How can we know its a norm? its a norm for 140 or so years but thats not an accurate depiction of climate even according to your scientists...

Second, they didnt have all those tracking stations for 140 years, so how did they get the average for all the regions? They extrapolated it using complex equations and nearby data. Sounds fine but how many temp stations did they have 140 years ago? Did they have any in Africa? How about China? South America? I seriously doubt it... So the extrapolation has holes in it as well...... Big holes......

Third, an anomaly can be easily manufactured. And leave very little evidence. The entire system requires complex mathematics to function and with a computer modeling program already set to negate all other influences of climate variance and attribute it to greenhouse effect alone; its easy to see how this happens.... its botched and contrived from start to finish....

I think you and olsocks are realizing this and its showing here.... you are going through the motions now. We all see it... he barely posts anyhting beyond speculation and insults anymore, and you have resorted to repeating the same already beaten material across multiple threads.....

Your side lied to you, you see it, you know it, yet you are too cowardly to do anything but continue the lie in the desperate hope you will wake up from the nightmare.... Well welcome to reality fuckhead... your so-called saints are sinners too, and your slef-professed saviors of the planet are nothing more than lying businessmen and politicians out to get a tax on life.....

Grow up delusional boy, you been had.....


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 25, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I agree strongly with you on the temperature stations. Even today a large part of the world temperature data is very close to garbage->Your going to trust some parts of Africa, while they can't even feed them selfs or plant a goddamn farm? And you think that they will pay much attention to temperature data over a area larger then North America and central America plus a large part of south America??? One station showing above normal will than show a very large area of that shit hole to be above avg; even if it is mostly below normal. Lets now look at Northern Canada or Northeastern Russia and than you have better temperature data, but and there is also a but! There are also few and far between like the African set-up. Which is not good. 

The only data worth the damn is in southern Canada, USA, Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, and Aussie land. In then you have to factor in the fact that with increase in population comes more cement and buildings being built around these stations. Which WILL increase temperatures at those places. It is impossible to get a accurate surface data for 90 percent of the earth between human idiocy and there being few and far between stations taken data. Africa is HUGE. 3-4 times the size of the whole EU combine. Bigger then Russia in land. Then you have 2/3rds of our planet being water; SURE, we have some buoy and ship data, but it can't be global with out accurate data of the ocean. I wouldn't even trust data within the United states to the tenth of a degree for more than the last 20 years, how on gods green earth do we trust this over a 100 years over the whole globe? In guest what in March and April the warming that accounts for there records came from Africa, Northern Canada, Northeastern Russia...Funny that all the shitty area's where warm, but all the more relayable where colder then avg.

You global warmers slammed the satellite temperature, which only went back to 1970, but it is far better then surface temperature stations when you think about it, because for one it covers the oceans, Africa, and any other missing place, but I still wouldn't trust it for more then +-.2 to .4f. Your living in a pipe dream if you trust more than 50 years on a global scale for temperatures accuracy you are asking for over the earth. My suggestion is to switch over to satellite data as that is advancing a a pace that the accuracy is becoming respectable enough to try it, but those records are not enough.

To be truthful we don't even know all the factors that control the weather system of our planet. Over the last decade meteorology has advanced so much with our knowledge of the workings of it, but it would appear to me based on those global warming models not nearly enough yet. Who knows if it is a cycle or not. I've also read that the models don't take into account the effects of clouds within the model. No wonder you can't even start to understand or forecast the climate. Keep up the advancing of the models and understanding it and maybe some day you might have a chance. Maybe in a thousand years.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 25, 2010)

You know.  These discussions are starting to prove a friend's opinion of debating on the internet.  It's like the Special Olympics.  Whether you win or lose, you're still a retard.


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> You know.  These discussions are starting to prove a friend's opinion of debating on the internet.  It's like the Special Olympics.  Whether you win or lose, you're still a retard.


I disagree, but not totally.

In this subject, a scientific one, there should be no reason to use anything other than critical thought.

However, the dilettantes who think that they can play at science because Al Gore set the precedence for it, soil the science and the debate.  It's like arguing faith in a deity.  There is no point using logic to argue which faith is correct as faith requires no proof.

Same thing with the enemies of science.  The best one can do is argue the basics of critical thought because most can't even demonstrate a foundation in that.  Once (if ever) that foundation is established, then and only then can the debate on this subject even start.

I've had excellent debates on this before.  One was even with an ex-member of the American Communist Party and now a member of the Socialist party.  Not here, though.  Rocks, Chris, Konrad, Ed, etc. don't grasp that foundation.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 25, 2010)

> I disagree, but not totally.



I do too.  But just when dealing with the Chicken Littles I get that sensation.


