# Where's my Global Warming!



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2014)

I would also like to have my glowbull warming...



> (KMOV.com)  Residents in several parts of the St. Louis area woke up to temperatures below zero degrees Friday, the beginning of a winter cold snap thats expected to bring snow and the coldest temperatures since the 1990s over the next several days.
> 
> While temperatures in downtown St. Louis managed to climb to 1 degree, the St. Louis County communities of Chesterfield, Fenton and Ballwin saw numbers as low as -2.



Single-digit temps today with more snow and extreme cold coming | KMOV.com St. Louis


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> I would also like to have my glowbull warming...
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Yeah but Rolling Thunder is saying its real hot in Brazil!!!


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2014)

It happens ever winter. The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's cold! AGW is a hoax!".

Why? Because they're the 'tard brigade. It's what they do.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> It happens ever winter. The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's cold! AGW is a hoax!".
> 
> Why? Because they're the 'tard brigade. It's what they do.



We're cooling not warming no matter what the global warmest nutjobs say oh your fellow religionist got stuck on the Ice in Antarctica


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 3, 2014)

Where's your Global Warming?

Silly question.

It's right there in your back yard - under the snow.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

I never remember it being this cold here. Sunday expected up to 12 more inches of snow. tuesday's *highs* of -3.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 3, 2014)

How many different people here have confused weather with climate?  Let's see, Jroc, HenryBHough, RatintheHat, Skookerasbil and AngelsNDemons.  Five, five posters not embarrassed to display their limitations.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> How many different people here have confused weather with climate?  Let's see, Jroc, HenryBHough, RatintheHat, Skookerasbil and AngelsNDemons.  Five, five posters not embarrassed to display their limitations.



How many people have confused "Global warming" with religion?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 3, 2014)

Zero

You know, it's almost funny.  I bet damn near every one of the posters here, who accuses folks with the 'gall' of accepting mainstream science, of following AGW like it was a religion... is a theist.  They talk like religion was a bad thing.  I'd have to agree, but I don't think that's what they WANTED to say.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > How many different people here have confused weather with climate?  Let's see, Jroc, HenryBHough, RatintheHat, Skookerasbil and AngelsNDemons.  Five, five posters not embarrassed to display their limitations.
> ...



And how many idjits like you cannot pass a freshman high school science class, but still judge yourself capable of making decisions concerning science?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> It happens ever winter. The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's cold! AGW is a hoax!".
> 
> Why? Because they're the 'tard brigade. It's what they do.



It happens every summer.  The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's hot! AGW is science!"

Why? Because they're the 'tard brigade.  It's what they do.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 3, 2014)

A Freeze Is Coming Minn. Hasn?t Seen In Nearly 20 Years « CBS Minnesota


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Science is not "settled" Sorry you people are acting on faith, and Al Gore and the rest of his kind make millions of dollars off you people. Kind of like a corrupt preacher


----------



## Rozman (Jan 3, 2014)

What the frack is going on?
It's so cold here right now.
And it snowed with blizzard conditions.
Why is this happening.

Oh yeah,it's January... LOL


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Science is not "settled" Sorry you people are acting on faith, and Al Gore and the rest of his kind make millions of dollars off you people. Kind of like a corrupt preacher



If the science isn't settled, why do 97% of the world's active climate scientists say it is?  Where ELSE would you go to find that out?  WUWT?  We have mainstream science on our side. YOU do not.  You are the ones acting on faith, dude.

Al Gore did a very good thing with his film, but he hasn't been a significant figure in the issue for many years.  How do you believe he is making millions of "us people"?  Did you think he was asking us for donations?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not "settled" Sorry you people are acting on faith, and Al Gore and the rest of his kind make millions of dollars off you people. Kind of like a corrupt preacher
> ...



Bullshit those scientist get a lot of money in grants to push their bullshit and it certainly isn't 97% of all scientist

The preacher...




> Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million.
> 
> Gore charted this path by returning to his longtime passion  clean energy. He benefited from a powerful resume and a constellation of friends in the investment world and in Washington. And four years ago, his portfolio aligned smoothly with the agenda of an incoming administration and its plan to spend billions in stimulus funds on alternative energy.
> 
> ...




Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor - The Washington Post


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 3, 2014)

I'm sorry that your reliance on faith keeps you from accepting facts.  AGW is accepted by the VAST majority of climate scientists.  

Al Gore can make all the money he wants.  More power to him.  He didn't do a damn thing wrong getting it.  More than can be said for a load of your heroes.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 3, 2014)

> The weather service warned that "wind chills colder than 50 below can cause exposed flesh to freeze in only 5 to 10 minutes."
> 
> Bitter cold grips Northeast as new Arctic blast looms


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 3, 2014)

Get the idea out of your head that scientists get rich from grants.  It's simply not true.  That's not how grants work.  They pay for research.  Scientists are already employed and salaried by their universities or institutions.  They don't get to put grant money in their pockets.  They get to keep their jobs, perhaps get promoted.  Good scientists get more grants than bad ones.  Good scientists get promoted.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > It happens ever winter. The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's cold! AGW is a hoax!".
> ...





*The media here has covered up for the climate change expedition that got stuck in ice:* 

    Why have the ABC and Fairfax media, so keen at first to announce this expedition was to measure the extent and effects of global warming, since omitted that fact from their reports after the expedition became ice-bound? 

It&#8217;s been even worse in the US:

    The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all&#8230;

    In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as &#8220;passengers,&#8221; &#8220;trackers&#8221; and even &#8220;tourists,&#8221; without a word about climate change or global warming&#8230;

    There was only one news story out of 41 that mentioned climate change. That was CBS &#8220;This Morning&#8221; Dec. 30. &#8220;Despite being frozen at a standstill, the team&#8217;s research on climate change and Antarctic wildlife is moving forward,&#8221; CBS News Correspondent Don Dahler said. 

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Where's my Global Warming!
> 
> It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.



"_Global Warming_" is right where it always is, KrokoKrap. Out there in that very big world outside of your backyard, warming things up globally a little more every year. Some years, some places warm more than others, and other years, other places warm up more and the places that were warmer before get relatively cooler. Perhaps you fail to comprehend the meaning of the word "*global*". 'Global warming' doesn't mean that it is going to warm up at the same rate everywhere at once, all the time, year after year. The underlying ongoing warming trend produced by the excess CO2 is overlaid with several natural climate factors, like the ENSO variations or the behavior of the jet stream, that can make some years warmer and some years cooler and can affect the geographical distribution of the extra heat energy. Last year (2012) was *the* warmest year on record in the continental United States. This year (2013) was the warmest year on record for the whole continent of Australia and it was unusually hot in many other places, but most of the continental US has been cooler than the recent averages. Globally, 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record and 2001 to 2010 is the warmest decade on record. Globally, all of the hottest years on record have happened since 1998, and the coolest years since 1998 are still warmer than all of the years before 1998. December was the 346th consecutive month in which global temperatures were higher than the twentieth century average. This last November was the hottest November on record globally.

*November 2013 Global Temperature Was Hottest On Record*
Weather.com
Dec 17, 2013
(excerpts)
*Last month was the warmest November since modern temperature record keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today. With a combined land and ocean surface temperature of 56.6 degrees Fahrenheit, November 2013 also was the 345th consecutive month  and the 37th November in a row  with a global temperature higher than the 20th century average, the NOAA report added. 

Higher-than-average monthly temperatures were reported on nearly every continent around the world, including much of Europe and Asia, coastal Africa, Central America and central South America, as well as in the North Atlantic Ocean, southwest Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. Russia experienced its warmest November since national weather records began in 1891, as some parts of the country like Siberia and the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea recorded temperatures more than 14 Fahrenheit degrees higher than the monthly average. At the same time, cooler-than-average temperatures were reported in parts of North America  especially in the southeastern U.S.  as well as in northern Australia and southwest Greenland. No record cold monthly temperatures were reported.*


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Where's my Global Warming!
> ...



Man mad global warming is a farce..I'm freezing 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976nNSOfbSY]Measuring Global Temperatures - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:
			
		

> Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan



What's the relationship?  How much government limitation does it take to produce how much freedom?  If we want to maximize freedom, shouldn't we completely eliminate government?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope that would be anarchy wouldn't it? Government has a role to play, but it isn't telling people what kind of health insurance they must have, what kind of car they haft to drive, or what kind of friken toilet or light bulb they haft to use..Im freezing


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



No, KrokoKrap, you're a retard. 

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientifically verified reality that is actually visible to most people around the world. Only brainwashed rightwingnut cretins like you can't see the obvious 'cause your heads are so far up Rush's fat ass.

There is a difference between the local weather in your backyard and global climate. Too bad you're too stupid to understand the difference between you feeling cold for a little while during winter and the fact that 2013 is the fourth warmest year on record.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 3, 2014)

Bitter Cold Temperatures, Wind Chills Could Reach Record Low « CBS Boston


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Bullshit.... Man made hasn't been proven. I thought it was cow flatulence? 

*No Global Warming For 15 Years*

No Global Warming For 15 Years


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm sorry that your reliance on faith keeps you from accepting facts.  AGW is accepted by the VAST majority of climate scientists.
> 
> Al Gore can make all the money he wants.  More power to him.  He didn't do a damn thing wrong getting it.  More than can be said for a load of your heroes.



He invested in companies he knew would be getting billions from the government...He's a piece of shit, political hack, who gets rich on the backs of the poor


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 3, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Bitter Cold Temperatures, Wind Chills Could Reach Record Low « CBS Boston



And another retard pops up who also can't understand the difference between local weather and global climate.

So, it's cold there in Boston right now in the wintertime. So what? 

It's record breaking hot in Australia right now. It's been hotter than normal many more places than it has been colder than usual around the world this year.

2013 is the fourth warmest year on record.

*Australia Rings In The New Year With Record-Breaking Heat Wave*
BY ARI PHILLIPS	
JANUARY 2, 2014
*A heatwave that has enveloped much of Australia for the past couple weeks is reaching a breaking point, but not after first smashing temperature records. On Thursday, parts of inland Australia reached temperatures around 50 degrees Celsius, or 122 degrees Fahrenheit, before a shifting air mass is forecast to bring weekend temperatures back to averages in the mid-30s. There were reports of temperatures as high as 54 degrees Celsius, 129 degrees Fahrenheit, in the outback on Thursday. With this unusual heat, Australia begins 2014 in the same way it ended 2013  hot, dry, and politically uninspired to do anything about it. Australia spent much of 2013 on track to set a new record for hottest year ever. According to The Guardian, the Bureau of Meteorology &#147;is expected to announce on Friday that 2013 had been Australias warmest year, with average temperatures trending about 1C above the long-term average.*


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Cold Temperatures, Wind Chills Could Reach Record Low « CBS Boston
> ...



So?..it's record breaking cold here. I think my climate is changing it's getting colder


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


Bullshit is what you're full of, all right, KrokoKrap. Bullshit and unsupported delusional claims.





Jroc said:


> Man made hasn't been proven. I thought it was cow flatulence?


Just more stupid confused bullshit.





Jroc said:


> *No Global Warming For 15 Years*
> 
> //www.canadafreepress.com/



A fallacious denier cult myth copied from an idiotic denier cult blog. Just what I would expect from a denier cult retard like you, KrokoKrap.

Global warming never stopped. Global warming is still accelerating.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Preach your religion boy because that's what it is. Maybe they were right back in the 70s?
Another ice age is coming here in MI

http://globalwarminghype.com/coolingworld.pdf


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo]In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age (1978) [Global Cooling] - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 4, 2014)

So... I guess you're point is that the world's climate scientists are incompetent and can't be trusted?  Is  that right?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So... I guess you're point is that the world's climate scientists are incompetent and can't be trusted?  Is  that right?



My point is, it is a political agenda not settled science and people are also making tons of money off of "global warming" plus I'm freezing


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jan 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So... I guess you're point is that the world's climate scientists are incompetent and can't be trusted?  Is  that right?



