# Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lays the smack to '2014 warmest year ever' nonsense



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 19, 2015)

*"Truth.*

Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists. They can't say he's not a climate scientist, because he is. They can't accuse him of taking oil industry money, because all the funding he's ever received has come from the U.S. government - including his work with NASA, NOAA and the Department of Energy.
_
And they can't refute his arguments, because he knows what he's talking about and they don't. So when he comes across their latest nonsense - this time the claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record - he takes aim and destroys the claim in beautiful fashion:


"Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?

It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

Feelings now trump facts.

At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.

In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.

And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end." "

Politics Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lays the smack to 2014 warmest year ever nonsense Best of Cain_


----------



## william the wie (Jan 19, 2015)

You are simply confusing people with facts. adjusted numbers = made up numbers.


----------



## Porker (Jan 19, 2015)

The important part of the article by Dr. Spencer (which these deadbeat liberals probably won't read anyway)...

*We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.

What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.

What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 19, 2015)

If you pay close attention to the Warmer responses, you can almost see the spittle fly as they shriek, "DENIER!!!! JUST FUCKING DIE YOU DENIER!!!"


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 19, 2015)

This shouldn't stop the world from spending hundreds of trillions of dollars at the cost of tens of millions of jobs and energy costs that will necessarily price everyone out of house and home. No... we must act NOW!


----------



## Porker (Jan 19, 2015)

It started off just among the POLITICIANS (algore etal)...and naturally was picked up by the MAIN STREAM MEDIA (read liberal assholes out to tell goddamn lies just to make a buck) at the expense of those tens of millions of jobs Mr.H. mentioned above.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 19, 2015)

Yessir... Global Warming is DONE!  
_
Stick a fork in it... !_


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

About time a scientist says what I have saying all along people recording the temperature 100 years ago were inacuarate compared to 20 years ago


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 20, 2015)

Roy Spencer?  Bhwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 20, 2015)

Climate misinformer Roy Spencer


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jan 20, 2015)

weren't they wearing winter coats in New York a few times last summer?


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

Roy Spencer
Climatologist
Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.Wikipedia
Sounds like every Climate Change fearists dream.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2015)

Yes, Dr. Spencer only rated 2013 as third. And, as he said, just a few hundreth of degree seperating First, Second, Third, and Fourth. 

So, let us look at what he and the rest are really saying.

On a super El Nino, in 1998, we had the first of a series of very warm years. All the years after that may not have set records as the warmest, but 9 of the warmest years on record have occured since 2000
.
Then in 2005, seven years after 1998, we had another very warm year, about the same as 1998. Then, five years after that, 2010, we again had a year that tied the record. And now, four years after 2010, we tied it again. 2005, 2010, were both moderate El Nino's. 2014 was Enso neutral. There is simply no way that 2014 should have been that warm. But it was.

So flap yap all you wish about how it really wasn't the total warmest, that is not the point. By what we are seeing, the next El Nino will be a scorcher. And I expect to see, before 2025, a La Nina year exceed 1998.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Roy Spencer
> Climatologist
> Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.Wikipedia
> Sounds like every Climate Change fearists dream.



Yes indeed, I wish every denier was like this man.  You do realize that he is also a creationist, right?  Tells you where is 'scientific' head is at, doesn't it?


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

A CREATIONIST? For real? Man walked with dinosaurs and all that shit?
Are you sure? Our level headed right wing global warming skeptics would not hang their hats on a guy who believes the world is only a few thousand years old.

Would they?


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Spencer
> ...



So?  So he is a creationist whatever that broad term might mean to you.  Obama is a self professed creationist so what is your point?

So point out how him being a creationist, or how you know this fact, has effected his view on Climate Change.  The CC fear mongers wail that there is no real climatologist speaking against the fear, here is one and you see how they are treated.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> A CREATIONIST? For real? Man walked with dinosaurs and all that shit?
> Are you sure? Our level headed right wing global warming skeptics would not hang their hats on a guy who believes the world is only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Would they?



So interesting that you spell out exactly what the guy thinks without really knowing then attack what YOU post.  Really disingenuous.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

Greenland called, they said the human artifacts being discovered under the ice means your theory fails

China and India called, they said your models are wrong and climate change is natural.

Germany called they said modern thermometers read warmer than prior ones

Time for the warmers to find some other way to destroy Western civilization


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> About time a scientist says what I have saying all along people recording the temperature 100 years ago were inacuarate compared to 20 years ago


As I have frequently pointed out!
We've pointed out you me and others that the simple mercury thermometer used to record temperatures long before computers and digital  were hard to read.
Considering that THE below was the only way of reading a temperature for decades.
Hard to distinguish between 71.4 ° and 71.6° wouldn't you say? Then remember these discrete temperature readings had to be physically written down, then transcribed again and again..remember all before computers...and again how often have we had problems reading people's typing on this forum?


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

Here is what Spencer has to say about Intelliget design.

*Intelligent design[edit]*
In _TCS Daily_, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[41] In the book _The Evolution Crisis_, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[42]

Climatologist Patrick Michaels has defended Spencer, arguing that his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his climate change research.[43]


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > About time a scientist says what I have saying all along people recording the temperature 100 years ago were inacuarate compared to 20 years ago
> ...



Hey I bought that same thermometer at WalMart for 1.98 just the other day.  Glad to see it is good enough to base economic decisions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

If you have the experiments, post the experiments. If you don't have any experiments, say you have consensus and call anyone who questions you a DENIER!!!

sure its not science but it pays well and we have a real chance at destroying the American economy


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

The man made global warming cult in here don't even want to address my post? I have been in injection molding for 30 years , most plastics are heat sensitive, and the 60s analog crap is worlds apart from what we have today


----------



## Wildman (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> A CREATIONIST? For real? Man walked with dinosaurs and all that shit?
> Are you sure? Our level headed right wing global warming skeptics would not hang their hats on a guy who believes the world is only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Would they?


<><><><><><><><>
it's *NOT* the world you fucking dumbass.., it's human existence, study the words in the Bible you may learn something.., being a fucking liberfool i kinda doubt it, you may need to learn to read first !!  .....


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> The man made global warming cult in here don't even want to address my post? I have been in injection molding for 30 years , most plastics are heat sensitive, and the 60s analog crap is worlds apart from what we have today



That is true.  The digital displays are obviously more accurate then what people had to do for decades before digital.
Just for a moment consider you are a volunteer temperature recording person standing in the heat or in the cold.  Reading something like the below tell me 
if the temperature is 69° or 71°?
Then the volunteer has to transcribe then transmit.


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

Wildman said:


> it's *NOT* the world you fucking dumbass.., it's human existence, study the words in the Bible you may learn something.., being a fucking liberfool i kinda doubt it, you may need to learn to read first !!





Hey dumb fuck, did man walk with dinosaurs or not? Easy question.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 Notice how they want to kill the messenger and not the message? Millions of americans like me have been using thermocouples and temp monitors at work for decades and know the progress

These are the same people who have not gone out side in 40 years

These are the same people who think we slept through 2 nd grade when the ice ages were taught about

Idiots


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



They're a Cult and they needed to be booted from every college and University in America


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 20, 2015)

Roy Spencer, just got love this guy... The darling of the deniers.

Now lets look at Dr. Spencer:
He is on board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
So lets look at these fellows:
There mission statement first:
_"The Cornwall Declaration further sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which "human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures" and "widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers."

*Some more statements:*
We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.


If Roy Spencer has indeed signed this declaration then he has essentially made up his mind about global warming. His research is not to consider *if* global warming is natural, it’s to *show* that global warming is natural. This completely changes how one should assess his research and anything he writes about global warming and climate change. Many accuse climate scientists of being biased but this seems like a classic example of explicit bias. Essentially it seems that Roy Spencer’s research is aimed at confirming his view that global warming and climate change are simply a consequence of some natural process and are not anthropogenic. I think everyone should bear this in mind when considering Roy Spencer’s views on global warming and climate change.

*I mean we are talking about a scientist who thinks the world is 6000 years old and God who not let Climate Change happen*


_


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> So point out how him being a creationist, or how you know this fact, has effected his view on Climate Change





Why don't you ask this guy that question? How the fuck would I know what this guy thinks about how his view of creation ties into his view of global warming. Ask him.

All I know is that I think those that believe in the creation of the world as told in the Bible, that believes that the creation story should be taken literally, well I don't have any confidence in that persons ability to understand complicated science.

Fairy tales are not science. No matter how much you "believe".


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > it's *NOT* the world you fucking dumbass.., it's human existence, study the words in the Bible you may learn something.., being a fucking liberfool i kinda doubt it, you may need to learn to read first !!
> ...





CowboyTed said:


> Roy Spencer, just got love this guy... The darling of the deniers.
> 
> Now lets look at Dr. Spencer:
> He is on board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Obama is not claiming to be a scientist.  Spencer is.  He is also on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy.  He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute.

Climate misinformer Roy Spencer


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 20, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If you have the experiments, post the experiments. If you don't have any experiments, say you have consensus and call anyone who questions you a DENIER!!!
> 
> sure its not science but it pays well and we have a real chance at destroying the American economy



Can you find undisputed research from a scientist who hasn't been debunked or paid off (by Oil companies) with a peer reviewed paper that has irrefutable evidence against man made climate change?

We have it on our side..


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> So interesting that you spell out exactly what the guy thinks without really knowing then attack what YOU post. Really disingenuous.






Hey freewilly. Do you know what this ? symbol means? It means I asked a question. Had that symbol at the end of three sentences I wrote. Yep. Sure did, I asked a question.
You want to try and give an answer or not?


----------



## Wildman (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > it's *NOT* the world you fucking dumbass.., it's human existence, study the words in the Bible you may learn something.., being a fucking liberfool i kinda doubt it, you may need to learn to read first !!
> ...


<><><><><><><><><><><><>
first.., stupid fucktard, define dinosaurs.

due to the fact dinosaurs have existed for many millions of years, maybe even a billion or so, who knows for *CERTAIN ?  you sure as hell do NOT !  ....... *


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Why don't you global warming cult members address my posts and others about the technology advances in the past 100 years I have been dealing with this crap for 30 years


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Can you find undisputed research from a scientist who hasn't been debunked or paid off (by Oil companies) with a peer reviewed paper that has irrefutable evidence against man made climate change?
> 
> We have it on our side..