----------



## konradv (May 25, 2010)

_However, the dilettantes who think that they can play at science because Al Gore set the precedence for it, soil the science and the debate. It's like arguing faith in a deity. There is no point using logic to argue which faith is correct as faith requires no proof._
------------------------

The fact that you mention Gore, makes YOU the dilletant.   It's the deniers that are making their arguments on pure faith, because the logic just isn't there.  I guess its easier to portray the enemy as incompetent, than to actually acquire some competence yourself.


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> _However, the dilettantes who think that they can play at science because Al Gore set the precedence for it, soil the science and the debate. It's like arguing faith in a deity. There is no point using logic to argue which faith is correct as faith requires no proof._
> ------------------------
> 
> The fact that you mention Gore, makes YOU the dilletant.   It's the deniers that are making their arguments on pure faith, because the logic just isn't there.  I guess its easier to portray the enemy as incompetent, than to actually acquire some competence yourself.


Soooo, mentioning a non-scientist's soiling of science makes one a dilettante in science.





Damn.  Just damn.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _However, the dilettantes who think that they can play at science because Al Gore set the precedence for it, soil the science and the debate. It's like arguing faith in a deity. There is no point using logic to argue which faith is correct as faith requires no proof._
> ...



The science is clear and based on massive amounts of evidence. You have a political agenda for denying the scientific conclusions of the world science community. It is the fossil fuel industry propagandists and their 'useful idiot' foot soldiers in the astro-turfed cult of denial that are "soiling" the science with pseudo-science and slander. 

You, Simple-minded-odo, are just another of the brainwashed dupes of that propaganda campaign. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and you seem to know nothing about real science. You're just parroting the denier cult talking points that you picked up from Rush or FauxNews or some oil corp sponsored blog. You'll probably never manage to jerk your head out of your ass and learn some facts about the scientific basis for AGW but in case I'm wrong there and you are actually capable of learning something, try reading this:

*The Discovery of Global Warming*


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



If respecting scientific integrity and the logic of scientific discovery makes me brainwashed, I wear that moniker with pride.

Count this person as among the brainwashed, as this sums up my position perfectly:  


> An Insult to All Science  Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
> Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST
> 
> How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith  faith in the integrity of the scientists  that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. Weve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.
> ...


An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

"The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. *Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty.* In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,* but most scientists found his arguments implausible*. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future."

This is hilarious, especially in light of the "Consensus in lieu of Science" arguments put forth by the Warmers.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



LOL, pathetic.... You avoid my post now.... Coward!


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2010)

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## elvis (May 25, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> 
> Why?



because you're fucking brain dead.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 25, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> 
> Why?



It takes a long time to use up the reserves of warmth that got collected within our oceans. I would expect within 5-10 years that we will start having a negative effect on temperatures if the current low output keeps up. Like I said on another post-It was not just the 50-75 year period of the deepest grand minimum, but there was 3 grand minimums within 500-700 years helped to get us that cold. So it takes time.


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> ...



Nice post.

But the melting of the pole and the release of arctic methane will come long before then.


----------



## gslack (May 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> 
> Why?



Repeating? Think its a coincidence or just a lack of game plane?


----------



## The Infidel (May 26, 2010)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Oceans are cooling according to NASA

The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

DailyTech - A Melting Arctic: Happy News for Mankind

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Featured Article - WSJ.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html


----------



## konradv (May 26, 2010)

DailyTech - A Melting Arctic: Happy News for Mankind

The above article is particularly clueless.  Below is a sample.

_*No change in sea level. *

Arctic ice, which floats rather than being anchored on bedrock, doesn't influence sea levels at all. Antarctica and Greenland do, but with one on a long-term cooling trend, and the other melting at the infinitesimal pace of 0.25% per century, there doesn't seem to be any call for alarm.  Sea level has been rising for thousands of years; the increase over the next century is expected to be less than 1/3 meter. _

No change in sea level???  If all the ice in the Arctic Ocean melts, so will much of the ice on land and that WOULD raise sea levels!!!


----------



## Si modo (May 26, 2010)

konradv said:


> DailyTech - A Melting Arctic: Happy News for Mankind
> 
> The above article is particularly clueless.  Below is a sample.
> 
> ...


Well, the blog actually did get it right.  Nothing clueless about that.

So you are now chicken-littling about land ice that hasn't yet changed sea levels.


----------



## The Infidel (May 26, 2010)

konradv said:


> No change in sea level???  If all the ice in the Arctic Ocean melts, so will much of the ice on land and that WOULD raise sea levels!!!




Hmmmm... so I guess you think that it never snows? New ice does'nt form on top of the old ice????? It only snowed there once in the history of the world???? Oh and ocean water does'nt evaporate either. Guess it has too much salt?????


I live on the coast..... the sea level hasnt changed in my lifetime, and I dont expect it to change in my kids lifetime.

Get a clue 
Im surprised you can tie your own shoes... errrr, I assume you can, right?