Not exactly. They are corrupt and can't be trusted. Money talks.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 4, 2014)

Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?

Oh, that's right, your political cult fed it to you, hence you BELIEVE.

Meanwhile, this breaking news just in -- scientists have determined the earth is tilted at 23 degrees, causing a thing called "winter", which leads to cold temperatures.

Denialists, of course, are completely mystified by that explanation.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jan 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?
> 
> Oh, that's right, your political cult fed it to you, hence you BELIEVE.
> 
> ...



What I am mystified is that as late as the 80's they were telling us the earth was going to be soon covered with ice. Then they turn on a dime and tell us earth is going to be turned into a burning hell. And you accept this without question? If they were wrong then, what makes them right now? I was born at night but I wasn't born last night. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 4, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So... I guess you're point is that the world's climate scientists are incompetent and can't be trusted?  Is  that right?
> ...



I'm not surprised you're freezing.  Much of the US is at record lows.  A hundred years from now, with nothing having been done to ameliorate global warming, such weather will still be possible

It is only a political agenda because the far right decided that they couldn't POSSIBLY give Al Gore any credit for having done good.  THEY began the political polarization of the issue.  And, of course, the RNC is much better friends with the fossil fuel industry than is the DNC, isn't it.

Some people will make millions from every twist and turn of reality.  AGW has not been a big money-making scam.  Where was the cash?  Research?  Yeah, those are big bucks.  

Tell me something.  How can you even _consider_ money-related motivations and not suspect that the fossil fuel industry, who made *hundreds of billions of dollars* last year in profits, might be willing to expend a few pfennigs to convince the American people AGW is a scam?  Eh?  THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY'S AT.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 4, 2014)

Bloodrock44 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?
> ...



What you are obviously "_mystified_" by is everything, you poor bamboozled retard. You are so full of moronic conspiracy theories and fallacious denier cult myths, there is no room in you for reality. Climate scientists *were not* "_telling us the earth was going to be soon covered with ice_". Even in the 1970s, most scientists studying possible changes in the Earth's climate thought warming was more probable than cooling.

*Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s*
USA TODAY
By Doyle Rice 
2/22/2008
(excerpts)
*The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s &#8212; frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds &#8212; is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales." 

That was an unusually cold decade, especially the later years, across the Northern Hemisphere. In the USA, the winters of 1977-79 were three of the 11 coldest since the recording of temperatures began in the 1890s, according to climate center data. The winter of 1978-79 remains the coldest on record in the USA. Just as it's hard for people today to think much about global warming in the dead of winter, it was also hard for the public &#8211; and the media &#8211; to focus on a warming world, while at the same time enduring some of the coldest winters on record. However, as Peterson notes in the paper, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists." Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2014)

Notice that when weather is cold, the AGW k00ks respond with, "Weather and climate.......no association"

But when you get a heat wave, the bomb throwing about the weather begins in earnest.


Of course global warming is a scam........always has been >>>>>


The Green Agenda



The pseudo-intellectuals found on the internet are the most easily duped assholes on the face of the planet. They don't even bat an eyelash in the face of statements like this >>>>



"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

*- Prof. Stephen Schneider, 
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports*



"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of 
economic and environmental policy."

*- Timothy Wirth, 
President of the UN Foundation *




"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

*- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment*


&#8220;The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.&#8221;

*- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research*



"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

*- Club of Rome, 
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations*






When you think of the AGW fraternity  of internet climate crusaders, one cannot help but think back to Jonestown, Guyana in the late 1970's.........

Jonestown Massacre - The Story of the Jonestown Massacre


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2014)

People need to wake the fuck up.......the whole rot system is rigged. Democrats and Republicans.......all bought. Every swinging dick posting in this forum is heading to serfdom......you just get there a lot faster with hyper-progressive polices like we've seen in the past several years. The GOP is up to its eyeballs in corruption too, but they establish their own brand of reality show.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 4, 2014)

I'd like to repost this Rolling Thunder post in a more typically-sized font

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_n.htm

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

USA TODAY
By Doyle Rice 
2/22/2008
(excerpts)
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s &#8212; frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds &#8212; is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

That was an unusually cold decade, especially the later years, across the Northern Hemisphere. In the USA, the winters of 1977-79 were three of the 11 coldest since the recording of temperatures began in the 1890s, according to climate center data. The winter of 1978-79 remains the coldest on record in the USA. Just as it's hard for people today to think much about global warming in the dead of winter, it was also hard for the public &#8211; and the media &#8211; to focus on a warming world, while at the same time enduring some of the coldest winters on record. However, as Peterson notes in the paper, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists." Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2014)




----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 4, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So... I guess you're point is that the world's climate scientists are incompetent and can't be trusted?  Is  that right?
> ...



How are these charges supported by false, 40 year old report of imminent global cooling?  Your post contained nothing about politics and nothing about money.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 4, 2014)

My Way News - Historic freeze could break Midwest temp records


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So... I guess you're point is that the world's climate scientists are incompetent and can't be trusted?  Is  that right?



No, I think many of them are liars.  Man made climate change is not about saving the planet; it's about controlling the people living on it for money and power.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 4, 2014)

Since I wasn't speaking to you, it makes no sense for you to respond as you did.

Almost every climate scientist on the planet says human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the last 150 years' warming.  Do you believe all of those scientists are lying in order to control people?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Since I wasn't speaking to you, it makes no sense for you to respond as you did.
> 
> Almost every climate scientist on the planet says human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the last 150 years' warming.  Do you believe all of those scientists are lying in order to control people?



Now it's 150 yrs ? I think you're full of crap really. In the 70s it was global cooling, now it's global warming 



> *Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'*
> 
> Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.
> 
> ...


.


Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it' ? The Register


----------



## Jroc (Jan 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





> *'Global Warming Scam'*
> 
> Below is the text of the Oct. 6 letter that Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, sent to Princeton's Curtis G. Callan Jr., tendering his resignation from the American Physical Society, of which Callan is president.
> 
> ...





'Global Warming Scam' - Investors.com


----------



## mamooth (Jan 4, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> No, I think many of them are liars.  Man made climate change is not about saving the planet; it's about controlling the people living on it for money and power.



Oh, you're a whackaloon conspiracy theorist. Why didn't you just say so at the start?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think many of them are liars.  Man made climate change is not about saving the planet; it's about controlling the people living on it for money and power.
> ...



How soon we forget 



> *Global Warming E-Mails Scandal Show Scientists May Have Cooked the Facts*
> 
> 
> indicate a number of the world's most important scientists engaged in research designed to prove that global warming really does exist may have been cooking the books.
> ...



Global Warming E-Mails Scandal Show Scientists May Have Cooked the Facts - Peter Roff (usnews.com)


----------



## Jroc (Jan 5, 2014)

> *Historic freeze could break Midwest temp records*
> 
> The deep freeze expected soon in the Midwest, New England and even the South will be one to remember, with potential record-low temperatures heightening fears of frostbite and hypothermia.
> 
> It hasn't been this cold for decades &#8212; 20 years in Washington, D.C., 18 years in Milwaukee, 15 in Missouri &#8212; even in the Midwest, where bundling up is second nature. Weather Bell meteorologist Ryan Maue said, "If you're under 40 (years old), you've not seen this stuff before."



Historic freeze could break Midwest temp records | CNS News


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 5, 2014)

Jroc said:


> I never remember it being this cold here. Sunday expected up to 12 more inches of snow. tuesday's *highs* of -3.



*"if you like your global warming you can keep it Period"*


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2014)

So far, we have gotten 3 inches of globull warming today, with 5 more inches expected before it tapers off.

Then we will globull warm from a temp of +25F to a balmy -1F.

But hey, it could be worse.  Somehow.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 5, 2014)

Loving seeing the far left fucks getting their nut sacks stomped this week!!!


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 5, 2014)

Parts of mainland Alaska are up near +40 degrees today whilst liberal-infested Michigan is down around -50.  Of course that's just mother nature's punishment for those true believers.  She loves rubbing their noses in it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 5, 2014)

;-)


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 5, 2014)

Thanks, though, for pointing out that the average temperature over the surface of the planet is basically unchanged.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 5, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Loving seeing the far left fucks getting their nut sacks stomped this week!!!



Damn I'm cold it's going down to -14 mon


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2014)

8 inches of glowbull warming now, and still coming down. They are now saying we will end up getting 11.5 inches.

Which will be more glowbull warming then we got all last winter.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 5, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Loving seeing the far left fucks getting their nut sacks stomped this week!!!



That looks like a threat of violence.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 5, 2014)

Cousin moved from Alaska because his wife was tired of the cold and wanted to be nearer to her family in Fargo, North Dakota.

He files for divorce on Monday.

Guess why?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Loving seeing the far left fucks getting their nut sacks stomped this week!!!
> ...



You global warming nutters are just that nutters .You're also being used to funnel money to the propagandist.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 5, 2014)

Yeah.....it's going to be 25 in Houston tonight.
And whats with the new theory of the oceans absorbing all the heat?
Even libs should be smart enough to understand that hotter oceans mean more and larger hurricanes.
But this hasn't happened,in fact there have been fewer hurricanes.
 Cant wait to hear where the heat is hiding next.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 5, 2014)

Canada is so cold it is now experiencing 'frost quakes' | Mail Online


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 5, 2014)

My parents had to dig their car out of a foot of global warming this morning.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 5, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Yeah.....it's going to be 25 in Houston tonight.
> And whats with the new theory of the oceans absorbing all the heat?
> Even libs should be smart enough to understand that hotter oceans mean more and larger hurricanes.
> But this hasn't happened,in fact there have been fewer hurricanes.
> Cant wait to hear where the *heat is hiding next*.



in Al Gore's bank account


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 5, 2014)

Jroc said:


> You're also being used to funnel money to the propagandist.



Who is using us to funnel money to whom?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 5, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Yeah.....it's going to be 25 in Houston tonight.
> And whats with the new theory of the oceans absorbing all the heat?
> Even libs should be smart enough to understand that hotter oceans mean more and larger hurricanes.
> But this hasn't happened,in fact there have been fewer hurricanes.
> Cant wait to hear where the heat is hiding next.



You might want to pay attention to the GLOBAL hurricane picture.  Typhoon Haiyan?  Sound familiar.

But the heat is below 700 meters. It will have no impact on hurricane formation as long as it stays that deep.

If you're gonna accuse others of being dumb, best to have your shit in one sock first.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > You're also being used to funnel money to the propagandist.
> ...



So called unbiased scientists, green energy thieves,  green companies etc. Use your head


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 5, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



My head is not capable of discerning your intent, particularly when it's explained so poorly.

You make a statement with two parties.  I ask you to identify them and you give me an open-ended list of four entities.

I ask again: Who is using us to funnel money to whom?

And if you don't mind, USE YOUR HEAD.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Governments funnel money to scientist who claim this stuff, as long as they can "prove "global warming they get plenty of money for their research projects. Green companies, scammers, like Al Gore read through the thread again


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 5, 2014)

Latest storm likely to make the 2010s the snowiest decade in the east coast in the NOAA record &#8211; surpassing the 1960s!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01...owiest-decade-in-the-east-in-the-noaa-record/


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.....it's going to be 25 in Houston tonight.
> ...



 Derp...warm water rises to the surface.  Basic science.....  Next time you go swimming in a deep lake? Tie an anchor around your ankles and jump in. You'll notice(briefly)that the water gets much colder the deeper you go.
And you named one typhoon.
 And while I never called anyone dumb,I feel in this case it's warranted. Dumb ass.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 6, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Next time you go swimming in a deep lake? Tie an anchor around your ankles and jump in.



This habit of making death threats is beginning to look like SOP for AGW deniers.  This is the third or fourth in less than two weeks.

Tells me your desperate and I'm being successful.

BTW, I'm pretty sure I understand the behavior of oceans better than you do.  I also seem to have a better grasp of the facts.  That heat is accumulating in the deep ocean does not require that the deep ocean be at a higher temperature than the shallow.  Oooh, "basic science".