Can you wait 10 or 15 years for them to come up with something? They'll pray for the right answer and the right scientist. It'll just take awhile.

15 years from now the science and the evidence will be so irrefutable that I fully expect the Republicans to embrace the idea that global warming is real, they have always said it was real and it is ALL the Democrats, and especially Obama's fault that nothing was done about it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Last night at work this mold is 7 feet Tall and around 30,000 lbs


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *"*
> _
> And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end." "
> _



Since, as your post says,

 Spencer gets government funding himself, he refutes his own claim above.  In fact he is living proof that the well propaganda that most scientists who agree on global warming are not legitimate because they're dependent on taking that position for the sake of funding.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

AGWCult in review:

Caught Altering the Data too many times to count
Hiding the Decline behind one Mann Tree Ring
Models Fail and totally inaccurate
Human artifacts under recently melting ice prove that warming and cooling is a totally natural phenomenon
Openly admitted that there's no science, it's all about redistributing the Benjamins
Never once presented any scientific evidence, or a single experiment linking a wisp of CO2 with temperature increase and pH drop
Ask them a question, they threaten you and call you a DENIER!!!!


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

Wildman said:


> first.., stupid fucktard, define dinosaurs





You one crazy stupid mother fucker aren't you. ODS is exceptionally strong in you.
Define dinosaurs? What the fuck are you talking about?

How about T Rex. Did man take T Rex out for his evening walk so that the T Rex didn't shit big piles of wildman all over the cave? That's all I want to know. You got an answer or not asshole?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find undisputed research from a scientist who hasn't been debunked or paid off (by Oil companies) with a peer reviewed paper that has irrefutable evidence against man made climate change?
> ...


 It will take 100 years hence of accurate data if you know anything about s.p.c.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2015)

More on Spencer (no pun intended)

*"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,**[30]**[31]** which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".*

Goddam that's funny, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 20, 2015)

the climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years, it will be changing millions of years after man no longer exists.    Man has never had anything to do with it, and never will.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> More on Spencer (no pun intended)
> 
> *"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,**[30]**[31]** which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".*
> 
> Goddam that's funny, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist.


 Again trying to kill the messenger? I am going to take pictures tonight off old crap we have and the new  stuff that reads to a a half a degree


----------



## Redfish (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> More on Spencer (no pun intended)
> 
> *"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,**[30]**[31]** which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".*
> 
> Goddam that's funny, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist.


 


Hmmm,  aren't you one of the loons who said the gulf was destroyed after the BP spill?    Well its not.   The earth has remarkable self healing capabilities.  

But on climate,  see that big ball of fire up in the sky?   its called the sun and it controls the climate of planet earth, not soccer moms in SUVs.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2015)

The environmentalist movement is on the right side of environmental issues,  whether there is global warming or not.

Casting doubt on global warming theories is nothing more than a pro-pollution strategy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > More on Spencer (no pun intended)
> ...



See what I mean, from my last post?  The anti-climate change crowd is nothing more than the pro-pollution crowd.

Pollution for profit.


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

Man has never, in the history of mankind, mined and drilled for oil and coal and then burnt that oil and coal (made from carbon BTW) at this pace and for this sustained period of time.

So the very best and most honest opinion that could be given about these actions is that we don't KNOW what will happen from putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere. 

It has never been done before. But it ain't looking like it is helping us.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Crocs has been here since the dinos dumb duck zeke and birds are relatives of the dinos so define dinosaur ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

So you want to "believe" have "faith" in your man made climate change religion Zeke we get it


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Go out side NY I am...sitting on my dock fishing, the bluest skies , comfortable


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 20, 2015)

Take a lesson from Ferguson. The left are utterly brainwashed. So thoroughly  that it totally matters NOT what the actual facts are.

The democrats intentions (along with the worl governments) is that clear. They are all about brainwashing the masses to maintain the industry that pays so well. 

They got Leonardo DiCrapio to actually do a speech in front of the UN. Now, what the fuck does he know about.climate? Where did he get educated in climate!? The liberals then have the unmitigated arrogance to say this person has no credentials cause understands the exponential probability that all of life can be explained by claiming it was all done by a series of 1000 coindicences?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The environmentalist movement is on the right side of environmental issues,  whether there is global warming or not.
> 
> Casting doubt on global warming theories is nothing more than a pro-pollution strategy.



Are you really that gullible?


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Crocs has been here since the dinos dumb duck zeke and birds are relatives of the dinos so define dinosaur ?





Hey, I didn't think wildman had any competition in the "stupid" department. I was wrong. If you are to fucking stupid to know what dinosaurs are, don't be begging me to educate you or wildman.

Do you stupid fucks have and know how to use Google? Good god, the education level of you stupid right wing fucks is PITIFUL. Along with your writing skills. Un educated at best. Willfully stupid at worst. Which are you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crocs has been here since the dinos dumb duck zeke and birds are relatives of the dinos so define dinosaur ?
> ...



You're fucked Zeke.

better to shut the fuck up and stop doubling down on how ignorant you are


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't need to write just fix machines dumb fuck, again crocs have been here since dinos 

Btw you jealous of my house?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

My dock and my shoe I am the Real deal moron


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 20, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > About time a scientist says what I have saying all along people recording the temperature 100 years ago were inacuarate compared to 20 years ago
> ...


 
Unable to figure out what a mean is aren't you?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

So tell me again grammar and spelling police why I should learn how to spell proper? What the fuck for at 49? I have every thing I want 

Dumb ass


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> My dock and my shoe I am the Real deal moron


 
Your dock looks two feet long


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're fucked Zeke.
> 
> better to shut the fuck up and stop doubling down on how ignorant you are




Fuck, the competition for the most stupid right winger on the board has just had some new competition chime in.
Frank, you may be the winner of the most stupid prize, but Widman and bear are gonna make you work for it.

Do you know if the Creation Museum has man walking with dinosaurs or crocodiles?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > first.., stupid fucktard, define dinosaurs
> ...





rightwinger said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 You should tell that to my boss he would laugh his ass off at you


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> So tell me again grammar and spelling police why I should learn how to spell proper?




Well it sure helps you put forth an educated persona. Seeing as how all you got to form an opinion of someone (on a message board) is what and how they write.

Hey, be like the majority of the right wingers you support on here and come off as uneducated and illiterate.
Your right wing friends will still give you the big thumbs up. They think just like you do. Weird.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Maybe rw just maybe RE he would hire you to push around my Kennedy tool box and hold my multi meter


----------



## Redfish (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The environmentalist movement is on the right side of environmental issues,  whether there is global warming or not.
> 
> Casting doubt on global warming theories is nothing more than a pro-pollution strategy.


 

do you know the difference between being against pollution and claiming that man is causing the planet to warm? 

Everyone is against pollution and in in favor of protecting the environment of our planet.   Why not focus on that rather than the man made global warming hoax?


----------



## Redfish (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> Man has never, in the history of mankind, mined and drilled for oil and coal and then burnt that oil and coal (made from carbon BTW) at this pace and for this sustained period of time.
> 
> So the very best and most honest opinion that could be given about these actions is that we don't KNOW what will happen from putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere.
> 
> It has never been done before. But it ain't looking like it is helping us.


 

It may very well be polluting the atmosphere,  but there is no proof that it is causing climate change.   Why not focus on the real problem----pollution,  rather than some junk science aimed at making certain people richer?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

My opinions come from reading books zeke, manuals, blue prints, I am a reader zeke I can finish a 800 page book in 3 days if I wanted to, I comprehend, I figure machinery out in minutes which could take 4 highly paid maintenance men on first 6 hours, they call me when they can not figure it out 

I am that fucking good


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucked Zeke.
> ...



Better to remain shut the fuck up and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt -- Abe Lincoln

No doubt, Zeke


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Plus I go the fuck outside zeke

Again


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> It may very well be polluting the atmosphere, but there is no proof that it is causing climate change. Why not focus on the real problem----pollution, rather than some junk science aimed at making certain people richer?





I hate to tell you this red. But this concern did start out with trying to get a handle on pollution.
Unleaded gas, catalytic converters, smoke stack scrubbers, etc etc.

We did get a handle on air pollution in this country after years of working to do just that. 
But it isn't enough. 

How do you know what the effects of burning all that carbon will be when it has never been done before?
We know what burning leaded gas does. What unrestricted tail pipe emissions does. What coal fired plants emit and the harm it does.

What we don't know is what the long term consequences of burning all this carbon will mean in the future.
And why people like you wouldn't want to be extremely cautious about this activity is something I just don't understand.. Cause if we do what you want, which I guess is pretty much nothing, and you and your kind are wrong, we are fucked.


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No doubt, Zeke




Wassdamatter frank. Got no answers to a simple question. 
Does the Creation Museum have man walking with dinosaurs or crocodiles?


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Plus I go the fuck outside zeke
> 
> Again




What is it you are trying to say dude? See, this is the part where you could come off as being a little bit smarter than you seem to be. Pose a coherent question and I will try and answer it.

But if you want I could find a picture of my lake house. Would that make you feel better? Or worse?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The environmentalist movement is on the right side of environmental issues,  whether there is global warming or not.
> ...



No, everyone is not against pollution.


----------



## jknowgood (Jan 20, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Greenland called, they said the human artifacts being discovered under the ice means your theory fails
> 
> China and India called, they said your models are wrong and climate change is natural.
> 
> ...


They are working on it. Taking prayer out of schools, government, and gay marriage.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucked Zeke.
> ...





zeke said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucked Zeke.
> ...


 Here is words of advice quit crying get a skill and learn about technology if you want to debate me, other wise you are a fool


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


 I agree I remember one company I worked at in the 80s was dumping toxic waste in the back got a heads up from osha they were coming to inspect ( ohsa always do) so my company at the time planted trees in the spot


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt, Zeke
> ...



What the fuck does the Creation Museum have to do with ManMade Global Warming?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2015)

Btw way zeke do you really want me to take a picture of the local paper and post and write on it bear513? I am getting tired , I Will do it tomorrow on this thread, dude I am the real deal lmao 

I promise you I will do it tomorrow


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > The man made global warming cult in here don't even want to address my post? I have been in injection molding for 30 years , most plastics are heat sensitive, and the 60s analog crap is worlds apart from what we have today
> ...