*Oh crap!!!!* I just thought of something.

Are'nt The Rocky Mt's eroding? Oh my God!!!!! They are going to be gone soon!!!!! Where is all that ice on the mountaintops going to go?????? 
*We're DOOOOOOOOMMMMMED....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

> We're DOOOOOOOOMMMMMED....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



That's what they believe... ayup.  Damn chicken littles.


----------



## boedicca (May 26, 2010)

I heard on the local news last night that April & May combined are the coldest on record for the Bay Area.

We could use some global warming right about now.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

Didn't Samuel Clemons claim the coldest winter he ever experianced was a summer in San Francisco?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360

The Secret of Sea Level Rise:
It Will Vary Greatly by Region
As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others stay dry.
by michael d. lemonick


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Didn't Samuel Clemons claim the coldest winter he ever experianced was a summer in San Francisco?


It was.

Wow.  Got a bit of weather related info right.  Then again, he was around as a newspaper man through two of the worst winters this nation ever faced in 1864 and 1865 while we were both fighting the Civil War AND building the transcontinental railroad.  Read some of the weather tales of  what went on during the work on the Central Pacific as it assaulted the Sierra Nevada.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > DailyTech - A Melting Arctic: Happy News for Mankind
> ...



Damn, do you have to continually engage in lying?

You know full well they have been measuring an increase in sea level for the last 100 years. And that the present rate is triple the average of the last century.

You neg rep me every time I call you out on your lies, yet you continue to lieDo you think that I care? I will continue to call you out on your lies.

Humans Behind Rising Seas, Study Says | LiveScience

Humans Behind Rising Seas, Study Says  
By Stéphan Reebs, Natural History Magazine

posted: 28 February 2010 02:20 pm ET

Since 1900, global sea levels have crept upward about seven inches. Rising temperatures are melting glaciers and ice sheets, as well as warming the oceans directly, which causes them to expand. Various researchers have attributed only a portion of the rise in water level to carbon dioxide (CO2)released by human actionsand blamed the rest on natural factors such as solar activity. The latest study goes much further, faulting people for more than three-quarters of the sea-level change during the past century.

Records of tide height have been kept for centuries at several seaports (Amsterdam since 1700, Liverpool since 1768, Stockholm since 1774, and many other places since 1850). Such long records have enabled Svetlana Jevrejeva, of the British governments Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, and two colleagues to statistically model the influence of various factors on sea level during the past three centuries, and to extrapolate the findings over the past millennium.

The team found that up until about 1800, sea levels actually fell owing to volcanic eruptions that periodically injected ash into the atmosphere, veiling the Sun and cooling the Earth. But as the waters rose after 1850, the biggest contributing factor was increasing atmospheric CO2.

Significantly, Jevrejevas team calculated that without the ongoing, mitigating effects of volcanic activity since 1880, sea levels would now be about three inches higher than they are. 

This research was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

> Since 1900, global sea levels have crept upward about seven inches.



Seven inches in 110 years?!?!?!  Oh GAWD!  We're all gonna DIEEEEEE!!!!! OHGAWDOHGAWDOHGAWD!!!!  SAVE ME!  SAVE ME!  WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE SAVE ME!?  Only what 75 years away from making this an even foot??

THIS is the kinda stuff that puts the whole need for global fascism right in the shit pile.  It's not a threat to anyone.  Even if it was our fault.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Samuel Clemons claim the coldest winter he ever experianced was a summer in San Francisco?
> ...



Our coldest winters were Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death, 1816, and 1886. Both were the results of volcanic eruptions. Tambora and Krakatoa. 

I really don't have to read about those endevours. I understand them from working on an engineering core drill at -30. As an aside, I have always admired the vision of Lincoln for  starting both the transcontinental railroad, and passing the homesteading laws which settled the West.


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Since 1900, global sea levels have crept upward about seven inches.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Wow a whole seven inches in 110 years you say?  Well lets see if we can put this into some perspective....the ENTIRE area of the Great Lakes is rising through isostatic rebound at the rate of 1 inch per year.   The Himalaya are rising at 1-2 inches per year do to continental collision, the Rincon section of the California coast between Carpinteria and Ventura is rising at 7 inches per year due to the Red Mountain Thrust Fault and finally the volcano rebuilding the Krakatoa caldera (Anak Krakatoa) is rising at 5 inches per WEEK.  So 7 inches in 110 years is NOTHING!

Why you may ask?  Because if you can do math you will see the land is rising faster than the water in many areas of the world.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

> I have always admired the vision of Lincoln for starting both the transcontinental railroad, and passing the homesteading laws which settled the West.



In this we also agree.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Since 1900, global sea levels have crept upward about seven inches.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, yes, it is a minor annoyance, affecting aquifers in Florida. However, now that the rate of the last century is tripled, the least we can expect is 21" for this century. 