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Next time you go swimming in a deep lake? Tie an anchor around your ankles and jump in.
> ...



There's been no warming in the past 15 to 20 years. the climate changes anyway, that's it way it is. We couldn't do anything about it regardless. The global warmest religionist, people like yourself, who would attempt to push some stupid, bullshit, carbon credit crap, that wouldn't do anything but hurt the poor and middle class, In this country for nothing.  should be embarrassed an ashamed of the scam you're pushing. Don't be shocked when people are hostile toward you ....I'm freezing...-14 tonight


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Next time you go swimming in a deep lake? Tie an anchor around your ankles and jump in.
> ...



  Meh..Have you ever seen a large body of water turn? Apparently not.
And if you consider a suggestion a death threat you're a bigger dumbass then I ever imagined.
  But when you consider that you think hot water sinks...? I guess I shouldnt be surprised  .


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 6, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



to the avid warmer many of natures laws and rules do not apply 

they also falsely  believe that CO2 is a good insulator for example 

and that heat transfers to hotter areas --LOL


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 6, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



  Then you have this little gem....

"That heat is accumulating in the deep ocean does not require that the deep ocean be at a higher temperature than the shallow. Oooh, "basic science".

  WTF??


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 6, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



curious the heat stays the same or accumulates when surrounded by denser cold water 

--LOL

i did not know that


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 6, 2014)

Record-Breaking Cold Grips Chicago | NBC Chicago


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 6, 2014)

It's -29 here with the wind chill. Forcasted high today of 1.

Could use a little global warming myself.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

I want my global warming


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> I want my global warming



  And a plane ticket to South Florida.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> I want my global warming



LOLOLOLOL....you jingoistic deniers are just sooooo retarded you can't get it through your thick skulls that America is not the whole world, it is only 2% of the Earth's surface. The USA does not equal 'global'. Around the whole planet, there are more unusually hot places than unusually cold places. For example....

*Australia swelters after record hot 2013; farmers slaughter cattle, bushfire warning*
Yahoo news
 By Matt Siegel and Colin Packham
Jan 3, 2014
(excerpts)
*SYDNEY (Reuters) - A searing heatwave is baking central and northern Australia, piling more misery on drought-hit cattle farmers who have been slaughtering livestock as Australia sweltered through the hottest year on record in 2013. Temperatures have topped 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit)in large parts of Australia's key agricultural regions for most of the past week, with the mercury topping 48 degrees Celsius in the central west Queensland town of Birdsville. The heatwave is moving east across Australia, prompting health warnings on Friday in some of the country's biggest cities and firefighters were already battling bushfires. But it is in the outback that soaring temperatures have had the most devastating impact, especially on cattle farmers in Queensland, which accounts for about 50 percent on the national herd. "Water supplies are fast diminishing and whatever feed supplies that were left are cooking off to the point where there won't be any left," said Charles Burke, a beef farmer and chief executive of Agforce, a Queensland cattle industry group. "This drought is shaping to be an absolute disaster."

Monsoon rains in Australia's north failed last summer and the entire continent endured its hottest year since records began in 1910, the Bureau of Meteorology said on Friday. Average temperatures were 1.2 degree Celsius above the long-term average of 21.8 degree Celsius, breaking the previous record set in 2005. "The new record high calendar year temperature averaged across Australia is remarkable because it occurred not in an El Niño year, but a normal year," David Karoly, a climate scientist from the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, said in an emailed statement. The El Nino weather pattern is a warming of ocean surface temperatures in the eastern and central Pacific and usually brings hot, dry, and often drought conditions to Australia.*


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > I want my global warming
> ...



I'm not quite sure why lunatics think big bold letters help them make their point


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

*Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the &#8216;pause&#8217; in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996







Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> *Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*
> 
> The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
> This means that the pause in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
> ...



  I predict more capital letters and the slaughter of ground squirrel's in the Himalayas in response.


----------



## OccamsSabre (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> *Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*
> 
> The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
> This means that the pause in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
> ...




When you select a random starting point like 1997, one of the hottest years on record, to compare against, then yes, it does appear to have stopped. Thankfully, when you include all the data, it tells a different story:

You can see that 1997 and 2012 are about the same temperature, but 1997 is an anomaly, and the general trend is upward. Bounding your graph at these points is dishonest if they are selected to mislead others into thinking there is no upward trend. 1996's temperature anomaly is much lower. I'd ask you to stop using this dumb graph that has been refuted time and time again.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


I'm not quite sure why retards always ignore the information being presented and obsess about the size of the font but I'm pretty sure that the severe retardation they suffer from plays a big part. Of course, the fact that the info being presented debunks the clueless drivel that the retard just posted probably is a big factor as well.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

OccamsSabre said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > *Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*
> ...



I'm not quite sure if I consider primitive measurements for the 19th into the earlier 20th century as accurate measurements of anything, plus one could certainly say that there was much more pollution being spewed in the atmosphere in the early to mid 20th century, then there would be from the later part of 20th century until now, when that graph seems to shoot up. I wonder why that would be? Could it be manipulation of the numbers for political and financial purposes of course. Man made global warming scam at it's best.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> OccamsSabre said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Your demented and very ignorant posts represent retarded reality denial at its worst, KrokoKrap. Your conspiracy theories are quite insane.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > OccamsSabre said:
> ...



Really?... Why the sudden increase over the last 30 years


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 6, 2014)

I think it's a rebound from whatever caused the warming hiatus from 1941-1979.  I think the exact same effect will take place when the current hiatus comes to an end.  Deniers have repeatedly pointed out that CO2 has continued to increase and methane has lately been joining the mix.  When processes stop hiding the heat all that GHG is collecting, it's going to have a rapid and significant effect on our air temperatures. Just like 30 years ago.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 6, 2014)

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.: Snowy owl invasion of US extends to Florida - Environment - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> the climate changes anyway, that's it way it is. We couldn't do anything about it regardless.



And you accuse me of treating this like it was a religion.  Whoa...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 6, 2014)

Jroc said:


> The global warmest religionist, people like yourself, who would attempt to push some stupid, bullshit, carbon credit crap, that wouldn't do anything but hurt the poor and middle class, In this country for nothing.  should be embarrassed an ashamed of the scam you're pushing. Don't be shocked when people are hostile toward you ....I'm freezing...-14 tonight



I am not the least bit embarrassed because I am not pushing a scam.  I am pushing mainstream science.  

Don't be shocked if - when the world goes to shit from global warming and folks realize they MIGHT have done something about it if they hadn't listened to folks like you - folks are hostile towards YOU.  And, despite that likely situation, I have yet to make a single death threat against anyone here.  At a previous message board I frequented, there were death threats now and then.  And, invariably, they were from conservatives or GW deniers and aimed at liberals and "AGW Alarmists" like me.

I've found it hard to avoid drawing conclusions from that, but it's difficult.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > The global warmest religionist, people like yourself, who would attempt to push some stupid, bullshit, carbon credit crap, that wouldn't do anything but hurt the poor and middle class, In this country for nothing.  should be embarrassed an ashamed of the scam you're pushing. Don't be shocked when people are hostile toward you ....I'm freezing...-14 tonight
> ...



We cant change the climate and CO2 Is not pollutant. Sorry.. it's a bunch of hogwash, what you have is faith, not science. Making rich countries poorer, rising the cost of living for people is not a good thing.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I think it's a rebound from whatever caused the warming hiatus from 1941-1979.  *I think the exact same effect will take place when the current hiatus comes to an end.*  Deniers have repeatedly pointed out that CO2 has continued to increase and methane has lately been joining the mix.  When processes stop hiding the heat all that GHG is collecting, it's going to have a rapid and significant effect on our air temperatures. Just like 30 years ago.



Yeah? You keep thinking


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

> *Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2*
> 
> Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss
> 
> ...


.

Wow! maybe the Sun causes global warming?..Who knew?




> The analysis of solar activity proves the existence and the strength of the 200+ year periodicity which we found from historical temperature measurements, as well as from the Spannagel stalagmite data. This 200+ year cycle is apparently the one known as de Vries cycle.
> 
> This solar de Vries cycle together with the AMO/PDO determine practically completely the global climate of the past  (Fig. 1) and the coming time. A significant influence of CO2 on the climate thus has to be excluded. This latter is not surprising in view of the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its weak infrared absorption cross section




German Scientists Show Climate Driven By Natural Cycles ? Global Temperature To Drop To 1870 Levels By 2100!


----------



## Jroc (Jan 6, 2014)

*Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling  Not You or 400 ppm CO2 *

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc[/ame]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the &#8216;heat-trapping&#8217; effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm


----------



## Jroc (Jan 7, 2014)

-40 windchill here...man it's friken cold


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Brainlessly chanting your demented denier cult myths over and over won't make them magically become true, KrokoKrap. 

The scientifically established facts are that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that the 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has produced by burning fossil fuels is raising global temperatures and changing the Earth's climate patterns. Virtually the entire world scientific community affirms these facts. Only the duped brainwashed stooges for the fossil fuel industry moronically try to deny these facts.

*The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007, and revised and expanded in 2013, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
Human activities are changing Earths climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."​
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earths lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."​*

(Source: *Scientific Opinion on Climate Change*)


----------



## Jroc (Jan 8, 2014)

You global warming religious people can deny the facts all you want. The sun and water vapor are most responsible for global climate change. Solar activity and cloud cover. Co2 is not a pollutant. You people are screwy, and those scientist make lots of money contributing the scam that is "man made" Global warming.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2014)

Jroc said:


> You global warming religious people can deny the facts all you want. The sun and water vapor are most responsible for global climate change. Solar activity and cloud cover. Co2 is not a pollutant. You people are screwy, and those scientist make lots of money contributing the scam that is "man made" Global warming.



Stupidly false denier cult drivel.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Jroc said:


> We cant change the climate and CO2 Is not pollutant. Sorry.. it's a bunch of hogwash, what you have is faith, not science. Making rich countries poorer, rising the cost of living for people is not a good thing.



We can change the climate because we have.

I don't give a damn about the semantics. The increased levels of CO2 are the primary cause of the GLOBAL WARMING we've undergone.

NO ONE in climate science is attempting to redistribute the world's wealth.

And why do I get the feeling that you'd have no problem whatsoever with processes like successful export markets or favorable exchange rates or increased worker productivity or reduced labor costs or increased market shares and profit margins - all things that can and DO redistribute the world's wealth.  The just redistribute it upwards.  No one ever has any complaints about that.  At least no one here in America.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 8, 2014)

No zeal like that of the converted!

Welllllll.....maybe the zeal of the voluntary fanatic.......


----------



## Jroc (Jan 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > We cant change the climate and CO2 Is not pollutant. Sorry.. it's a bunch of hogwash, what you have is faith, not science. Making rich countries poorer, rising the cost of living for people is not a good thing.
> ...




I posted the info..Co2 is not the reason for climate change. Deny all you want, it's your religion I'm questioning so I understand.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 8, 2014)

I bet a lot of folks would love them some of that global warmin' richtaboutnow.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 8, 2014)

boedicca said:


> I bet a lot of folks would love them some of that global warmin' richtaboutnow.



Me!...Me!.... I want some global warming!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> No zeal like that of the converted!
> 
> Welllllll.....maybe the zeal of the voluntary fanatic.......



So, Huffer, in the deranged cult of AGW denial, are you a "_voluntary fanatic_", one of the "_converted_", or just the usual 'brainwashed bamboozled anti-science retard'?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > We cant change the climate and CO2 Is not pollutant. Sorry.. it's a bunch of hogwash, what you have is faith, not science. Making rich countries poorer, rising the cost of living for people is not a good thing.
> ...





s0n.....like most all far lefties, you have significant connect the dots issues and moreover, display an excessive level of naïve.