NO, it is not obvious that digital are more accurate.  Just because most can read into decimals it does not make them more accurate.  CALIBRATION makes them more accurate. I will bet the calibration tolerance for most of the temperature indicators is fairly large.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

zeke said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > So point out how him being a creationist, or how you know this fact, has effected his view on Climate Change
> ...



thank you for once again proving what I said was correct.  You have no idea what this guy thinks yet you spoke for him.  That is what makes you disengenous, thanks for confirming what we all already knew.


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Roy Spencer, just got love this guy... The darling of the deniers.
> 
> Now lets look at Dr. Spencer:
> He is on board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
> ...



All you have to do is read the emails that were exposed in Climategate I and Climategate II to understand that the idiot AGW scam artist that make up data in order to lie to people about the real man made effects on the climate.

The AGW scam artist have zero credibility nowadays and only the stupid Moon Bats still believe that silly shit anymore.

Of course the Moon Bats have never been very smart so it is understandable they get it wrong.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jan 20, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *"Truth.*
> 
> Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists. They can't say he's not a climate scientist, because he is. They can't accuse him of taking oil industry money, because all the funding he's ever received has come from the U.S. government - including his work with NASA, NOAA and the Department of Energy.
> _
> ...


I wonder how he explains the fact that the north polar ice cap is disappearing and that this might be the first summer in human history in which it disappears completely.  Or the massive methane eruptions that are occurring up there.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jan 20, 2015)

Flash said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Spencer, just got love this guy... The darling of the deniers.
> ...


Oh yes, tell us all about science Mr. Flash.


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 20, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > *"Truth.*
> ...




What..."*North Polar Ice cap to disappear this summer"*???  Maybe you should tell these people!!!    In the meantime check the below!
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Arctic sea ice extent remained about a standard deviation below average for the month of December. Compared to recent years, 2014 as a whole was rather unremarkable. The bigger story was the record high extents observed in the Antarctic through more than half of the year. 
At year’s end, Antarctic sea ice extent was again at a record high, but poised for a rapid decline as the austral summer wears on.
*Both Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay are now essentially completely ice covered*. 

On the Atlantic side, recent winters have been characterized by reduced winter ice extent in the Kara and Barents seas. 
This is not the case for the winter of 2014 to 2015.
The only two regions where extent is notably below average are in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. 
This contrasts with recent winters when ice extent has been greater than average in the Bering Sea.
Sea ice extent grew 2.00 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) during the month of December.
As the year drew to a close, sea ice extent again reached record high levels for the date by declining far more slowly than usual. Extent anomalies are particularly large in the Ross Sea and Amundsen Sea regions, and in the northern Weddell Sea—areas that have been anomalously high for most of the calendar year.


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> [


Oh yes, tell us all about science Mr. Flash.[/QUOTE]

Read the emails.  They are on the internet.  Google is your friend.  You will see where these scam artists made up data and fudge factors in order to promote what they referred to as  the common good.  They had to do it because the real data did not support their scam agenda.

This is old news.  Only you stupid Moon Bat still believe the scam.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ha, Obama is worse he sets government policy.

So what if he does believes something other then you about how man can into existance?  It matters not one inch to climate change if he believes in INTELLIGENT DESIGN.  But considering you know for sure he is so wrong that means you think yourself as the end all and be all of all knowledge.  I don't think so.

Why you need to mix the two, climate and intelligent design, is quite curious.  I assume because he is an actually climate scientist he must be destroyed by other means.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jan 20, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Sea ice extent doesn't mean anything.  Sea ice volume does.  Check this out.







Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## JoeNormal (Jan 20, 2015)

Flash said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes, tell us all about science Mr. Flash.
> ...


The scientists accused in 'Climategate' were vindicated years ago.  People who don't know anything about how science is done were the ones to point fingers.  Not the people who are trained in scientific or technical fields.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Actually, it matters very much.  Why?  If "God did it", which is what he believes, is all he can come up with wrt to the nature of the universe, that is fine for his personal life, but I don't want him near a public science lab, a satellite console, or anything else having to do with science, because he has already dulled his mind to science and the scientific process and obviously has no more curiosity to learn what nature is telling him because he has stopped listening to it.  And so, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said, he is "useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world", and so is also wasting my tax dollars and everyone else's.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So you have completely closed your mind to a Creator God, and you don't trust him?

But I'll give you a chance, tell me how you think live came from non-life.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 20, 2015)

Freewill said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



I can't close my mind to something that doesn't exist.

Life, all life, is chemistry.  Every life process can be understood in biochemical terms.  Even consciousness is an electrochemical process.  It can be shut down or activated with chemicals or with an electrical or mechanical shock.  And so life began as it continues today, via chemistry and the physical processes that sustain this universe.


----------



## zeke (Jan 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Btw way zeke do you really want me to take a picture of the local paper and post and write on it bear513? I am getting tired , I Will do it tomorrow on this thread, dude I am the real deal lmao
> 
> I promise you I will do it tomorrow






psstt. bear,if you see this,  what the fuck are you babbling about you real deal dude you? Take a picture and post it with your name on it? Tomm?  Did I get that correct?

If so,, sure, why not.


ppsst psstt, this ain't no "debate" society, but if you want to argue and insult, I'm game though. If you want a real debate, better go to college and join the debate society. Cause it ain't happening here.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2015)

If the Earth's climactic well being and its overall environmental health can be trusted to God, if God can fix anything,

why have anti-pollution laws at all?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 20, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...




Huh... and yet the earth's atmosphere isn't warming beyond the natural cycles common to such, and the seas aren't rising... and the Left remains without a shred of credibility on a single dam' thing. 

But consistency is something, even when the only thing you're consistent is being _*wrong.*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> If the Earth's climactic well being and its overall environmental health can be trusted to God, if God can fix anything,
> 
> why have anti-pollution laws at all?



Oh!  For the same reason as we have laws against theft.  A large percentage of the population are incapable of bearing the responsibilities that sustain their rights.  

But that's only because Relativism is the means by which evil is manifested.  

Left-think... it's the reason we need government, law and prisons.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 20, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Nature doesn't exist?

Are you sure?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 20, 2015)

About 150 years ago they were waving thermometers in the air and writing down the data that became the statistical basis of the climate at that time. No doubt there were pockets of warm or cold air that didn't get recorded and Africa was still unexplored. Today we have freaking satellites that monitor every square foot of the globe 24/7. Does anybody think that waving a thermometer stands up to satellite technology? In other words we need to start with a clean slate and only consider and compare the yearly results of modern technology. You have to add that it has become apparent that there are eco-cheaters (the end justifies the means?) who take temperature data from black asphalt areas in the middle of summer and ignore extreme cold readings and come up with a hypothisis paid for by the political left. And then their are pompous fools like pop-astronomer Carl Sagan who made all sorts of crazy claims that the left desperately wanted to believe so they didn't bother examining them.


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2015)

whitehall said:


> About 150 years ago they were waving thermometers in the air and writing down the data that became the statistical basis of the climate at that time. No doubt there were pockets of warm or cold air that didn't get recorded and Africa was still unexplored. Today we have freaking satellites that monitor every square foot of the globe 24/7. Does anybody think that waving a thermometer stands up to satellite technology? In other words we need to start with a clean slate and only consider and compare the yearly results of modern technology. You have to add that it has become apparent that there are eco-cheaters (the end justifies the means?) who take temperature data from black asphalt areas in the middle of summer and ignore extreme cold readings and come up with a hypothisis paid for by the political left. And then their are pompous fools like pop-astronomer Carl Sagan who made all sorts of crazy claims that the left desperately wanted to believe so they didn't bother examining them.



Good post.

Historical temperature data has been very unreliable.

Up until WWII half the data collected in the world were from American and European colleges near or in big cites.  The Southern Hemisphere, Siberia and many parts of Asia have always been vastly under reported so when the scam artist uses data from say 1903 to show you a correlation between temperature and CO2 emission he really doesn't have good data.  Of course that has never stopped the scam artists.

Siberia has been notoriously ignored in the global temperature modeling as has the Amazon Basin.

As far as satellite data goes there was a report a few years ago that said the calibration of the satellite instruments was not even close enough to detect the changes in temperatures that the scam artists were reporting.  For instance, the scam artists were saying that the Pacific Ocean was getting a half degree warmer but yet the satellite could only detect the temperature to within +/- 4 degrees.

One of the things that Climategate exposed was that when the data did not substantiate the AGW models then the scam artists used either fake data or include some fudge factor to make it fit.  Despicable science.  Only these stupid Moon Bats believe it.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jan 20, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Post the graph that shows that temperature isn't rising and you'll see that it's because the person who doesn't want there to be any warming started in a warm month and ended in a cool month.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > The man made global warming cult in here don't even want to address my post? I have been in injection molding for 30 years , most plastics are heat sensitive, and the 60s analog crap is worlds apart from what we have today
> ...



Those aren't the kind of thermometers they use in weather stations. The device below is for measuring barometric pressure, but the thermometers look similar and work similarly:


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Cherry picking is a Michael Mann thing and started by left wits long ago..


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> If the Earth's climactic well being and its overall environmental health can be trusted to God, if God can fix anything,
> 
> why have anti-pollution laws at all?



Who ever claims that God said or is taking care of the Earth they are dead wrong.  I assume that someone in this thread said it and you are not just assigning some unknown to that statement so you can attack it.  Never the less God told us to take care of it.  Whomever thinks otherwise is shirking their responsibility.

BUT that does not mean we have to listen nor act on CC BS.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 20, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








How bloody convenient is science.  All you got to say it is chemistry and wolla you have the answer.  No sir, there is speculation of how life came into being but there is no one that knows for sure.  Yes they maybe able to create amino acids in the lab but that is a very, VERY far cry from DNA.

Let me tell you an old joke.  God and a scientist get together and the scientist tells God that he too can create life from non-life, so God says, OK show me.   The scientist picks up a handful of dirt to start and God says "Get your own dirt."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 20, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Climate misinformer Roy Spencer



ROFLMNAO!  Now isn't that ADORABLE? 