However, the rate of rise is also increasing. So that figure will be far too low. In fact, given the increasing instability of the Antarctic Ice Shelves, that figure might be closer were it in feet instead of inchs. Even in inchs, it will create major problems for low lying nations and port cities.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

> Well lets see if we can put this into some perspective....the ENTIRE area of the Great Lakes is rising through isostatic rebound at the rate of 1 inch per year.



It's raising 1 inch a year?  Oh good.  It has dropped almost 15 FEET on Lake Michigan since 1990.  I'm sure lakehome owners will be happy to lose the crappy zebra muscle encrusted rock beaches and get back to having sand beaches only and smelt die offs closer to home.

And now for the bonus question:

Since it cannot be proven at this time (all climategate associated science must be withdrawn till verified) that mankind has any involvement with climate change is in doubt.  So, if these terrible things ARE happening, and mankind has no influence on it, what do you propose we do about it?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > I have always admired the vision of Lincoln for starting both the transcontinental railroad, and passing the homesteading laws which settled the West.
> 
> 
> 
> In this we also agree.



Interesting. There was probably the max of chicanery and graft in the building of that railroad, yet Lincoln, and then Johnson, did not fight it that much, as long as the line was advancing. A matter of taking advantage of human nature in order to get a job done, no matter how much they disliked that aspect of human nature.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > I have always admired the vision of Lincoln for starting both the transcontinental railroad, and passing the homesteading laws which settled the West.
> ...


no no... definitely not a fan of the chicanery and graft created by the big four and Credit Mobilier.  The accomplishment and the vision that Lincoln had from the day he sat in Council Bluffs, Iowa with Ted Judah looking west and getting it.  Not to mention Lincoln worked for the railroads as a lawyer and was instrumental in that part of his career getting river bridge ordinances passed with a compromise between the steamboat companies and the railroads.  Effectively ended steamboating on the rivers over time, but created something far better.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Well lets see if we can put this into some perspective....the ENTIRE area of the Great Lakes is rising through isostatic rebound at the rate of 1 inch per year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > I have always admired the vision of Lincoln for starting both the transcontinental railroad, and passing the homesteading laws which settled the West.
> ...






Those old boys are pikers compared to the GW crowd.  And you still havn't answered my Phil Jones question old fraud.


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > Well lets see if we can put this into some perspective....the ENTIRE area of the Great Lakes is rising through isostatic rebound at the rate of 1 inch per year.
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > Well lets see if we can put this into some perspective....the ENTIRE area of the Great Lakes is rising through isostatic rebound at the rate of 1 inch per year.
> ...


----------



## Si modo (May 27, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ....
> 
> Science's credibility is being destroyed hanks to them and you.  Not to those who refuse to believe exposed frauds and their worshipers.


Exactly.  And they deserve the scoff and scorn they get for their lack of integrity.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...






Actually, because they have been commiting academic fraud in order to get US taxpayer money they deserve a fair trial and then a very long imprisonment for the very real criminal complaint of actual fraud.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2010)

yeah.  That'd be good too.


----------



## Si modo (May 27, 2010)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


I agree.  The federal monies they received were through US granting agencies.  To get those monies, they had to write grant proposals.  Those grant proposals went through several levels of peer-review.  The reviewers are scientific peers until the final level.  For their proposals to get such approval, there had to be fraud involved on their part.  And, the conditions of federal grants explicitely state that grant fraud is subject to both civil and criminal prosecution under federal law.

Any citizen can report grant fraud by going to the Office of the Inspector General for the granting agency.  There is a form for the report and one can file it online, last I knew. 

We all know that federal prosecution depends on who is in the DoJ at the time that the crime is discovered.

So, that may be a pipedream, considering the lack of prosecution (or outright dismissal) of certain recent cases.

If the scientific community shuns these persons, their ability to commit additional fraud will be severely limited, at least.

ETA:  Or, if enough citizens file reports at the respective OIGs, there may come a point where prosecution cannot be ignored.  Hmmm.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2010)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






I agree with you on all counts but one.  We the people still have the ability to file a Civil RICO lawsuit against these bastards (I have been talking to some legal expert friends of mine and for about a million bucks we should be able to take it all the through to the US Superior Court if need be) and what is even better we can go after all of them because of the nature of the conspiracy.  The VA AG is doing a good job of kicking his particular door in but I have a feeling we are going to be the ones to do the actual punishing.

Just think of it.  10,000 people donating 100 bucks can do it.  Or you could make it cheaper by having 100,000 people donate 10 bucks.  Talk about bang for your buck!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 27, 2010)

Who thinks that the noaa and friends will put out the May numbers and declare it the warmest May on record?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2010)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


As long as the lawyers don't get the money like they did the tobacco settlement.  They deserve to be paid well, but dayum... not again.


----------