The direct link between Agenda 21 and local planners - | Worldview Weekend






Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, has been the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to establish and hold the energy field for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. During the opening speech Maurice Strong made the following statements:





*"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security." - Link

"It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature." - Link

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."*


The Green Agenda - Agenda 21


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 8, 2014)

More k00k losing >>>>

Post-Katrina "green homes" are rotting!!!


Wood product said to be rotting in 'green'-built homes | Home | The New Orleans Advocate




I cant stop laughing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 8, 2014)

More k00k losing >>>>

Dr Roy Spencer was asked, "Does Global Warming Theory Predict Record Cold?"


His answer?



*NO*




Does Global Warming Theory Predict Record Cold?





The Stoopids are losing again!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


That isn't "_info_", retard, that's your idiotic delusion, unsupported by any evidence. The fact that the 43% increase in CO2 levels since the start of the industrial revolution has caused global average temperatures to increase and consequently change long established climate patterns is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.






Jroc said:


> Deny all you want,


I'm not denying that you are a delusional retard, Krok. That's a given. What I am doing is supporting the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. 







Jroc said:


> it's your religion I'm questioning so I understand.


Your inability to tell the difference between scientific conclusions (based on the laws of physics, many decades of intensive research and mountains of evidence and data) and "religion" is just another symptom of your anti-science insanity and severe retardation.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 8, 2014)

A lot of folks, when I was young, believed the Earth the center or the universe and the sun rotated around it.  They believed because their church told them to believe and tortured the few who dared deny.

So wot's so different today?  Well, today's (wannabe) dominant religion, The First Algore Church of Global Warming, resorts only to tongue-lashing.  Oh yeah, and hammering away on computers that run on pollution-causing electricity to spew their doctrine.  Except for a few for whom the propellers on their beanies run tiny little generators and whose sunglasses are really cleverly disguised solar panels.  Now those few are at least to be admired for their dedication.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 8, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> A lot of folks, when I was young, believed the Earth the center or the universe and the sun rotated around it.  They believed because their church told them to believe and tortured the few who dared deny.



The source of that idea was NOT the church.  It was people watching the sun rotate around the Earth that felt as motionless as it could possibly could.  People thought the sun went around the Earth before anyone ever thought of religion.



HenryBHough said:


> So wot's so different today?  Well, today's (wannabe) dominant religion, The First Algore Church of Global Warming, resorts only to tongue-lashing.



When was the last time you got tongue lashed by a climate scientist?  This is a message board.  On most topics, everyone "tongue-lashes" each other.  In the public venue, we have the impressively cordial deniers' treatment of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth and John Cook .



HenryBHough said:


> Oh yeah, and hammering away on computers that run on pollution-causing electricity to spew their doctrine.  Except for a few for whom the propellers on their beanies run tiny little generators and whose sunglasses are really cleverly disguised solar panels.  Now those few are at least to be admired for their dedication.



It's occurred to me that on many of those occasions on which I thought you were being funny, you were being serious.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 8, 2014)

Dawn Comes to Marblehead!

Not just a novel about a small New England town anymore......


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





Love when the bone heads put the pumpkin on the tee for me!!!!


*BATTER UP!!!!*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



The kookster - always reliably retarded and full of the completely debunked myths of his cult.

*Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate*
Scientific American
By John Rennie
Nov 30, 2009
(excerpts)
Claim 1: "_Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant._"

*Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warmingan answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annuallymore than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppma remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years. Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.*


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 8, 2014)

The biggest single mistake made by Global Warming Priests and Priestesses is their believe that anybody not of their faith actually gives a shit.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 8, 2014)

More CO2 please




> *Global Warming Models are Wrong!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scientists: Global Warming Models are Wrong! | Opinion - Conservative


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

Jroc said:


> More CO2 please
> 
> 
> > *Global Warming Models are Wrong!*
> ...



Oh, KrokoKrap, you just get funnier and funnier the more you make these retarded attempts to debate a subject you're so completely ignorant about.

I, and others, in order to support our positions, cite and quote either actual scientific research or else press reports on actual published scientific research by real climate scientists. You, and quite often the other denier cult cretins, post blog entries, like the one above, written by some unknown, non-scientist dufus and filled with lies, denier cult myths and absurd pseudo-science. Basically just his unscientific opinions based on ignorance and misinformation. You're obviously too stupid and ignorant about science to have the capability to tell the difference between real science from reputable sources and dimwitted propaganda from biased non-scientists.

The blog post you quoted you linked to a sort of blog aggregator that sourced it to another blog called: "*The Real REVO - A High Capacity Assault Blog*". LOLOLOL. The original blog post by some denier cult nitwit cited a newspaper article as his source.
_*Scientists: Global Warming Models are Wrong!*
The Real REVO
Posted on January 2, 2014 by R.D. Walker
*Thats right, cabal of unnamed United Nation scientists are reporting that a significant percentage of global warming models are just plain wrong and have skewed the average result. They explain that all of the models that predict less warming are incorrect and, therefore, there is to be more warming and more horror than they ever imagined.*_​
The article he links to there, which, BTW, clearly names the lead scientist, is this one and it certainly reads a lot different from the denier dingbat's misinterpretation and spin. It does not support your ignorant denial of AGW at all.

*World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say
Scientists say the worlds climate is warming faster than feared because previous predictions were too optimistic and overestimated the cooling impact of clouds*
The Telegraph
By Jonathan Pearlman
01 Jan 2014
(excerpts)
*As the planet marked its fourth hottest year on record, a study published in the journal Nature found increasing levels of carbon dioxide will lead to thinner ocean clouds and reduce their cooling impact, causing temperature rises of at least 5.6F (3C) over the course of the century. The team of scientists said the findings show some climate models have been too optimistic and previous estimates of a minimum temperature rise of only 2.7F (1.5C) could now be discounted. The optimistic models did not properly assess the impact of water evaporation, which sometimes rises only a short distance into the atmosphere and causes updraughts that reduce cloud cover, the study found. These models have been predicting a lower climate sensitivity but we believe theyre incorrect, Professor Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, told The Sydney Morning Herald. The net effect of [climate change] is you have less cloud cover.

...Australia in 2013 marked its hottest year since reliable recordings began in 1910. The worlds driest continent also recorded its hottest day, hottest month, hottest winters day and hottest summer. The run of warmer weather began late in 2012 and was so great that Australias Bureau of Meteorology last year changed its official weather forecasting map to include new colours - deep purple and pink - for areas with temperatures above 50C (122F). Globally, according to figures released in December by the United States National Climatic Data Center, 2013 was set to be the fourth hottest year in 134 years of records behind 2010, 2005 and 1998. Meteorologists said it was the hottest year on record for a non-El Niño year.*


The blog post you quoted makes these fallacious claims.
* "_CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas_" - false, CO2 is actually a powerful greenhouse gas that is one of the key drivers of the Earth's climate.

* "_C02 offers a diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as it increases_" - false, CO2 is not saturated and won't be for a long time. *A Saturated Gassy Argument*

* "_More water vapor will cause even more water vapor which will cause even more water vapor which will cause even more water vapor.. you get the picture. These are positive feedbacks and the result is a runway(sic) effect._" - false, water vapor does saturate; it can only get so high and then it precipitates out and falls as rain or snow. There is no runaway effect with water vapor.

* "_If the system is that unstable, why didnt runaway global warming occur eons ago? If all it takes is a tiny little nudge of C02 to cause a runaway water vapor greenhouse effect, how come it didnt happen when C02 levels were greater in the past?_" - false, the system is not that unstable, there is no "_runaway water vapor greenhouse effect_". This denier dingbat writing this is just ignorant and misinformed and apparently severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > More CO2 please
> ...



Maybe you missed this? or since it questioned your religious beliefs you didn't bother to watch this detailed presentation.... Who knows

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



LOLOLOL.....you're a hoot, KrokoKrap. Your previous denier cult propaganda piece got completely debunked so now you're just throwing whatever crap you can find against the wall to see if anything sticks. LOL. You did manage to find a real scientist this time, even if he is a fraudulent crackpot who the other scientists think is nuts.

Of course you can always find a few fringe scientists who dispute something that the rest of the scientific community accepts as factual, like the greenhouse gas properties of carbon dioxide. If you find a lump on your chest and visit ten doctors and nine of them tell you it's cancer and you need to get it treated immediately, and one doctor tells you it's nothing to worry about, do you believe the one doctor and ignore the other nine doctors? The vast majority of scientists, especially climate scientists, point to CO2 as the main driver of the current abrupt warming trend. Citing one scientist who disagrees but who can't convincingly back up his contentions with real scientific evidence isn't as persuasive to scientifically literate people as you brainwashed denier cultists imagine.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



  Throwing shit to see what sticks?
Sounds like GW supporters to me. It's warming..no wait,it's climate change.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



And another denier cult nitwit pops up to parrot one of the most idiotic of the denier cult myths.

Here's the actual facts.

1. Global warming causes climate changes.
2. The two terms don't mean the same thing.
3. Both terms have been in use in the scientific community since the 1960s.
* Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'.  
* Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  
* The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).
* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.
* A Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:
4. Both terms are still in use.
5. The only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change' was Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:
"_Its time for us to start talking about climate change instead of global warming and conservation instead of preservation. Climate change is less frightening than global warming. As one focus group participant noted, climate change sounds like youre going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale. While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge._"​


----------



## Kosh (Jan 9, 2014)

> 1. Global warming causes climate changes.



This right here shows that the AGW church is about a religion and not based on science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

Kosh said:


> > 1. Global warming causes climate changes.
> 
> 
> 
> This right here shows that the AGW church is about a religion and not based on science.



This right here shows that Klod is a clueless retard who knows nothing about science. There is absolutely no doubt that rising global temperatures cause climate patterns to change. That is just basic physics.

*Climate Change: Basic Information*
EPA

*What are climate change and global warming?

Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is causing climate patterns to change. However, global warming itself represents only one aspect of climate change.

Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.

Climate change is happening

Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.*


----------



## Jroc (Jan 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. Global warming causes climate changes.
> ...




Try to stick with "man caused" climate change ok? The climate as always changed, Get through your head. You're a loon... Your bold print screams out crazy


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


And there's another idiotic denier cult myth based entirely on their own ignorance of what paleoclimatology actually tells us about the Earth's climate history. In reality, there have been many long periods of fairly stable climate. The Holocene has had a fairly stable climate for about eight thousand years, until recently, which allowed humans to develop agriculture and civilization.

Our agricultural systems, that allow us to feed seven billion people, are entirely dependent on stable climate patterns which provide regular, predictable rainfall in predictable amounts, and a yearly cycle of predictable temperature ranges. AGW is destabilizing global climate patterns and will eventually lead to agricultural failures on a massive scale resulting in mass starvation and hundreds of millions of climate refugees.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 9, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPq1wimsf-c]Solar Activity and Cosmic Rays Drives Climate Changes (6-6) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Solar Activity and Cosmic Rays Drives Climate Changes (6-6) - YouTube



YouTube videos of lame, debunked denier cult delusions and frauds aren't any more convincing than the written drivel you post, KrocoKrap. 

You still obviously have no ability whatsoever to distinguish between demented propaganda and actual science.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 9, 2014)

Says Rolling Blunder....


----------



## Jroc (Jan 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Solar Activity and Cosmic Rays Drives Climate Changes (6-6) - YouTube
> ...



if you say so religion boy. These people don't make millions off their research, cant say the same for you money grubbing global warming nuts


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 9, 2014)

Says a majority of scientist. I welcome skeptics as this is the way science works but you have to find a real theory to replace it with.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 9, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Says a majority of scientist. I welcome skeptics as this is the way science works but you have to find a real theory to replace it with.



The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven. The fraudulent catastrophic effect of Co2 on the climate has been debunked, and the studies have been manipulated by these money hungry scientist


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 9, 2014)

Jroc said:


> The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven.



I'd really like to see some sort of report on that proving.  Have you got a link?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven.
> ...



Have you got a link to the datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate?

Don't ask others to do what you are incapable of doing!


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven.
> ...