Alinsky lives...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 21, 2015)

Freewill said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



On the contrary, knowing that life is chemistry opens up many doors.  And dude, we know that life is chemistry.  Of this there can be no doubt.  If it wasn't, all those pills you take for your 'condition' wouldn't work.  But then, who knows, maybe they don't work for you.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2015)

I was pretty stoked to see a thread that was going to talk about the science behind global warming 'hottest years evah'. but as usual it is just 10 pages of personal attacks and nonsense. oh well.

BTW evolution is just a tool that adapts lifeforms. it has no explanations as to how life came into being in the first place. life is either an astronomically improbable fluke or ......


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2015)

south america is pretty hot and is part of the reason for 'hottest year evahhhhhhhhhh'.






hmmm....not a whole lot of data there. maybe we should check some.






yup, it is as hot as can be and getting hotter! but wait, there are a few gaps in there. I wonder if it has always looked like that?






what??????? the data from 2011 seems to look different!






good old adjustments. good thing we are a lot smarter now than in 2011






another one from the same area. do you want more? OK last one.






tell me again how it is the hottest year ever.

check out Paul Homewood's site for more info on this and other locations. Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> I was pretty stoked to see a thread that was going to talk about the science behind global warming 'hottest years evah'. but as usual it is just 10 pages of personal attacks and nonsense. oh well.
> 
> BTW evolution is just a tool that adapts lifeforms. it has no explanations as to how life came into being in the first place. life is either an astronomically improbable fluke or ......



Either/or argument.

Life is organic chemistry taken to the highest level.  Chemistry is a branch of physical science that studies the composition, structure, properties and change of matter.  There is nothing in the principles of chemistry that prevents life from forming from the basic organic molecules that exists throughout the universe. Given the principles of chemistry and the right conditions, I wager that life is inevitable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2015)

Hey....how 'bout the president last night ending his SOTU address with what he does best........lying about everything, but in this care, the parts on climate change were especially bald faced!!!

What a line of shit..............


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

What's more accurate this 1950 analog technology temperature gauge


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Or this


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Or this down to a tenth of  degree


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

And you dumb ass global warming cult want us to believe a guy wearing glasses 100 years ago reading a Thermometer Was  just as accurate, from a print out of this? How fucking stupid do you think we are ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 Hey brit how old is that tech, yea I know google is my friend, lol


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 21, 2015)

nasa says 

they are "38 percent" sure it was the hottest 

what a joke 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

Bernie Madoff biggest regret is not that he defrauded people, but that his chosen vehicle was stocks instead of global warming.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



I think they've been around for about 150 years, but the one above is new.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

That's good frank a real good
Post


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

About barometric pressure googled it and simple ones been invented 1640, but I think the print out ones were invented around 1940s because I see alot of US patients around that time


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> I was pretty stoked to see a thread that was going to talk about the science behind global warming 'hottest years evah'. but as usual it is just 10 pages of personal attacks and nonsense. oh well.
> 
> BTW evolution is just a tool that adapts lifeforms. it has no explanations as to how life came into being in the first place. life is either an astronomically improbable fluke or ......



This thread started out with a news article that stated that 2013 was the hottest year on record.

It was pointed out that the claim was made because of an extremely minute difference.

Then there was some discussion on how unreliable global temperature data is.

Then it was mention how the AGW scam artists have manipulated data to fix their models.  This was all exposed in Climategate.

This is a typical AGW threat.  The Moon Bats have a religious like cult following  on the subject and despite all the evidence to the contrary absolutely refuses to believe in the scam.

I'll give you the bottom line on this issue.

Scientist first came up with a theory that because burning fossil fuels produces CO2 gasses then the CO2 will produce a greenhouse effect on earth raising temperatures.

That was a valid theory.  They even looked at preliminary data that showed a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and world wide temperatures and it showed a rise in both.

However, then is where the real science began to fall apart and the scam began.

Because the initial correlation showed rise in CO2 levels and temperature there was a lot of money put into research.  The research mostly consisted of computer modeling.

The science was distorted in order to provide the computer models with the data to support the theory.

For instance, the data that shows historically that CO2 levels lag temperature was ignored.

Data showing that in the past the CO2 levels were ten times higher but yet the earth was much cooler and data showing that at times the CO2 levels were lower but yet the earth was warmer were mostly ignored in the computer models.

World wide temperature data was manipulated like we saw in Al Gore's hocky stick picture where data was cherry picked.  When the scientist used all the data then the picture was different.

Assumptions were made about historical temperatures that were indefensible based upon the sparse data collected.

The assumptions about how CO2 really chemically reacts in the atmosphere was mostly ignored.  CO2 does not react the same in real life that it does in the theoretical computer models.  

Then there was the Climategate revelations that data was manipulated by the scientists in order to prove what could not be proven with real data.  This really blew the whistle on the scam.

Then you have the fact that after 30 years of this theory there is no credible evidence that the the climate on earth is getting warmer due to man made influence.  In fact the climate has been relatively stable for the last 15 years despite counties like China putting out tremendous more amounts of CO2 gasses.  There is very credible evidence that the earth may be moving back into another mini ice age like happens every few hundred years.  The last one was in Medieval times.

AGW is just bad science because it has become a political issue .  Too bad it has turned from a valid science discussion into a division between the Left and the Right.


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

dupe deleted


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Your 100 % correct flash


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

Flash said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I was pretty stoked to see a thread that was going to talk about the science behind global warming 'hottest years evah'. but as usual it is just 10 pages of personal attacks and nonsense. oh well.
> ...



All good points.

I would add that the Vostok Ice Cores provides an 800,000 year data set showing that CO2 lags temperature on both the increase and decline.

The science and the data is irrelevant to the AGWCult because they are the sock puppets of EnviroMarxist who want to run down the US economy.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

It's like they rely on stupid people in mass to dupe them, Just like gruber and obama care, what ever it takes to get their way and real motives. No wonder they wish conservatives would just die out.


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All good points.
> 
> I would add that the Vostok Ice Cores provides an 800,000 year data set showing that CO2 lags temperature on both the increase and decline.
> 
> The science and the data is irrelevant to the AGWCult because they are the sock puppets of EnviroMarxist who want to run down the US economy.



It is amazing what the Moon Bats have ignored or distorted in perpetuating this scam. 

I think the Moon Bats are so stupid that they have no idea how economies will be destroyed if we implement significant changes to accommodate the silly theories on AGW.  They think we can just start using solar power (you know, Solyndra solar cells) and then we can all sit around Walden Pond singing "Imagine" and everything will be groovy.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Speaking of solar it has been around for 150 years and the most expensive energy technology That the US government subsidies, the tech still sucks and the tax it cost is hidden in our power bill.
 Just like electric cars  Have been around since gasoline cars were invented and they still suck.
 Its ridiculous


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



As I've pointed out several times just common sense should make "scientists" skeptical...(I KNOW oxymoron ''common sense and scientists") regarding temperature reading accuracy over the decades because of eyeballs reading the very minute differences, i.e. 69.9° versus 69.2° and then transcribing errors that exist...(look how people on this forum ignore even the simple spell check red dotted underline) and then extrapolating these temperature recording differences which over the past century... 
(That might not sound like much of a change—surface temperatures rose about 1.4º F (0.78º C) over the past century—)Oceans warm faster and may hold the key to climate change TIME.com
1.4° increase.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

If you can't make anything better in a hundred years with all the worlds scientist, engineers, capitalist, government grants paying for it, give it up never going to work cheap


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

Flash said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > All good points.
> ...



It's not that they're stupid, it's that their Communist masters have complete control of how they think and what they think about. That's how they ignore Climategate and any and all the evidence we've shown that they're living and believing a fraud. I went to the same schools and listen to the same LMSM so I don't know HOW it was so effective, but there's a large portion of the adult population who simply believe whatever get poured into the hivemind.  Their minds have been shut and they only parrot back talking points


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


 Great point I ignore spell check all the time, but I am not paid to write.


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Nor am I but I do find the simple step of making clarity i.e. correct use of words and spelling does add to credibility!

For example one idiot defending Solyndra said the $500m investment was a "poultry" amount!  Yes it was chicken feed I'm sure!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


 Lol, yea I know but it is just like with texts you have to read between the lines, I always know when a poster is losing an argument when they can not attack my message but the grammar and spelling
No time to care
But it is funny when they want to post smart and spell wrong or use the wrong words, I never care because I worked with the japeneese for years and they trash speaking english,  but they are very smart so you have to be able to comprehend~if you want to learn


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Am 80 year old read neck Man taught me this lesson, when a guy has something to say, you listen very close and comprehend what he has to say, don't focus on how he talks, listen to the message


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

It's like my friend Sparky at work he is 60 can not read well, or comprehend blue prints, hydraulic schematics, but he has a heart of gold and 40 years of working with machine knowledge, 60 years of wisdom you can not teach what he knows and if you slow down you can learn from him what books can not teach you


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Wisdom and knowledge are different know the difference~yoda


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

If you really want to know the depth of theis AGW scam just follow the money.

There is a legitimate need for about five Climatologists worldwide. The rest are teaching in some college some place where they need research grants.

This AGW scam has brought in a lot of money to the college researchers from governments and private grants.  College professors who had nothing before now can get lucrative grants and not even be held accountable for the results.  That is why these clowns are turning out so much peer review garbage.  It is big business for the people that otherwise would have  little or nothing in the way of research.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

zeke said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find undisputed research from a scientist who hasn't been debunked or paid off (by Oil companies) with a peer reviewed paper that has irrefutable evidence against man made climate change?
> ...








And you idiots claim you're not religious.  This post is the modern day version of the religious nutter with the sandwich board claiming "the end is nigh!"

The planet has been much warmer than the present day for the VAST majority of its existence.  Nothing happened other than life bloomed.  Go ahead. Read a book.  You claim you're not a religious zeaolot so go read a book that describes how life was back when it was warmer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

Flash said:


> If you really want to know the depth of theis AGW scam just follow the money.
> 
> There is a legitimate need for about five Climatologists worldwide. The rest are teaching in some college some place where they need research grants.
> 
> This AGW scam has brought in a lot of money to the college researchers from governments and private grants.  College professors who had nothing before now can get lucrative grants and not even be held accountable for the results.  That is why these clowns are turning out so much peer review garbage.  It is big business for the people that otherwise would have  little or nothing in the way of research.



All the money wasted on Climate "Science" yet they never have any lab work


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Flash said:


> If you really want to know the depth of theis AGW scam just follow the money.
> 
> There is a legitimate need for about five Climatologists worldwide. The rest are teaching in some college some place where they need research grants.
> 
> This AGW scam has brought in a lot of money to the college researchers from governments and private grants.  College professors who had nothing before now can get lucrative grants and not even be held accountable for the results.  That is why these clowns are turning out so much peer review garbage.  It is big business for the people that otherwise would have  little or nothing in the way of research.


 It is just like college football, hell I didnt know my local college Clemson paid that much to ass. coaches $400,000 grand a year to a defensive line backer coach in college? Seriously? Read about the salarys in a local paper


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

I thought assistant coaches were only paid around 70 grand a year in college

Not 400 grand a year, for what?


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> 
> All the money wasted on Climate "Science" yet they never have any lab work



That is the best thing.  All they have to do are computer models.  Shit in and shit out.

When they can't get the shit out they want then they just change the inputs.  This is what they admitted doing in the emails that was exposed in Climategate.


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Speaking of solar it has been around for 150 years and the most expensive energy technology That the US government subsidies, the tech still sucks and the tax it cost is hidden in our power bill.
> Just like electric cars  Have been around since gasoline cars were invented and they still suck.
> Its ridiculous




It has been five or six years but the last time I looked (prior to teaching a course in Environmental Science) but then wind power was the most heavily subsidized alternative power source.   It is so inefficient that there is no way to make it economically viable without massive government subsidizes.   Solar power is not far behind.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 21, 2015)

Even the Obumanation, in last nights SOTU speech REPEATED this lie....all to promote his Commie plan to go RED....I mean GREEN!


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 21, 2015)

Flash said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of solar it has been around for 150 years and the most expensive energy technology That the US government subsidies, the tech still sucks and the tax it cost is hidden in our power bill.
> ...


PLUS very few people have studied the pollution caused by "wind power"!
YES pollution!
With the growing number of wind farms there have been few studies regarding how much interference with local weather patterns due to disruptive wind turbines.
Research: Somnath Roy of the University of Illinois conducted the study into climate around wind farms
Roy, whose findings were published in the Sunday Times, added that he believes the turbines causing turbulence and reducing winds speed are the cause.
He also added that the churning of air from low to high can create vortices that could extend the phenomenon for large distances downwind.
Roy's research is supported by a study undertaken by the Iowa State University, who looked at how a 100-turbine farm would affect conditions on farmland.
They found that temperatures on the ground were warmer at night, which in turn allowed plants to breathe more.

Wind farms can actually INCREASE climate change by raising temperatures warn academics Daily Mail Online


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 21, 2015)

The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions.

The team studied satellite data showing land surface temperature in west-central Texas.

“The spatial pattern of the warming resembles the geographic distribution of wind turbines and the year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time,” said Prof Zhou.

However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller.
Wind farms can cause climate change finds new study - Telegraph


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 21, 2015)

So could "Global warming" also be influenced by wind farms disrupting wind flows?


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions.
> 
> The team studied satellite data showing land surface temperature in west-central Texas.
> 
> ...



Unlike Obamanomics In nature "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

If you take energy out of the atmosphere you will change something.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Thanks guys for bringing wind farms up when I drove thorough Texas to Arizona a few years ago they are massive, 50 , 80 of them a hundred feet tall birds crashing into them and the worse part of them it is a scientific fact.most wind happens at night.when demand is low, they don't store energy in massive batterys that energy is lost


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> So could "Global warming" also be influenced by wind farms disrupting wind flows?


Local for sure


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Any one notice how The global warming cult don't even want to touch this thread and post in it today?
I thought they were they college educated pricks? you know the smart ones when I wouldn't even let them carry my tool belt, just go in the office and push papers, pencil whip you are useless to me


----------



## Flash (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Any one notice how The global warming cult don't even want to touch this thread and post in it today?
> I thought they were they college educated pricks? you know the smart ones when I wouldn't even let them carry my tool belt, just go in the office and push papers, pencil whip you are useless to me



Hey, I have a couple of degrees and I have been posting.  Of course being an Environmental Engineer I know a whole more about this subject than any of these Moon Bats.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

But I have 30 years of dealing with temperature readings at work so I guess were even

That's part of my job what the private sector pays me to do


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

All the Cult has left is to call us "DENIERS!!!!!"


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you have the experiments, post the experiments. If you don't have any experiments, say you have consensus and call anyone who questions you a DENIER!!!
> ...


 you do, then please provide the link with the experiment that proves 120PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature!  Wow, I'm sitting here with excitement.  Finally, someone has this.  Frank,  this dude claims he has it, the one we've been waiting for 12 months for.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

zeke said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > So interesting that you spell out exactly what the guy thinks without really knowing then attack what YOU post. Really disingenuous.
> ...


 holy crap, you know what ? that means.  Ain't you a smart one there, yuk, yuk.. Dude, Liberals have no idea what ? means.  They never respond to one and always flip it.  yeah, but you go with you know what it means, I mean, blind squirrels and nuts all that you know?  Note the ? at the end there.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

zeke said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find undisputed research from a scientist who hasn't been debunked or paid off (by Oil companies) with a peer reviewed paper that has irrefutable evidence against man made climate change?
> ...


 Zeke old buddy, you got an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures in a lab?  Note the ?, it means a ......question.  Do you know what that means?  again another ?.  watch out now, don't want to confuse you or anything.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> More on Spencer (no pun intended)
> 
> *"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,**[30]**[31]** which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".*
> 
> Goddam that's funny, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist.


 well friend, what is your belief system?  Are you saying that scientists can't believe in God?  Seems that is the crux of your post.  Hmmmmmmmm So Isaac Newton and Thomas Edison aren't scientists huh?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The environmentalist movement is on the right side of environmental issues,  whether there is global warming or not.
> 
> Casting doubt on global warming theories is nothing more than a pro-pollution strategy.


 right francis!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

zeke said:


> Man has never, in the history of mankind, mined and drilled for oil and coal and then burnt that oil and coal (made from carbon BTW) at this pace and for this sustained period of time.
> 
> So the very best and most honest opinion that could be given about these actions is that we don't KNOW what will happen from putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere.
> 
> It has never been done before. But it ain't looking like it is helping us.


 dude, well said. That is a first for you.  You are exactly right no one knows.  So why is it you boast you do?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Crocs has been here since the dinos dumb duck zeke and birds are relatives of the dinos so define dinosaur ?


 Well he has his pet Rex he takes out for walks.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 21, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey....how 'bout the president last night ending his SOTU address with what he does best........lying about everything, but in this care, the parts on climate change were especially bald faced!!!
> 
> What a line of shit..............



I suspect that anything that comes out of his mouths is a lie to you.  Right, racist skooter?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Hey....how 'bout the president last night ending his SOTU address with what he does best........lying about everything, but in this care, the parts on climate change were especially bald faced!!!
> ...


 mouths?  Yep, now that I believe, he does talk out of both sides. haahhaahahahahaha


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crocs has been here since the dinos dumb duck zeke and birds are relatives of the dinos so define dinosaur ?
> ...


 Ignorance is bliss is it not? God damn your fucking stupid No
wonder why you have blind faith in man made climate change, your ignorance of science, history and technology blows my mind away

Of all the reptiles alive today, crocodiles and alligators may be the least changed from their prehistoric ancestors of the late Cretaceousperiod, over 65 million years ago





Prehistoric Crocodiles and Crocodile Evolution


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> So could "Global warming" also be influenced by wind farms disrupting wind flows?



YES!

In fact it does increase temperature in the micro-climate areas around them.  Get enough of them like are in the mountains outside of Laramie Wy. and you get at 2.3 deg C increase in temp because it slows the wind down and disrupts the natural flow.  This disruption has caused drought conditions all over the area while ares not disrupted just 50 miles away have had no such change.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > So could "Global warming" also be influenced by wind farms disrupting wind flows?
> ...



Got a link to a peer reviewed paper on this issue?


----------



## Wildman (Jan 21, 2015)

zeke said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > first.., stupid fucktard, define dinosaurs
> ...


<><><><><><><><><>
define dinosaurs ?? why not ? Mastodons and Woolly Mammoths, Saber Toothed Cats and some of your ancestors, some specie of monkeys were considered "dinosaurs", and for your pea sized brain, or is it a mustards seed size ?

*YES !! *humans walked among Dinosaurs !!

did GOD create T-Rex ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 21, 2015)

Wildman said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Wildman said:
> ...



Well that depends; were dinosaurs a function of the universe?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 21, 2015)

Wow. the stupidity exhibited in the last few posts is breathtaking.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Hey....how 'bout the president last night ending his SOTU address with what he does best........lying about everything, but in this care, the parts on climate change were especially bald faced!!!
> ...



Well that makes sense, given the empirical data regarding relativism... but the rejection of objectivity; which is essential to discerning truth, requires the potential for a truth to be expressed by the brown clown to be virtually non-existent.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 21, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Misquoting is unethical and disingenuous in the extreme.  But I suppose that's all you deniers have going for you, right? For the record what I said was this:

"I suspect that anything that comes out of his mouth(s) (sic) is a lie *to you*. Right, racist skooter?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 22, 2015)

Yo Orangeman.........those crickets are getting loud as hell over in that other thread. A damn symphony right about now.


ghey


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 22, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Yo Orangeman.........those crickets are getting loud as hell over in that other thread. A damn symphony right about now.
> 
> 
> ghey



Call an exterminator.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

Dr. Roy Spencer states that GHGs do have an effect, he just thinks it is minor. He is among a very small minority of scientists that think that. He is also a creationist. That does lead to some doubts concerning his logical abilities.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Yo Orangeman.........those crickets are getting loud as hell over in that other thread. A damn symphony right about now.
> ...


 hahahahhahahahaha. we're the WiNneRs skooks, this guy has nothing.  And posting nothing daily. He must feel ashamed.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Roy Spencer states that GHGs do have an effect, he just thinks it is minor. He is among a very small minority of scientists that think that. He is also a creationist. That does lead to some doubts concerning his logical abilities.


because you can prove evolution right? I'm ready when you are.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Roy Spencer states that GHGs do have an effect, he just thinks it is minor. He is among a very small minority of scientists that think that. He is also a creationist. That does lead to some doubts concerning his logical abilities.
> ...