I'd also be interested in seeing a link for that 

Jroc?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 9, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Says a majority of scientist. I welcome skeptics as this is the way science works but you have to find a real theory to replace it with.
> ...



Your usual delusional bullshit, KrokoKrap, without any connection to reality.

*Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and is highly sensitive to carbon, new research shows
New research reinforces human-caused global warming and a climate that's highly sensitive to an increased greenhouse effect*
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
Thursday 9 January 2014 
(excerpts)
*Over the past few weeks, several important new papers related to human vs. natural climate change have been published. These papers add clarity to the causes of climate change, and how much global warming we can expect in the future. A paper published in Nature Geoscience by Andrew Schurer, Simon Tett, and Gabriele Hegerl investigates the sun's influence on global climate changes over the past 1,000 years. Although we know the sun can't be causing the current global warming because solar activity has declined slightly over the past 50 years, "it's the sun" nevertheless remains one of the most popular climate contrarian arguments. However, in recent years, research has pointed in the direction of a relatively small solar impact on the Earth's climate changes. It's important to realize that while the Earth is bombarded by a lot of heat from the sun, the amount of solar energy reaching the planet is relatively stable. According to the best recent estimates, it's only increased by about 0.1 percent over the past 300 years, causing a global energy imbalance less than 10 percent as large as that caused by humans over the same period.

In this study, the authors tested reconstructions that incorporated relatively large and small changes in solar activity, and compared them to northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions over the past millennium. The authors conclude: "Volcanic and GHG [greenhouse gas] forcings seem to contribute most to pre-twentieth-century climate variability, whereas the contribution by solar forcing is modest, agreeing with the simulations with low solar forcing." The study finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years. The authors find a detectable greenhouse gas influence on the climate before the 20th century, and consistent with the IPCC and Imbers, they conclude that humans are the dominant cause of recent global warming. "Over the twentieth century, anthropogenic forcings dominate with GHGs the largest forcing, offset by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols and land use changes"*


----------



## Jroc (Jan 10, 2014)

> *STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means*
> 
> The models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models&#8217; results for comparison to the observations.
> 
> ...



STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 10, 2014)

Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?

Here is a comparison of the temperature output of several different climate models:







Note that for these, their anomalies were simply all referenced to the same value.  That's not the same "trick" as Spencer has played.

This might be more informative:






The grey lines are the output of 23 different GCMs that were used by the IPCC to make forecasts in AR4.  The black pixels are the averages of all the models.  The red line is the observed global temperature from GISS.  Versteht?  Someone's been fibbing to you.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?
> 
> Here is a comparison of the temperature output of several different climate models:
> 
> ...



Oh my the hockey stick again from the AGW propaganda files.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 10, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?
> ...



That's not the hockey stick but the real temperature of the past 100+ years with the models modeled over it.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 10, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yes it is the Hockey stick! 

And no it is not the "real" temperature it is the AGW church version of temperature.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 10, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Oh my the hockey stick again from the AGW propaganda files.



You play a weird game of hockey.

The reason that temperature vs time graphs look like hockey sticks, you stupid rat bastard, is because THAT is what the Earth's temperature has done.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 10, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And no it is not the "real" temperature it is the AGW church version of temperature.



Why don't you go get us the real one then?  We want land and ocean combined with troposphere and SST included.

But, hey, I'm open minded.  Show us whatever you've got.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And no it is not the "real" temperature it is the AGW church version of temperature.
> ...



Still waiting for you to post the datasets with source code that shows CO2 controls climate.

Don't demand of others what you will not do yourself.

And you still show you don't understand what you posted.


----------



## editec (Jan 10, 2014)

Jroc said:


> It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.



Where's here?

Its brutal here in Maine, too but Ive seen it this bad (or worse) here at least a couple times in the last 25 years.

And FYI back in 1980 (81?) it was so bloody cold_ the tropical fish_ were dying in Key West.  brrr!

Lucky me...that was the year I decided to get away from the New England  winter.


----------



## editec (Jan 10, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



ARe you kidding me?

Do you really think there are no corporations that stand to lose billions per year if we take global warming seriously?

Compare THEIR potential loss to the pittance made by academics, lad.

Perspective..get some

And I say this as someone who admits I do not have a scientific clue, too

But as to understanding _profit MOTIVES?_

That I _definitely_ can understand, kid.//and I suspect_ you can too_, if you step back and look at it dispassionately.

And, FYI,  the academic community has NO reason to make shit up. Really they do not.  The vast majority of them get paid the same either way, ya know> (if you didn't know that, _ you do now_)

OTOH

The Energy industry has BIILLION$ AND BILLION$ AND BILLION$ OF REASON$ TO fabricate non$en$e, (annually)


----------



## Jroc (Jan 10, 2014)

editec said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Yeah all of the sudden Co2 is a pollutant...Bullshit 

I want my Co2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE]Seeing is Believing - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 10, 2014)

Now if only we were plants


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 10, 2014)

Jroc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 10, 2014)

No zeal like that of the converted religious fanatic!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 10, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> No zeal like that of the converted religious fanatic!



No stupidity like that of brainwashed anti-science AGW denier cultist.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Bullshit you could triple the co2 in the atmosphere  and it wouldn't do what you nuts say


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 10, 2014)

I'll be rooting for it to triple to prove you right or wrong.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 10, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I'll be rooting for it to triple to prove you right or wrong.



Me too, it'll be so much greener Plants are our friends


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?
> 
> Oh, that's right, your political cult fed it to you, hence you BELIEVE.
> 
> ...



Do you know how much of the suns energy is reflected back into the atmosphere?

Do you know how much is generated internally in the Earth via radioactive decay?

No, I didn't think so, but you are still damned sure the warming from 1810 to 1998 was entirely due to man made global warming?

lol

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science













Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



> Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readabilitys sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
> 
> NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
> 
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that dont understand computer programming, dont fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
 ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
 ; plot *past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted *to look closer to
 ; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
 ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
 ;
 ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions* (stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline*
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions *(stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)*

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so *many changes that aren't documented.*

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. *There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations*

...


Here, the* expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING *- so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
 the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). *What the hell is
 supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have *

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
 hitting *yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
 data integrity*, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).
printf,1,Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.
printf,1
 printf,1,*NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY
printf,1,REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values
printf,1,will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be*,
printf,1,which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful
printf,1,than it actually is. 

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
 printf,1,*'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
 printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
 printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
 printf,1,'observed temperatures*.'


.....


; *Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!*
 ;
 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
 (...)
 ;
 ; *APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION*
 ;
 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
 densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

*;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ****

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
 ; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
 ; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). *We have identified and
 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
 ; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
 ; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data*, and apply the same calibration
 ; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 10, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Oh, KrokoKrap, you're so retarded and brainwashed, you actually seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that your ignorant unsupported assertions count as less than nothing compared to all of the decades of scientific research and evidence, plus the laws of physics, that definitely affirm that this (currently) 43% increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels is, in fact, exactly what is warming the planet and changing the climate. It's happening already and the warming and climate changes and other effects will continue to get worse for a very long time, causing damages beyond your rather meager comprehension. Your ignorant denial of science is pathetic. Your assumption that you understand things better than what is now virtually the entire world scientific community is beyond 'pathetic', right on into 'just plain crazy'.

Making claims in a debate, like the one you just made, is just meaningless noise unless you can back up your claims with actual scientific evidence that supports them. You have none. Endlessly repeating your uninformed opinions without providing any evidence to support you convinces no one and just makes you look even more idiotic. BTW, by 'supporting scientific evidence', I don't mean a blog post by some non-scientist who just repeats denier cult myths, again without providing any scientific support for his claims.

Your posts are pretty consistently just 'meaningless noise', Krok. You seem utterly clueless about all this and you seem to be coming at it from political/economic motives (or perhaps just psychosis) rather than any actual understanding of the science involved or any knowledge of the enormous amounts of real world evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



AGW propaganda!


----------



## Kosh (Jan 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



A debate is about facts and AGW is nothing but religious dogma.

Please stop posting AGW propaganda while calling it a debate, it is just like when the far left posts their religious propaganda that has been debunked.

AGW is nothing more that religious propaganda and not based in any real science thus a debate is impossible. So to post AGW is a fact shows that is about a religious agenda not based on any kind of scientific fact.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 10, 2014)

Kosh said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



So then......you're just insane......good to know.....LOL.....scientific evidence is "_religious propaganda_" and the vast majority of scientists in the world are just bunch of religious fanatics who know nothing about science, but of course you, the divine Klod, know better.....LOLOLOL....you are sooooo retarded, Klod, as well as insane.....let me know if you ever manage to post something that isn't meaningless noise.....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



That is true only for you Warmistas who reflexively dismiss any contrary studies or evidence. You have faith in the scientific establishment and an unscientific consensus that causes you to close your mind to the countervailing evidence. 

To you the matter is already decided despite the historical record that shows that in science NOTHING is regarded as permanently settled, not even the Newtonian Law of Gravity as some have developed the Modified Newtonian dynamics theory to explain the Pioneer Anomaly. But people with your closed mindedness would reject that our of hand as just nonsense if you placed the same form of faith in Newtonian gravity theory that you do with AGW. This is a pseudo-religious faith you Warmistas place in a bunch of corruptible old men instead of the use of your own judgment.

Jroc on the other hand is showing that he can actually think for himself. He is more of a scientist than you Warmistas because he knows how fluid science truly is and he demands evidence and answers to his questions.

But nothing will dissuade you I know. Whatever gain you make from your closed mindedness, whether social, financial or emotional, I don't care, but whatever it is it has nothing to do with science or scientific inquiry. Your mind is made up and anything that would challenge your beliefs you reject out of hand.

You are a dogmatic zealot.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



To think for yourself is the essence of sanity, and the problem is not that he rejects evidence but that he is also considering evidence you refuse to consider. If you knew a damned thing about how science really works you would know that science does not use consensus to settle disagreement, but only facts and reason, or else we would still be talking about how the sun circles our flat Earth which was the scientific consensus a millennia ago. Thankfully brighter minds than yours have guided science.

But you do not understand science, that much is clear; you are merely being dogmatically loyal to fallible men who profit from the AGW theory and so refuse to let it go.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 11, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



nor does it insist that correlation =causation


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 11, 2014)

Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?



OK, it can be true that all in set A are also in set B, without all in set B being in set A.

In other words, all causation might have correlation without all correlation proving causation.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?



face it correlation* never proves* causation 

without that basic understanding 

your continuing ranting is pointless 

non causa pro causa


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 11, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?
> ...



post hoc fallacy below 

a occurred then b occurred

therefore a caused b


----------



## PredFan (Jan 11, 2014)

Follow the money people, and there is no money in research that disproves global warming. Not only is there no money in it, that way lies a ruined career.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Superstitious people follow that fallacy all the time. My favorite commercials right now, (yes, I am that pathetic) are the BudLight, 'It's only weird if it doesn't work!' commercials.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 11, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



the assumption that a causes b simply because a correlates with b 

is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument on its face


----------



## k2skier (Jan 11, 2014)

Bloodrock44 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?
> ...