OMG!  Thanks for proving my point!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 so how did the universe start?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

*BANG!*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Roy Spencer states that GHGs do have an effect, he just thinks it is minor. He is among a very small minority of scientists that think that. He is also a creationist. That does lead to some doubts concerning his logical abilities.


Says the moron who thinks that COOK et al is worth more than toilet paper..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What does the origin of the universe have to do with the origin of species on this planet?  Come back when you get a clue and we'll talk further (in another thread since it is irrelevant to this one).


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And thus proving that the far left does not understand anything related to science..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Considering the fact that I'm the only scientist here, I call you on your bullshit.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh my the far left and the lies that they will tell..


----------



## Fugazi (Jan 23, 2015)

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who or what is causing the planet to warm.  The planet sure as hell doesn't give a shit about us. While humans have an incredible capacity to plan for events in our near future, we have a really hard time planning for anything not within our lifespan.

Instead of bickering about what is causing our planet to warm, how about we concentrate on ways in which our cities and country can adapt to a warmer planet.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 right?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 right?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 really, you're going with that eh?  And you claim to be a scientist?  You should turn in your degree!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

Fugazi said:


> At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who or what is causing the planet to warm.  The planet sure as hell doesn't give a shit about us. While humans have an incredible capacity to plan for events in our near future, we have a really hard time planning for anything not within our lifespan.
> 
> Instead of bickering about what is causing our planet to warm, how about we concentrate on ways in which our cities and country can adapt to a warmer planet.


 at the end of the day it does matter. you should really understand the actual issue.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nice dodge.  I take it by your omission that you are admitting to not having the capacity to answer my question.  No surprises here.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Nice dodge?  I asked about the universe.  Why don't you start this off by answering my question first?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



As soon as you answer my question by explaining what the origin of the universe has to do with the biological theory of evolution.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 that wasn't the original question you arse.  You answer the original question I asked, a question isn't an answer.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your original question was "you can prove evolution, right"?

To which I responded "OMG.  Thanks for proving my point."  If you don't understand that response, you need to re-read the earlier posts.

Then you asked "so how did the universe start?"  And my response questioning what the fuck the origin of the universe has to do with the biological theory of evolution still stands as you have failed answer that question.  You really should learn how to discuss these things in a reasonable fashion.  A few college courses on these subjects might help, if you are up to it.

Moreover, this is not the thread in which to have these discussions, since they are irrelevant to the OP.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 and again, you should go learn what evolution is. LOL  If you're going to discuss it, at least know what it is.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I studied anthropology for four years before I switched majors to geology.  I am publish in the Journal of Invertebrate paleontology, and have 20 years of field experience.  What have you done in the field? Anything at all?  And you have still not answered my question, which indicates that you don't know much of anything about it.  Otherwise you would not be avoiding the question.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


you don't get to tell me...answer my question.. when you haven't answered the original question.  So complete the answer or get jack from me, kapeesh!!! We'll all know you have no idea what evolution is about.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



When you explain what the origin of the universe has to do with the biological theory of evolution, we can begin our discussion.  I insist that it start here because you apparently believe there is a link.  So I want to read what you believe is this apparent link.  If you don't believe there is a link, why did you bring it up?  Secondly, and this is really the more important issue, this moving of the goalpost to evolution from the OP has nothing to do with this thread, and so you should start another thread if you want to discuss this issue.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 do you know that there was an origin of the universe?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It had to start somewhere, so I suspect it started at the beginning.  

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 right, do you know if God created the universe or is there evidence that it was evolution?  See, until you can answer that question, making fun of those who believe in God is stupid.

As for thermodynamics, yeah i've read up on it.  do I know how to do the math? no. Never said I did.  I'm not a phycist or a scientist, but I am an engineer.  It doesn't mean I don't know how to ask questions to ensure them that talk into science actually know it.  Do you support scientific methodology?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



This is what I wanted.  Dude, the theory of biological evolution is about the origin of species.  It says NOTHING about the origin of the friggin universe.  Geez. 

As for the origin of the universe itself, if you know anything about the laws of thermodynamics, then you know that the laws of thermodynamics predict the big bang.  The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) confirms it.  Moreover, if you are an engineer and don't understand the math behind thermodynamics, then you aren't much of an engineer, imho.  All of this is true whether or not one believes in a god.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Thank you for proving that you (a far left hack) know nothing about science..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Since nothing I said above is wrong, and you've made no effort to counter it, instead opting for the personal attack, I have to assume that you are a troll trying to make political hay with long established scientific principles.  If your come back is planning to be that I made a personal attack on jc456, I assure you it was nothing personal.  Anyone who claims to be an engineer and yet doesn't understand the math behind the laws of thermodynamics isn't much of an engineer.  That is true no matter the person making the claim.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Too Funny.  To date has not posted any facts and has not post work that prove 120ppm rise in CO2 has had any affect on earths climate.   Just like all the others who claim to be scientists touting AGW Alarmism.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 24, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually much of what you said is incorrect, but you posted known bunk and expect others to prove you wrong!

Prove a negative! Yes and who is tolling?

Typical far left drone..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Obfuscation and ad hominem.  That's all you've got?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



And here we have a typical example of what to expect from deniers.  Claim something is wrong without backing up the accusation and then claim the other guy expects something of you he most certainly doesn't.  I don't expect you people to prove anything because you are incapable of proving anything. That often happens to the scientifically illiterate.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 24, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Prefect example of the far left and AGW cult mentality, post known bunk and expect everyone to prove them wrong!

But since this drone has claimed to be a "scientist" how about posting the datasets and source code that proves that CO2 controls climate..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



You people don't get it.  I don't have to prove anything.  I've made no claim here.  You people keep making negative and even contradictory claims about climate change.  It is on you to support those claims.  It is not on me to either refute them or support climate change.  It already receives support from 97% of the scientists.  As such, it is already accepted science.  And when that happens, the burden of proof falls on the skeptics (you guys aren't skeptics, though, you are deniers - uneducated ones at that).


----------



## Kosh (Jan 24, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So there we have it once again showing that the AGW cult/far left religious mentality has nothing to prove, yet they can make all the baseless statements they want as it up to everyone else to prove them wrong! That tis the mentality of a two year old.

Note: When asked to provide actual science information the AGW cult did not post any, especially when confronting their religion.

So you can not post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Again, nothing but deflection.. no surprise..  Why dont you attempt to answer the empirical evidence shown? Or are facts to much for you?


----------



## peach174 (Jan 24, 2015)

It's all political.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not - Forbes


Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.


----------



## Crick (Jan 24, 2015)

Really?  

1) Look up "The Global Warming Petition Project" in Wikipedia or any other OBJECTIVE reference work.  The 31,000 signatures there are ABSOLUTELY not all  scientists.
2) Go to Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and read what the 97% figure is actually based on.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Really?
> 
> 1) Look up "The Global Warming Petition Project" in Wikipedia or any other OBJECTIVE reference work.  The 31,000 signatures there are ABSOLUTELY not all  scientists.
> 2) Go to Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and read what the 97% figure is actually based on.


 Citing Cook Et AL....   what a fucking moron..


----------



## peach174 (Jan 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Really?
> 
> 1) Look up "The Global Warming Petition Project" in Wikipedia or any other OBJECTIVE reference work.  The 31,000 signatures there are ABSOLUTELY not all  scientists.
> 2) Go to Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and read what the 97% figure is actually based on.



If you are going by that route of them not all being scientists then....... pg. 2 That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not - Forbes
The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the NAS, produced a recent report titled _America’s Climate Choices_, claiming that humans are responsible for causing recent climate change, posing significant risk to human welfare and the environment. Of the 23 people who served on the panel that wrote it, *only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science*, and another five are staffers of environmental activist organizations. It was chaired by a nuclear engineer with no formal climate science training, and the vice chairman served for years as a top staffer for the Environmental Defense Fund.  Two other members are, or were, politicians, and one had been appointed by the Clinton-Gore administration as general counsel for EPA.  Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 had made public statements claiming that global warming is a human-induced problem and/or that action is required to reduce CO2 emissions.

It's a political environmental falsely reported and manipulated movement.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Really?
> 
> 1) Look up "The Global Warming Petition Project" in Wikipedia or any other OBJECTIVE reference work.  The 31,000 signatures there are ABSOLUTELY not all  scientists.
> 2) Go to Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and read what the 97% figure is actually based on.



Wikipedia is objective?  When did it stop allowing users to 'contribute'? 

Answer: it didn't.

FACT: The Ideological Left rests ENTIRELY upon Relativism...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

This means that the Left, axiomatically rejects objectivity; which means where you find a Leftist opinion, decision, ruling, declaration, assertion, implication or any other form that conveying a concept can take, such is _subjective._

Therefore, given that Wikipedia is an organ of the Ideological Left, we can rest assured that of ALL the things that Wikipedia IS... "Objective" is NOT one of 'em.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2015)

When you go on political rants, as almost all deniers here do, you prove our point about how deniers are all members of a kook political cult.

You don't see the rational people here ranting about politics. We stick with science. In that way, we're the complete opposite of the deniers.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> When you go on political rants, as almost all deniers here do, you prove our point about how deniers are all members of a kook political cult.
> 
> You don't see the rational people here ranting about politics. We stick with science. In that way, we're the complete opposite of the deniers.



ROFLMNAO!  "Deniers", "*SCIENCE!*"... Hysterical (on every conceivable level)

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.  _

Proving once again, that you can't hide the idiots.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 so perhaps we have you confused with the other lefts on here stating that our climate is changing due to humans contributing 120 PPMof extra CO2 in the atmosphere.  If you do not agree with that, then I'm sure my peers will be happy to apologize for the request for the experiment.  See, I had you confused with those who beleived that was indeed going on and destroying our planet.  So do you believe that or not?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 so you have links to provide to defend this?  Just curious.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Contrary to your far right gullibilities, climate change is neither a left or right issue since people on both sides of the isle understand the reality of the situation.  You make it a political issue to further a far right political agenda.  I don't.  I prefer to keep the politics out of it.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Links to defend what?  Are you brain dead?  Have you even bothered to read this thread?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Contrary to your far right gullibilities, climate change is neither a left or right issue...



ROFLMNAO!  D E L U S I O N PERSONIFIED!  

"Global Warming" PKA: Chicken Little... is, as was the Global Warming of the early 20th Century... "Eugenics", ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, SOLEY A FUNCTION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT!

But that is only because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism. 

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.  

Which in short simply means that the Leftist has no means to even recognize truth, let alone stand up for it.  What's more "SCIENCE!" which supports Global Warming is ALL SUBJECTIVE nonsense... 

It's all a lie from Soup to Progressive.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Contrary to your far right gullibilities, climate change is neither a left or right issue...
> ...



Wow, the slippery slope apparent in that rant is breathtaking.  Oh dear.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There is no appeal to a slippery slope in that position.  That position merely states the irrefutable fact, that the Ideological Left wholly and exclusively owns "Global Warming" AND that the ENTIRE notion is NONSENSE, absolutely NOTHING but fodder for fools.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> No, you're the only bringing politics into this. That's because you're brainwashed political cultist, a robotic true believer who insta-parrots whatever his masters tell him.
> 
> The rational people, OTOH, keep politics out of it. You should try it. Of course, if you couldn't rant about politics, you'd have nothing to say.



Global Warming is nothing BUT POLITICAL... You clowns can bray about 'SCIENCE!' all ya want... but there is NO science in the subjective farce known as Global Warming; er huh Pardon me, it's winter and with 3' of snow burying the Northeast tonight, it's winter... OKA:  it's Climate Change Season


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> No, you're the only bringing politics into this. That's because you're brainwashed political cultist, a robotic true believer who insta-parrots whatever his masters tell him.
> 
> The rational people, OTOH, keep politics out of it. You should try it. Of course, if you couldn't rant about politics, you'd have nothing to say.


 so, so stupid, holy crap I can't believe you wrote this.  dododododododododododododo, this is all this deserves.  But hey, which side is Robert Kennedy jr on?

RFK Jr wants to jail energy CEO s for Treason Laments no current laws to punish climate skeptics. - YouTube


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2015)

so who wants to make this political?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 contrare,it is the left making it political.  Here, just one from the political left. You wish to defend this crap?

RFK Jr wants to jail energy CEO s for Treason Laments no current laws to punish climate skeptics. - YouTube


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The Left is making 'it' political, because THAT is what the left does... it advances Deceit, through FRAUDULENT means, as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Remember the three fundamental elements of socialism? 

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance...  Take those traits out of the equation and the Left disappears instantly.

And THAT is how we can rest assured that "Global Warming" (used during the summer) and "Climate Change" (used during the winter) is a LIE.  Total, 100% GRADE A Leftism... OKA: _Bullshit._


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2015)

OK, Where, so you post a lot of unsupported flap yap, not a single link to support your idiotic accusations. 

Once again, not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science of any nation, and no major University states that AGW is incorrect. In fact, almost all of theise institutions have strong statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

So your posts tell us far more about you than the people you falsely accuse of being frauds.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Where, so you post a lot of unsupported flap yap, not a single link to support your idiotic accusations.
> 
> Once again, not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science of any nation, and no major University states that AGW is incorrect. In fact, almost all of theise institutions have strong statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So your posts tell us far more about you than the people you falsely accuse of being frauds.







Actually they presented quite a bit of evidence that it is you lefties who have turned it into a political/religious issue.  We argue science, you appeal to authority.

From the wiki so even you can understand it....


Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.


Argument from authority - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2015)

Look an oncologist tells me I have cancer, and an auto mechanic is certain I do not. So believing the oncologist is an appeal to authority according to your arguement.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Look an oncologist tells me I have cancer, and an auto mechanic is certain I do not. So believing the oncologist is an appeal to authority according to your arguement.








So, you run from an appeal to authority to a non-sequitur.   Not much for original thought are you?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He is not talking about politics.  He is talking about holding CEOs accountable for their actions.  That's a friggin legal issue, bubba.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Where, so you post a lot of unsupported flap yap, not a single link to support your idiotic accusations.
> ...



There are no authorities in science.  There are, however, many experts.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


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







Then why do their papers keep getting destroyed by non experts?  Seems to me with a track record like that the statistician is the expert and the "experts" are the one's who are flailing.  Remember, the Titanic was built by experts....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2015)

westwall said:


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



They don't.  The only ones who believe that are preliterates like you.  The Titanic was built by capitalists who put profits
ahead of safety and structural integrity.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


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







Really?  Do tell.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2015)

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5.  But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5.  But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.






Actually, it's the other way around bucko.  We are claiming it is all natural variation and the Vostock ice core data supports us.  Not you.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5.  But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.
> ...



No sir, it does not.

Here is the raw rata.  Prove your claim:

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


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








Here you go.  Warming, THEN CO2 increases, hundreds of years afterwards.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2015)

No dude.  I gave you the raw data.  Take the data and prove your claim.  Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.

Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data.  So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> No dude.  I gave you the raw data.  Take the data and prove your claim.  Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.
> 
> Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data.  So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.






OK, it will take a few days to do it.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Jan 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *"Truth.*
> 
> Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists. They can't say he's not a climate scientist, because he is. They can't accuse him of taking oil industry money, because all the funding he's ever received has come from the U.S. government - including his work with NASA, NOAA and the Department of Energy.
> _
> ...



NOAA is part of the Commerce Department's budget. NASA justifies an increasingly significant part of its budget to study climate change. The Pentagon is even getting in on this Climate Change meal ticket. They propose that since climate change is a destabilizing factor, more money is warranted in their budget.Climate change is a huge cash cow for government budgets and there is every incentive to paint the situation toward the extreme end of the spectrum. The public has become a bit more cynical about government reports in general, and many organizations are doubling down and  claiming that climate change is the #1 most important issue facing mankind. That's hyperbolic when you consider the prospects of nuclear war, natural disasters, deforestation, terrorism, pollution, etc..

The 97% consensus truism quoted by John Kerry and perpetuated everywhere is somewhat dubious if you study how that number was derived. Basically, climate change papers were separated into 4 piles. The largest pile (66%) was stacked with papers that make no assumptions about whether man's activities are the main driver behind climate change. Those papers don't count in the 'vote'. There actually wasn't a vote at all. Of course, a very tiny percentage of the papers made strong arguments that humans can be ruled out as a main culprit. But there are many scientists who look seriously at alternative explanations for climate change. The climate has never not been changing, after all, and it's absurd to ignore alternative explanations for what's going on.

The headlines all read "2014 Hottest Year" without really explaining that data points from weather stations were selected by humans. The RSS satellite data was ignored. The statistical margin of error was not explained in most news stories. Computer modelling constantly changes. Incomplete weather reporting from certain stations was completed by speculation. Other factors like the urban heat island effect are dealt with artfully. There is a certain amount of art that goes into building these reports. It was a warm year, no doubt. Hottest year ever recorded? That statement doesn't match up to observables. It was statistically the hottest year in the history of subjectively selected data points recorded in the history of annually adjusted computer modelling. That's what I would say. And as Mark Twain said, "There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics."


----------



## Kosh (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> No dude.  I gave you the raw data.  Take the data and prove your claim.  Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.
> 
> Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data.  So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.



And the AGW cult dismisses the fact that CO2 does Not nor has ever controlled climate..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > No dude.  I gave you the raw data.  Take the data and prove your claim.  Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.
> ...



The fact that CO2 and temperature changes hand in hand as indicated in your pal's graph above demonstrates that you are sucking vacuum.


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

CO2 has always been a part of the climate system, sometimes as a symptom, sometimes as a cause.

the modern era is different because it is mankind who is changing the proportions of a chemical equation. what happened in the past is not necessarily what will happennow. no one knows exactly what is going to happen, although I have a strong suspicion that most of the released CO2 is going to end up as limestone eventually. homeostasis is like that. the Earth has dealt with many disruptions to the system in the past and this is just another minor one that will be dealt with.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2015)

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?



Are you talking about a single chemical reaction that forms a precipitate that settles to the ocean floor, or the process that turns it to stone, or the tectonics that move it to the surface a la White Cliffs of Dover?

PS. In case you didn't know, the chemical reaction takes the least amount of time.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

Again this is what they had to read temperature and record from in the 1900s can you read it accurately to a half a degree and record it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

This came along in the 40s, is it any better ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

This came along in the mid 80s now anybody can read not down to the half a degree but to the 10th of a degree


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

So to say the earth warmed up in a half a degree in a 100 years as a fact, is assanine


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

The funny thing is that LIG (liquid in glass) thermometers are more consistent than today's technology.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> The funny thing is that LIG (liquid in glass) thermometers are more consistent than today's technology.


 no it's the same the k and j Thermocouple s never lie it is who calibrated does, That's why I always double check with my fluke Pyrometer   meter she Don't lie

Again can you read a glass Thermometer to a half a degree? Because i could come along or who ever and say you Need Glasses because you are wrong


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

I always double check my measurement readings with another source did they a 100 years ago? Or 60 years ago did they? Even my low voltage problems with another multimeter.you have to be accurate.to trouble shoot a electrical problem


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

There aren't a whole lot of electrical problems to troubleshoot in a LIG.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

That's why I always Use my fluke multimeter, and when it is a tough electrical problem I will bring out my grand fathers analog meter. And my back up digital My omega


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> There aren't a whole lot of electrical problems to troubleshoot in a LIG.


 It's eye sight, so now it has a USB port? That's news to me


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

Please elaborate more?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

So what's this new tech? Does it convert it to analog or digital


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Where, so you post a lot of unsupported flap yap, not a single link to support your idiotic accusations.
> 
> Once again, not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science of any nation, and no major University states that AGW is incorrect. In fact, almost all of theise institutions have strong statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So your posts tell us far more about you than the people you falsely accuse of being frauds.


I know, you still haven't provided the experiment from any one of them.  When might we get that?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Look an oncologist tells me I have cancer, and an auto mechanic is certain I do not. So believing the oncologist is an appeal to authority according to your arguement.
> ...


 nope, just pouring out the stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 dude, dude..................................dude.  Wow, the stupid that flows from your keyboard is sensational.  You definitely have the hold on the stupid.  how can it be a legal issue if there is no law against it?  Please, I'm dying for some more stupid.  Aaaaaa....... let's see, to make a law I have to politcize it right?  geez, the stupid never stops from you bubba squared.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5.  But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.
> ...


It's funny how they forget what their arguing eh?  it's like the stupid never stops from them.  Day after day.  I love posting how they continue to find the stupid bug and carry it daily.