Climate war heats up but Americans shiver
By Seth Borenstein Associated Press
   WASHINGTON  Weve become weather wimps.
   As the world warms, the United States is getting fewer bitter cold spells like the one that gripped much of the nation this week. So when a deep freeze strikes, scientists say, it seems more unprecedented than it really is. An Associated Press analysis of the daily national winter temperature shows that cold extremes have happened about once every four years since 1900.
   Until recently.
   When computer models esti mated that the national average daily temperature for the Lower 48 states dropped to 17.9 degrees on Monday, it was the first deep freeze of that magnitude in 17 years, according to Greg Carbin, warning meteorologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
   That stretch  from Jan. 13, 1997 to Monday is by far the longest the U.S. has gone without the national average plunging below 18 degrees, according to a database of daytime winter temperatures starting in January 1900.
   In the past 115 years, there have been 58 days when the national average temperature dropped below 18. Carbin said those occurrences often happen in periods that last several days so it makes more sense to talk about cold outbreaks instead of cold days. There have been 27 distinct cold snaps.
   Between 1970 and 1989, a dozen such events occurred, but there were only two in the 1990s and then none until Monday.
   These types of events have actually become more infrequent than they were in the past, said Carbin, who works at the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla. This is why there was such a big buzz because people have such short memories.
   Said Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private firm Weather Underground: Its become a lot harder to get these extreme (cold) outbreaks in a planet thats warming.
   And Mondays breathtaking chill? It was merely the 55th coldest day averaged for the continental United States  since 1900.
   The coldest day for the Lower 48 since 1900  as calculated by the computer models
    was 12 degrees on Christmas Eve 1983, nearly 6 degrees chillier than Monday.
   The average daytime winter temperature is about 33 degrees, according to Carbins database.
   There have been far more unusually warm winter days in the U.S. than unusually cold ones.
  Since Jan. 1, 2000, only two days have ranked in the top 100 coldest: Monday and Tuesday. But there have been 13 in the top 100 warmest winter days, including the warmest since 1900: Dec. 3, 2012. And that pattern is exactly what climate scientists have been saying for years, that the world will get more warm extremes and fewer cold extremes.
   Nine of 11 outside climate scientists and meteorologists who reviewed the data for the AP said it showed that asthe world warms from heat-trapping gas spewed by the burning of fossil fuels, winters are becoming milder. The world is getting more warm extremes and fewer cold extremes, they said.
   We expect to see a lengthening of time between cold air outbreaks due to a warming climate, but 17 years between outbreaks is probably partially due to an unusual amount of natural variability, or luck, Masters said in an email. I expect well go far fewer than 17 years before seeing the next cold air outbreak of this intensity.
   And the scientists dismiss global warming skeptics who claim one or two cold days somehow disproves climate change.
   When your hands are freezing off trying to scrape the ice off your car, it can be all too tempting to say, Wheres global warming now? Icould use a little of that! But you know what? Its not as cold as it used to be anymore, Texas Tech University climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said in an email.
   The recent cold spell, which was triggered by a frigid air mass known as the polar vortex that wandered way south of normal, could also be related to a relatively new theory that may prove a weather wild card, said Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis. Her theory, which has divided mainstream climate scientists, says that melting Arctic sea ice is changing polar weather, moving the jet stream and causing more weirdness.
   Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with the private firm Weather Bell Analytics who is skeptical about blaming global warming for weather extremes, dismisses Francis theory and said he has concerns about the accuracy of Carbins database. Maue has his own daily U.S. average temperature showing that Monday was colder than Carbins calculations.
   Still, he acknowledged that cold nationwide temperatures occurred with more regularity in the past.
   Many climate scientists say Americans are weather weenies who forgot what a truly cold winter is like.
   I think that peoples memory about climate is really terrible, Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler wrote in an email. So I think this cold event feels more extreme than it actually is because were just not used to really cold winters anymore.

CHARLES REX ARBOGAST/ASSOCIATED PRESS
   Chicagoans protected themselves Monday from temperatures that reached minus 14 degrees.
How cold was it?
   Monday, courtesy of the polar vortex, was the coldest day in years. But was it that cold, really?
   The aveage temperature for the Lower 48 states: 17.9 degrees
   How it ranks: The 55th-coldest day since 1900.
   The coldest: Christmas Eve, 1983, when it stood at 12 degrees.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 11, 2014)

Have you actually skied K2?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 11, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> post hoc fallacy below
> 
> a occurred then b occurred
> 
> therefore a caused b



True, however, A CANNOT be a cause of B UNLESS it does happen first.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 11, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?
> ...



You didn't answer my question.  Not all correlation is due to causation (very little, actually) but all causation has correlation.

I am not arguing that the correlation proves causation, I am arguing that it most certainly does not preclude it and that an absence of correlation *WOULD*.  Do you understand?


----------



## k2skier (Jan 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Have you actually skied K2?



36 years, about 800-850 days.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 11, 2014)

The mountain or the skis?


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 11, 2014)

I guess I'm being punished for denying the "reality" of Global Warming.

I just shoveled three inches of it off my driveway.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



the strict answer is no

causation does not necessarily imply correlation


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > post hoc fallacy below
> ...



Your probably going to hate me, but....

Switching cause and effect in quantum world? A causes B causes A



> Oct. 2, 2012  One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one....
> 
> Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature, the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and quantum computing.




In New Quantum Experiment, Effect Happens Before Cause | Popular Science



> A real-world demonstration of a thought experiment conducted at the University of Vienna, has produced a result that is somewhat befuddling to people with what the lead researcher calls a "naïve classical world view." Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not.
> 
> The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate.
> 
> "Classical correlations can be decided after they are measured," says Xiao-song Ma, the writer of the study. Entanglement can be created "after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist."


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> I guess I'm being punished for denying the "reality" of Global Warming.
> 
> I just shoveled three inches of it off my driveway.



I just realized something. You haven't been putting on an act, as I first thought. You really _are_ as 'effin stupid as you appear.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm being punished for denying the "reality" of Global Warming.
> ...



You're just now realizing that? It seems so obvious, even at first glance.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm being punished for denying the "reality" of Global Warming.
> ...



Well, he is still five times smarter than you are, dipshit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



And the echo chamber speaketh, lol.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 11, 2014)

The OP question was "_where's my global warming?_" based on the cold temperatures in the continental USA this winter. The question betrays massive ignorance about the meaning of 'global' and the difference between 'local weather' and 'global climate'. I'm not sure if some of the denier dingbats really comprehend that there is a big world outside the borders of the USA.

This article isn't intended as any kind of "proof" of AGW. It is just offered to provide some balance to the fact that parts of the continental US are unusually cold right now, by pointing out that many places in the world are very, very hot right now as well.

*Bats drop dead from trees: Australia sizzles under record heat
The heat wave in Australia has taken a toll on wildlife, with bats dropping from trees and kangaroos collapsing*
The Seattle Times
By ROD McGUIRK - The Associated Press
January 9, 2014
(excerpts)
*CANBERRA, Australia  Bats are dropping from trees, kangaroos are collapsing in the Outback and gardens are turning brown. While much of North America freezes under record low temperatures, the Southern Hemisphere is experiencing the opposite extreme as heat records are being set in Australia after the hottest year ever. Weather forecasters in Australia said some parts of the sparsely populated Pilbara region along the rugged northwest coast were approaching 122 degrees Fahrenheit on Thursday. Since Dec. 27, records have been set at 34 locations across Australia  some by large margins  where temperature data has been collected for at least 40 years mostly in Queensland and New South Wales states. Brazil is also sizzling, with the heat index reaching 120 Fahrenheit.

The heat wave in Australia has taken a toll on wildlife. In Winton, famous for being one of the hottest spots in Queensland and where Australias unofficial anthem, Waltzing Matilda, was penned, a large number of parrots, kangaroos and emus have recently been found dead, said Tom Upton, chief executive of Winton Shire Council. At least 50,000 bats had been killed by the heat in the states southeast, said Louise Saunders, president of the Queensland animal-welfare group Bat Conservation and Rescue. Heat-stressed bats  including the black flying foxes, little red flying foxes and the endangered gray-headed flying foxes  cling to trees and urinate on themselves in a bid to reduce their body temperatures, she said. As they succumb, they just fall in heaps at the base of trees, Saunders said. You can have 250 or more ... all dying at the base of trees.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 11, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



That's funny coming from someone like you, JammedButtie, considering that you are even more retarded than the Huffer (and that ain't easy).


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 11, 2014)

Fun reading tonight how Massachusetts, that bastion of liberalism, is just about out of snow removal money with weeks and weeks of winter coming.

Is it all due to Global Warming?  Is the travail due to Global Warming NOT?

Nay.

It's because their crazed bureaucracy has imposed 33.5% higher licensing fees for the trucks that bear the plows and mandated $10,000 per vehicle automated sanding adjustment systems.  Then they were surprised that a high percentage of the former contractors dropped out and the few remaining jacked up their bids almost in unison.

Thank God liberals ain't centipedes because the pain from their shooting themselves in each foot would be heart-wrenching to watch.


----------



## rdean (Jan 11, 2014)

Jroc said:


> It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.



It's being saved up for your descendants.  They are gonna be so ashamed. If any live.


----------



## rdean (Jan 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> The OP question was "_where's my global warming?_" based on the cold temperatures in the continental USA this winter. The question betrays massive ignorance about the meaning of 'global' and the difference between 'local weather' and 'global climate'. I'm not sure if some of the denier dingbats really comprehend that there is a big world outside the borders of the USA.
> 
> This article isn't intended as any kind of "proof" of AGW. It is just offered to provide some balance to the fact that parts of the continental US are unusually cold right now, by pointing out that many places in the world are very, very hot right now as well.
> 
> ...



You don't need to scream in bold.  They can't learn.  It's a "determined ignorance".


----------



## Kosh (Jan 11, 2014)

rdean said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The OP question was "_where's my global warming?_" based on the cold temperatures in the continental USA this winter. The question betrays massive ignorance about the meaning of 'global' and the difference between 'local weather' and 'global climate'. I'm not sure if some of the denier dingbats really comprehend that there is a big world outside the borders of the USA.
> ...



The irony of that post from a far left Obama drone.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 11, 2014)

Kosh said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Do you trust anything that comes from the nws or nasa?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Thank  you! If you think I am retarded then I must be doing something right!

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

rdean said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The OP question was "_where's my global warming?_" based on the cold temperatures in the continental USA this winter. The question betrays massive ignorance about the meaning of 'global' and the difference between 'local weather' and 'global climate'. I'm not sure if some of the denier dingbats really comprehend that there is a big world outside the borders of the USA.
> ...



What happened to temperature extremes just being 'weather' not climate?

Oh, wait, cold temps are merely weather while hot temps are climate; got it!

you stupid ****.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



It takes a real imbecile like you, JammedButtie, to quote and comment on a post you either didn't read or can't comprehend. I said right up there at the top before the quoted article:
*This article isn't intended as any kind of "proof" of AGW. It is just offered to provide some balance to the fact that parts of the continental US are unusually cold right now, by pointing out that many places in the world are very, very hot right now as well.*

Passing temperature extremes are indeed just weather. However, when there is a consistent pattern over decades of more hotter weather than there used to be, with even hotter temperatures than there used to be, coupled with less colder weather than there used to be, with more unusually warm days in wintertime, and several times more record hot days than cold days for several decades, you've got some good strong evidence that the climate is changing and the planet is warming.

So, local weather is just weather, no matter if it is hot or cold weather, but long term patterns over decades of rising average global temperatures, changing weather patterns, changing rainfall patterns, changing seasonal timing and massive amounts of melting ice are evidence of global warming and climate change. Got it?    LOL. Just kidding, Buttie. I know you're far too lost in mindless denial to ever 'get it'.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 12, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Fun reading tonight how Massachusetts, that bastion of liberalism, is just about out of snow removal money with weeks and weeks of winter coming.
> 
> Is it all due to Global Warming?  Is the travail due to Global Warming NOT?
> 
> ...



--LOL

they get what the deserve


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



First let me say, fuck you, ass wipe.

Secondly, there is climate change today, but there ALWAYS has been. Why do you fucking libtards think the climate has to remain the way it was when the modern age began in perpetuity?

The case has NOT been proven that human actions are causing the climate change and there is mounting evidence that the climate change has paused or maybe reversing toward a colder change. Event he New York Times and London MET admit that the warming trend has paused/stopped/plateaued, so who the hell are you bastards to impose Draconian laws that cripple industry (on top of the economic impact of Obamacare and Obamas rule by decree creating a permanent ambiguity about what the future may hold for businesses in tax policy, regulations and more health care obligations)?