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

Bear-  you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > No dude.  I gave you the raw data.  Take the data and prove your claim.  Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.
> ...


 nor can they provide an experiment that proves it.  Hey all of you real deniers.....you lose again and again, day after day..............and if you missed it...............


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 and it means you have no idea the difference between correlation and causation.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

.................................................


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Where, so you post a lot of unsupported flap yap, not a single link to support your idiotic accusations.
> ...





IanC said:


> Bear-  you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Bear-  you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.


 The outside contractors.fake it , put a sticker on it and say it is calibrated, how do you calibrate so many OEMs  temperature measuring like this? You can not get the specs, not like a weigh scale, just put a weight on it and calibrate it to a well known test subject


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bear-  you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.
> ...




What was your opinion about the German experiment that found the new equipment reading 0.9 C higher than the equipment it replaced?

Edit- which may explain at least part of the warming found during the replacement period.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

They fake it, I know.it is oem they just put a sticker on it and charge your company $5,000 bucks, the only way they can check is abiotic air temperature, I guess


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


When, where, how


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


 Elaborate more if you want to get my expert opinion, when, how and where? Was that 30 years of German satellite readings? Highly unlikely or just some thermocouples readings thrown on the Ground? Give me details and data please


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

I need data to examine it please


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 here go read from phys.org.  . Researcher explores how the universe creates reason morality


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> I need data to examine it please




That would be in the thread I bumped for you. For US data Google Quayle 1991 for a pdf of what was done at that time. I believe there is also a paper done on Fort Collins Texas that is quite important, with a follow up.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 28, 2015)

Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years

On a side note , I Didnt even want to fucking know that Crap


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years
> 
> On a side note , I Didnt even want to fucking know that Crap




Was that intended for me?

Carry on posting up pictures of thermometers then. I thought you might be useful but apparently you are a bit of a one trick pony.


----------



## rdean (Jan 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Roy Spencer
> Climatologist
> Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.Wikipedia
> Sounds like every Climate Change fearists dream.


*IDiocy*
While Spencer has become an ID PRATT machine, he hasn't contributed any new cards to the creationists' deck. He mostly just parrots the greatest hits like "no transitional fossils" and "microevolution notmacroevolution."[18] He also flogs the "secular religion" trope even harder when it comes to evolution than he does for global warming.

*Pallin' around with cranks and shills*
Spencer is affiliated with a number of astroturf and Christian fundamentalist organizations. He is a member of the George C. Marshall Institute, which was founded by expert for hire Frederick Seitz and is a think tankand front group for various corporate interests including oil companies. He also makes the rounds at the Heartland Institute's denialist conferences.[19]

The fundamentalist organizations he has worked with include the Cornwall Alliance and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), which reorganized into the Cornwall Alliance in 2006. The organization promotes "Bible-based environmental stewardship," which translates to "a bunch of cranks denying science." He helped the ISA author their "Call to Truth," a denialist manifesto for evangelicals.[20][21]

As is common amongst cranks, Spencer flaunts his credentials at every turn. His website is called Roy Spencer PhD and is entitled "Roy Spencer, Ph.D." Contrast this with the scientists at realclimate.org, who go by names like "Gavin" and "Mike.

Roy Spencer - RationalWiki

----------------

Do a Google Search on Dr. Spencer.  It's hilarious.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

rdean said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Spencer
> ...


 from phys.org.. Researcher explores how the universe creates reason morality


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years
> ...


the dude did somethng similar to me on the politics forum. He replied to a post I had entered for another poster.  He started one after the other like he went on a rant at me and I never had a discussion with him.  He wrote, f you and I have this and I have that, put up pictures of women he knew, I'm like, dude settle down, I don't know you, never replied to you.  He eventually stopped. He seemed ok for the last week until that post after yours.  I'm like, here we go again.  LOL!!!!


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Well, I cannot be sure that was directed at me.

It could actually be pretty useful to have someone around who could easily find the specs on different automated thermometers and their strengths and weaknesses. Often it's not the actual thermometer but the enclosure that causes discrepancies.

But he does seem to be fixated on one rather simple aspect of the whole issue. Yes, people may not read a LIG correctly but if they read it the same way every time it doesn't matter much. You don't hear much about the evaluation of sunspots and that is even more of a value judgment.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?
> ...



What part of my question did you not understand?  It was a yes or no question, dude?


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




it's not a yes or no question, as my answer displayed

hey orogenicman, do me a favour and  name two cities in the thread GISS adjustments over the last three years US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



What's the point?  Do I need to say it?  If you have homework to do, I suggest you get on with it and stop asking strangers for help.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yet still no datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Then again the AGW cult has gone off the deep end especially when the UK met off office disputes such claims..

UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to ‘uncertainty ranges’ of the data
UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to 8216 uncertainty ranges 8217 of the data Watts Up With That


----------



## Treeshepherd (Jan 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Bear-  you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.



To Bear's point, scientists in the 1800's used to catch rides on merchant ships and scoop up ocean water with canvas bags, then take the water below deck and stick a mercury thermometer in the puddle. That was the methodology that climate scientists attempt to weave in with modern methods to show historical trends. How was the data coverage in the south Indian Ocean during the 19th Century?

What you learn in statistics is that different methodologies yield different results.

Since the 70's we've had RSS satellite data. NOAA seems to include that data when it's convenient and ignore it for a report like earlier this month (2014 hottest year) when it's not supportive of their conclusions.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bear-  you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.
> ...



If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints.  Otherwise, your claim is meaningless.  Good luck.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Jan 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints. Otherwise, *your claim is meaningless*. Good luck.



Well, there's a difference between a biased study and a falsified study. The RSS satellite data was ignored for the NOAA's hottest year ever study. The study uses data from subjectively selected weather stations from around the globe. The raw data is adjusted by computers, according to the biases of the computer programmers. And the press release and mainstream media reports failed to explain that the biased results were well within the statistical margin of error. In other words, the biased results for 2014 are in a statistical tie with previous biased results. Those are my claims. I don't accuse anyone of falsification. 

"_In one sense, the breathless stories are correct: 2014 was the hottest year on record — by no more than four-hundredths of a degree. But that's based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable.
Better measurement is done by satellites, and they indicate 2014 was the third-warmest in the 36 years that satellites have been used to document temperatures.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are "statistically insignificant_.""
Is 2014 The Hottest Year Ever Satellite Record Says No - Investors.com


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints. Otherwise, *your claim is meaningless*. Good luck.
> ...



Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people.  Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless.  Investors.com?  Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one.  NOT!


----------



## Treeshepherd (Jan 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people. Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless. Investors.com? Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one. NOT!



I have no complaint to make (as if there were an actual climate study enforcement strike team!). I have observations from looking under the hood of climate change studies. 

Page 5 of the now famous 2014 Hottest Year study does mention that NOAA is only 48% sure of it's conclusion, and NASA is 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

Yet, the press release failed to include that uncertainty. Every mainstream media outlet failed to mention that, in fact using phrases like "It's official, 2014 was the hottest year" or "There is no longer any doubt". 

University of Alabama at Huntsville has charted the RSS satellite data since 1979. According to that data, 2014 was tied for the 3rd warmest since 1979. 
Satellite data indicate 2014 will not be warmest year on record but among top several - The Washington Post

The fact that the nuances of these studies are completely disregarded by the mainstream media is noteworthy. 

And it's just something that any rational person would take into account; NASA and NOAA (Dept of Commerce) get their climate change funding by convincing the public that the situation warrants millions of dollars. The greater the potential threat, the more $ is warranted to study it. That's not difficult to understand. I mean, if the prison industry lobby says that we need more prisons, don't you take their interests into account?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jan 29, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> _John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are "statistically insignificant_.""



How about the cooling?  Was IT statistically significant?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people. Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless. Investors.com? Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one. NOT!
> ...



Every single media outlet?  Are you sure?  Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that bullshit statement?


----------



## Treeshepherd (Jan 30, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Every single media outlet? Are you sure? Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that bullshit statement?



It's routine when reporting on a study to include the statistical margin of error. Yet, it just didn't happen with the NOAA study.

The press release failed to include the margin of error, which is 0.1 degree centigrade. With the new 'record' set by 0.02 degrees, that should be considered a statistical tie (essentially, zero warming from the 2010 record). It's in the report itself (page 5) which I linked above. 

Absolutely zero mainstream media outlets mentioned the margin of error. Not NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX or ABC. Not the NY Times. You had to go to the report itself, a blog, or hear about it in the Daily Mail. 

Get this... since 2013, the LA Times admits that it will not print letters to the editor challenging AGW. If they won't even print that opinion from readers, they sure aren't going to print any articles that refute climate science orthodoxy. 
LA Times We Don t Publish Letters to Editor Claiming Man Isn t Causing Climate Change

So, no, I stand by my statement.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Jan 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> How about the cooling? Was IT statistically significant?



I wouldn't go so far as to say we're in a long term cooling trend. The planet has been warm. However, the recent warming trend could be more due to a natural cycle than CO2 emissions. 

I would point out, though, that Arctic ice has recovered significantly from the lows of 5 years ago. And Antarctic ice has increased dramatically. That's an anecdotal example of how the 2014 Hottest Year claim doesn't match up with observables. In fact, 2014 was a relatively subdued year for extreme weather events.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 30, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > ... And THAT is how we can rest assured that "Global Warming" (used during the summer) and "Climate Change" (used during the winter) is a LIE.  Total, 100% GRADE A Leftism... OKA: _Bullshit._
> ...



Is it _me_, or did you fail to provide a *link to support your idiotic accusations?
*
Sadly, nothing you said so much as contests anything I've said... 

FACT: AGW is entirely political.  

FACT: AGW has not a scintilla of scientific fact in support of it.

FACT: Not a SINGLE would-be PREDICTION by the Chicken Littles of the AGW cult has EVER COME TO PASS.  Not ONE!  The Poles haven't melted... the Seas haven't risen, the Earth's Climate is literally cooling, NOT WARMING.  

FACT: The Ideological Left is comprised of sub-standard human beings who represent nothing but dead weight around the neck to humanity and represent the greatest threat to the species, with no close second.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Yes.  Every single one.  A few carried the "well we're only 38% sure of that" story after that came out.  But EVERYONE had the initial story and blared it to the heavens.  That's how propaganda works.


----------