Thirdly, eat shit.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



the climate constantly changes it always has 

hopefully it always will


----------



## Kosh (Jan 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I don't trust anything that is laced with AGW propaganda, why would you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 12, 2014)

He can trust information from the NWS and NASA because they are full to the gills with actual experts.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> He can trust information from the NWS and NASA because they are full to the gills with actual experts.



Oh my that was one of the best laughs I have had this morning!

You mean like that hack James Hansen?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 12, 2014)

James Hansen (ret) has more smarts and knowledge in the last millimeter of his decrepit little toe than you have experienced in your entire life.

Fucking luddite dweeb.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> James Hansen (ret) has more smarts and knowledge in the last millimeter of his decrepit little toe than you have experienced in your entire life.
> 
> Fucking luddite dweeb.



No he doesn't he is a hack.

He has always been a hack.

I have even said so to his face.

He allowed is Nazi style environmentalism to drive his research and conclusions (which have been proven to be false). James Hansen is an AGW hack like you.

He now lives in his nice little mansion driving around in his Bentley paid for by idiots like you.

Just like Al Gore, how much have money have you doled out to Al Gore?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> James Hansen (ret) has more smarts and knowledge in the last millimeter of his decrepit little toe than you have experienced in your entire life.
> 
> Fucking luddite dweeb.



Even if that were true it wouldn't prove he was right about AGW nor about 'adjusting' his data records!


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Neither does anything you've said prove he's guilty of those things.  And his work is heavily reviewed by most of the world's climate scientists.  They don't seem to share your feelings about the man and they are able to judge the quality of his work FAR better than are you or I.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 12, 2014)

Religion? Pseudoscience?.. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYSpvYJUT5E]The Forced Global Warming Religion = Pseudoscience - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Even if that were true it wouldn't prove he was right about AGW nor about 'adjusting' his data records!



Neither does anything any of you have posted prove he's guilty of such things.  They are simply unsubstantiated assertions.  His work throughout his career at GISS has been thoroughly vetted by thousands of climate scientists worldwide.  They do not share the denier's opinion of the man and they are far better qualified to make that judgement.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Neither does anything you've said prove he's guilty of those things.  And his work is heavily reviewed by most of the world's climate scientists.  They don't seem to share your feelings about the man and they are able to judge the quality of his work FAR better than are you or I.



Samples and comments on Hansens 'adjustments' to the temperature data;

NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit



> As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts  also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998  an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
> 
> As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007  a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.








Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?


> I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
> 
> However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with todays version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.








NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75   ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7 
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)[/quote] 

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if that were true it wouldn't prove he was right about AGW nor about 'adjusting' his data records!
> ...



 it is a scam based on faked data to get funding by various scientists and empower the government and themselves to be little tyrants.

That about sums it up exactly.

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science












NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit



> As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts  also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998  an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
> 
> As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007  a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.









Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



> Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readabilitys sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
> 
> NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
> 
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?



> I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
> 
> However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with todays version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.









Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that dont understand computer programming, dont fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
 ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
 ; plot *past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted *to look closer to
 ; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
 ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
 ;
 ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions* (stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline*
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions *(stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)*

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so *many changes that aren't documented.*

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. *There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations*

...


Here, the* expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING *- so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
 the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). *What the hell is
 supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have *

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
 hitting *yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
 data integrity*, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).
printf,1,Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.
printf,1
 printf,1,*NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY
printf,1,REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values
printf,1,will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be*,
printf,1,which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful
printf,1,than it actually is. 

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
 printf,1,*'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
 printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
 printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
 printf,1,'observed temperatures*.'


.....


; *Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!*
 ;
 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
 (...)
 ;
 ; *APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION*
 ;
 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
 densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

*;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ****

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
 ; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
 ; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). *We have identified and
 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
 ; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
 ; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data*, and apply the same calibration
 ; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

NASA GISS caught changing past data again ? violates Data Quality Act | Watts Up With That?



> We&#8217;ve been hearing that 2012 has been the &#8220;hottest on record.&#8221; I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth&#8217;s surface. The &#8220;global temperature&#8221; in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.
> 
> I thought I&#8217;d update that analysis to include July&#8217;s and August&#8217;s temperatures. To my surprise, NASA&#8217;s entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA&#8217;s June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.
> 
> ...



Hansen is a fraud and probably an unindicted criminal as well.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history | Watts Up With That?



> Many of us have seen gif animations and blink comparators of the older version of Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data versus the newer version, and here&#8217;s yet another one. The presentation is clearer than most.








Ah, the good old scientific tradition of FUDGING DATA TO MEET EXPECTATIONS! lol


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science



> Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world&#8217;s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards &#8220;climate disaster.&#8221; There is little evidence to back this up.
> 
> In 2008, Hansen wrote about &#8220;stabilizing&#8221; the climate :
> 
> ...










> In 1989, NOAA and the UK&#8217;s leading expert agreed with Hansen that US had not warmed.
> 
> February 04, 1989
> 
> ...








The differences transposed over one another:


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

US Heat Island Error



> This graph represents the unmodified temperatures summarized by NASA by rural verses urban categories. (The gray lines represent the statistical error for the temperatures, while the red and black lines represent a 5-year running average. Notice that the rural data set (red, top graph) does not show much warming for the past 120 years, while the urban data set (black, lower graph) shows a steep, continuous increase in temperature.  Over the period it increased by 2.5 degrees. The rural data set, on the other hand, shows very little warming in the last half of the twentieth century and has even declined slightly.
> 
> When the two data sets are combined (black, upper graph), the entire US data set still shows a significant increase in temperature for the period. This increase in temperature has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with changes in land use.
> 
> NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), led by Dr. James Hansen, has attempted to remove the heat island effect through a series of equations. The GISS produced a graph that looked  similar to the rural (red) line above, but still showed the late 1990s and 2000s to be the warmest in recorded history.








roflmao, these bastards cannot get away with this lying shit any more.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Exactly what effort did Anthony Watts & company make to determine the reasons GISS adjusted those data?  Did they even ask?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2014)

Poor JimBowie doesn't understand that normal people bust a gut laughing when WUWT is mentioned.

However, Jim has shown he's a skilled cut-and-paste parrot. Hence he makes an ideal denialist cultist. He gets spoonfed bullshit, laps it up eagerly, proclaims to the world how tasty is, then screams rage at anyone who informs him he's eating shit.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 12, 2014)

Lacking any actual science to support his denier cult delusions, JammedButtie stupidly posts pseudo-science and deceptive propaganda from dimwitted denier cult blogs and idiotically imagines that they are convincing evidence to non cult members. Lacking the intelligence necessary to rationally evaluate the evidence, JammedButtie moronically relies on the pre-digested misinterpretations of the facts fed to him by his rightwingnut puppet masters.

Anti-science, extremely ignorant, half-witted reality denying cultists like JammedButtie are very pathetic.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Lacking any actual science to support his denier cult delusions, JammedButtie stupidly posts pseudo-science and deceptive propaganda from dimwitted denier cult blogs and idiotically imagines that they are convincing evidence to non cult members. Lacking the intelligence necessary to rationally evaluate the evidence, JammedButtie moronically relies on the pre-digested misinterpretations of the facts fed to him by his rightwingnut puppet masters.
> 
> Anti-science, extremely ignorant, half-witted reality denying cultists like JammedButtie are very pathetic.



the "pseudo science" has been bought and paid for. And liberals nutjobs like you buy into the stupidity


----------



## Jroc (Jan 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Net Co2 emissions approach zero!!" this guy must be some kind of psychopath


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 12, 2014)

The entire world would need to cut co2 emissions from 36gt today to around 15gt by 2050 at least. At the same time as the population go from 7 to 9 billion people to stay below 2c...

This is what people like James Hansen are talking about.

Fusion is about the only way we're getting there.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 12, 2014)

Jroc said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science
> ...



But to the libtard class clown we are the loons for not blindly accepting the decrees of their high priests of  bullshit.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> The entire world would need to cut co2 emissions from 36gt today to around 15gt by 2050 at least. At the same time as the population go from 7 to 9 billion people to stay below 2c...
> 
> This is what people like James Hansen are talking about.
> 
> Fusion is about the only way we're getting there.



I think he and his kind are full of shit..Co2 is good it's greening our planet


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 13, 2014)

Jroc said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Lacking any actual science to support his denier cult delusions, JammedButtie stupidly posts pseudo-science and deceptive propaganda from dimwitted denier cult blogs and idiotically imagines that they are convincing evidence to non cult members. Lacking the intelligence necessary to rationally evaluate the evidence, JammedButtie moronically relies on the pre-digested misinterpretations of the facts fed to him by his rightwingnut puppet masters.
> ...



Hey KrokoKrap, it's good to see that you are finally waking up to the role the Koch brothers play in creating the retarded propaganda you try to push. Maybe I should rename you 'KochKrap'. It might be more appropriate.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm freezing are the Russian's right?...More arctic cold coming





> *New Ice Age to Begin in 2014*
> 
> Forecasters predict that a new ice age will begin soon, says this article on russia-ic.com.
> 
> ...



New Ice Age to Begin in 2014


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 18, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Neither does anything you've said prove he's guilty of those things.  And his work is heavily reviewed by most of the world's climate scientists.  They don't seem to share your feelings about the man and they are able to judge the quality of his work FAR better than are you or I.
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.[/QUOTE]

I said his work was fully supported by the world's climate scientists and you pull up a critique from Watts Up With That.  Does anyone else see the problem here?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 18, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I said his work was fully supported by the world's climate scientists and you pull up a critique from Watts Up With That.  [/quote]

If amateurs at WUWT can spot the problems then why don't the scientists in the industry? 

Maybe because they fear losing funding if the scam is exposed?

And so what? If the facts are uncovered by WUWT or the faculty at MIT, facts are still facts, and you Warmistas have a steady pattern if ignoring the facts and diving straight into ad hominem attacks on the sources of the facts instead of the facts themselves.




Abraham3 said:


> Does anyone else see the problem here?



I see you are having a problem with the attributions, lol.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 18, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I said his work was fully supported by the world's climate scientists and you pull up a critique from Watts Up With That.  Does anyone else see the problem here?[/QUOTE]

Most "Climate scientist" are bought and paid for


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 18, 2014)

Global warming is returning by popular demand for a two day cameo here in KC. Bbq grills are sure to be fired up in its honor. I know my will be smokin tomorrow


----------



## Jroc (Jan 18, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> *Global warming is returning by popular demand* for a two day cameo here in KC. Bbq grills are sure to be fired up in its honor. I know my will be smokin tomorrow



 I want some


----------



## Jroc (Jan 21, 2014)

> *Travelers deal with major snowstorm fallout*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Canceled: Travelers deal with major snowstorm fallout - CNN.com


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> If amateurs at WUWT can spot the problems then why don't the scientists in the industry?



But the amateurs at WUWT are dishonest 'tards who got caught making crap up. For the hundredth time or so. And you kiss the asses of those liars, solely because your political cult tells you to.

Just making it clear where we each stand. The mainstream science side is honest, intelligent and independent, while your denialist cult is a gaggle of bitter deluded political extremists. Outside of the kook right fringe, denialism doesn't exist, because denialism is purely a political movement. In direct contrast, global warming science is non-political, crossing all political boundaries around the world.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If amateurs at WUWT can spot the problems then why don't the scientists in the industry?
> ...



That was a joke right? You made it funny. "Non-poitical"


----------



## American_Jihad (Jan 22, 2014)

*Miss Global Warming Yet? If Not, Just Wait And You Might*

Larry Bell
1/21/14






...

Within only about half of a 30-year-long climate period later media attention shifted to a new and opposite threat&#8230;one that set Al Gore&#8217;s pants on fire during his 1988 Senate hearings on the matter. By that time the United Nations had already determined that global warming was a crisis and that human fossil fuel CO2 emissions were the cause.

To avoid any doubt of just how bad conditions were and who was most responsible the UN convened an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which rapidly fixed blame on rich nations. From there the UN was less than a frenetic hop, skip and jump away from prescribing solutions. In short order they established a cap and trade program (the Kyoto Protocol) to tax carbon emissions, plus demanded additional economic penance from developed countries for all that climate damage their prosperity is causing.

Then everything ran into an unanticipated snag&#8230;that &#8220;best laid plans of mice and men going awry&#8221; conundrum thing. Just when those random noise data IPCC hockey stick chart-producing computer programs predicted carbon dioxide-driven temperatures going orbital and sea levels flooding Capitol Hill, something went terribly wrong. Yup, in case you noticed, global temperatures went flat, and have stayed that way now since the time most of today&#8217;s high school students were born.

Incidentally, we&#8217;re at that time now  Al  predicted in his December 10, 2007 &#8220;Earth has a Fever&#8221; Nobel Prize acceptance speech that Arctic summer sea ice could &#8220;completely disappear&#8221;. Instead, the Arctic actually gained 920,000 square miles of ice during 2013 over 2012, the largest year-to-year increase since satellite records began.

But if you thought global warming was scary, here&#8217;s an alternative to consider.  Some really smart scientists predict that Planet Earth is now entering a very deep and prolonged cooling period attributable to 100-year record low numbers of sunspots. Periods of reduced sunspot activity correlate with increased cloud-forming influences of cosmic rays. More clouds tend to make conditions cooler, while fewer often cause warming.

...

During the mid-seventeenth century encroaching glaciers destroyed farms and villages in the Swiss Alps. Sea ice surrounding Iceland closed harbors to shipping. Boxed in and experiencing cereal crop farming failures, Iceland&#8217;s population fell by half.

In the late seventeenth century agriculture dropped off so dramatically that Alpine villagers lived on breads made from ground nutshells mixed with barley and oat flour. Famines claimed about ten percent of the people in France, Norway and Sweden, about one-fifth of those in Estonia, and one-third in Finland during the late 1600s.

...

Miss Global Warming Yet? If Not, Just Wait And You Might - Forbes









https://www.google.com/search?sourc...T4GGLL_enUS324US325&q=three+icebreakers+stuck


----------



## American_Jihad (Jan 22, 2014)

*Miss Global Warming Yet? If Not, Just Wait And You Might*​
Larry Bell
1/21/14







Within only about half of a 30-year-long climate period later media attention shifted to a new and opposite threat&#8230;one that set Al Gore&#8217;s pants on fire during his 1988 Senate hearings on the matter. By that time the United Nations had already determined that global warming was a crisis and that human fossil fuel CO2 emissions were the cause.

To avoid any doubt of just how bad conditions were and who was most responsible the UN convened an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which rapidly fixed blame on rich nations. From there the UN was less than a frenetic hop, skip and jump away from prescribing solutions. In short order they established a cap and trade program (the Kyoto Protocol) to tax carbon emissions, plus demanded additional economic penance from developed countries for all that climate damage their prosperity is causing.

Then everything ran into an unanticipated snag&#8230;that &#8220;best laid plans of mice and men going awry&#8221; conundrum thing. Just when those random noise data IPCC hockey stick chart-producing computer programs predicted carbon dioxide-driven temperatures going orbital and sea levels flooding Capitol Hill, something went terribly wrong. Yup, in case you noticed, global temperatures went flat, and have stayed that way now since the time most of today&#8217;s high school students were born.

Incidentally, we&#8217;re at that time now  Al  predicted in his December 10, 2007 &#8220;Earth has a Fever&#8221; Nobel Prize acceptance speech that Arctic summer sea ice could &#8220;completely disappear&#8221;. Instead, the Arctic actually gained 920,000 square miles of ice during 2013 over 2012, the largest year-to-year increase since satellite records began.

But if you thought global warming was scary, here&#8217;s an alternative to consider.  Some really smart scientists predict that Planet Earth is now entering a very deep and prolonged cooling period attributable to 100-year record low numbers of sunspots. Periods of reduced sunspot activity correlate with increased cloud-forming influences of cosmic rays. More clouds tend to make conditions cooler, while fewer often cause warming.

...

During the mid-seventeenth century encroaching glaciers destroyed farms and villages in the Swiss Alps. Sea ice surrounding Iceland closed harbors to shipping. Boxed in and experiencing cereal crop farming failures, Iceland&#8217;s population fell by half.

In the late seventeenth century agriculture dropped off so dramatically that Alpine villagers lived on breads made from ground nutshells mixed with barley and oat flour. Famines claimed about ten percent of the people in France, Norway and Sweden, about one-fifth of those in Estonia, and one-third in Finland during the late 1600s.

...

Miss Global Warming Yet? If Not, Just Wait And You Might - Forbes









https://www.google.com/search?sourc...T4GGLL_enUS324US325&q=three+icebreakers+stuck


----------



## Kosh (Jan 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If amateurs at WUWT can spot the problems then why don't the scientists in the industry?
> ...



Oh my the irony of that post.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If amateurs at WUWT can spot the problems then why don't the scientists in the industry?
> ...



Prove it.

And dont just quote some shill who hopes to get more grant money; show the numbers and where the lies are.



mamooth said:


> Just making it clear where we each stand. *The mainstream science side is honest, intelligent and independent*, while your denialist cult is a gaggle of bitter deluded political extremists.



Lol, anyone can google this stuff now, dude, your lies are easily found. It wasn't WUWT that fudged temperature data or faked results cherry picking their data, Einstein.

The changes Hanson made to HIS OWN TEMPERATURE records show what liars these people are.



mamooth said:


> Outside of the kook right fringe, denialism doesn't exist, because denialism is purely a political movement. In direct contrast, global warming science is non-political, crossing all political boundaries around the world.



Yeah, the Russian solar experts are right wing kooks, lololololo.

You really are a fool.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 22, 2014)

It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so.  So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so.  So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.



Science is not Consensus....



> I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
> 
> "Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.* Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus


.

Is There a "Consensus" in Science? Remembering the Late Michael Crichton - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 23, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so.  So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
> ...



I think what you wanted to say was that consensus was not science.  But both are incorrect.  What is it that makes accepted science, accepted?  A consensus among scientists.  Period.  If you want to reject that, then you reject ALL mainstream science.  You will have become a flat-Earther, UFO-nut, demonic-possession idiot.



> I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
> 
> "Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.* Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.



Michael Crichton was not a scientist.  His opinion here is simply incorrect.  The greatest scientists in the world are great because their experimental results convinced A CONSENSUS of the world's other scientists that they were correct.  There are no great, wrong scientists.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Ummm....Actually he was a Physician, a Physician is a scientist There is no consensus on global warming. the religious like yourself believe, because it is your belief and you want to believe. Politicians want the power, the scientist want the money. Global warmest are playing on people's emotions, there's no logic in what they do


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Prove it.



Not how it works. I've got the whole world on my side. You've got a deranged political blog that has a history of making shit up. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, not just cherrypicked nonsense crap.



> And dont just quote some shill who hopes to get more grant money;



You ought to apologize to scientists for declaring they're in it for the money. I know a few of these guys. On both an intellectual and a moral level, you're not worthy to sniff their jocks. They're honest, fiercely intelligent and independent, while you're a brainless political shill.

You don't understand how the grant system works. Say a scientists gets a million dollar grant. You know how much of that goes into his pocket? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a single penny. That's how the law works. All the money is tracked to an insane degree of precision.

You cultists won't care, however. You depend on that particular dishonest conspiracy theory, so you'll keep spouting it, even after you know it's bullshit. It's part of that lack of honesty thing which is common to nearly all denialists.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it.
> ...



Follow the money. The socialist are definitely on your side ..."The whole world"  not so much

50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on Global Warming - PolicyMic

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.123


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 23, 2014)

Jroc said:


> It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.




You fucking retards are so self-centered, you can't see beyond your own backyard.

*Australia is in the midst of their hottest year in over 100 years*, since they began measuring.

So it may be cold here (duh! It's winter!) but climate change is affecting the planet everywhere.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so.  So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.



Lol, after all the things posted all you remember is that the skeptics think Algore is a fucking fool?

Well, for the sake of prompting your memory.....


Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science












NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit



> As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts  also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998  an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
> 
> As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007  a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.









Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



> Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readabilitys sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
> 
> NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
> 
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?



> I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
> 
> However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with todays version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.









Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that dont understand computer programming, dont fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
 ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
 ; plot *past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted *to look closer to
 ; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
 ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
 ;
 ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions* (stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline*
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions *(stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)*

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so *many changes that aren't documented.*

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. *There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations*

...


Here, the* expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING *- so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
 the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). *What the hell is
 supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have *

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
 hitting *yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
 data integrity*, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).
printf,1,Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.
printf,1
 printf,1,*NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY
printf,1,REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values
printf,1,will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be*,
printf,1,which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful
printf,1,than it actually is. 

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
 printf,1,*'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
 printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
 printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
 printf,1,'observed temperatures*.'


.....


; *Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!*
 ;
 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
 (...)
 ;
 ; *APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION*
 ;
 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
 densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

*;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ****

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
 ; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
 ; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). *We have identified and
 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
 ; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
 ; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data*, and apply the same calibration
 ; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so.  So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
> ...



Yeah, the astronomers of Copernicus time had a firm consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe. Almost 100% consensus.

What denier would have the nerve to say any differently?

Well, honest ones, apparently and thank God.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it.
> ...



So if you cant prove it then shut the fuck up, lying bastard.

"I've got the whole world on my side" duh, duh, duh doesn't mean jack shit in science, ass hat.

And again you say that WUWT has a history of making things up but you refuse to provide the evidence, sop you are just lying, again.

Idiot.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.
> ...



As it ALWAYS HAS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, dude.

Come back when you have something new and intelligent to say how about?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 23, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


Bull.  Show me that link.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 23, 2014)

Freeze warnings in Corpus Christie, Tx. tonite 1/23


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Hey Abe --- I've got some credentialed vetted scientists for you that will back up Crighton. 
It IS a tenet of science that the better explanations not be based on opinion polling. Now matter how deep the pile of PhDs are... 



> *In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. *&#8213; Galileo Galilei



Or on the topic of allowing PERSONAL OPINION to rescue weak or shoddy work.... 



> Why do we put up with it? Do we like to be criticized? No, no scientist enjoys it. Every scientist feels a proprietary affection for his or her ideas and findings. Even so, you dont reply to critics, _""Wait a minute; this is a really good idea; Im very fond of it; its done you no harm; please leave it alone."" _
> 
> Instead, the hard but just rule is that if the ideas dont work, you must throw them away.
> &#8213; Carl Sagan,



And when you ask skeptics for PROOF that catastrophic GW isn't possible, my latest favorite scientist explains why they dont NEED to do that.. 



> So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.
> &#8213; Richard P. Feynman



Of course Feynman never lived long enough to see the IPCC evidence go down as their percent certainties went up... No doubt -- he'd have a comment...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years






Last 10,000 years





Anything else, hun?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Of course global warming is possible, and it is possible that human beings are somehow disproportionately responsible for this change, but solar activity/cycles and the historic evidence suggests this isn't necessarily a bad thing at all and is part of a continuing change in climate that our planet has ALWAYS had.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 23, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




Dr. Scotese is a geologist, not a climatologist.  You are posting geological temperatures, not weather temperatures.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> So if you cant prove it then shut the fuck up, lying bastard.



Yes! A total meltdown! I score big! Woohoo!

Jim, you realize that you're just here for the amusement of the adults, right? Oh wait, you don't realize it. That's what makes it even funnier.

Oh, if anyone with a brain would like to read mockery of WUWT and their crazy dishonest ways going back for years, try these.

HotWhopper

What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.

Wott's Up With That?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years



Shows a stable climate for the last 200,000 years, until now. Way to go to prove our case.



> Last 10,000 years



Deliberate cherrypick of one spot, thus fails hard. And it's truncated, probably deliberately so, to stop many years before the present. Extended up to 2013, that red line would be suddenly shooting up past -30, more or less in an eyeblink. Which would again prove our case.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




lol, you are so full of shit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > So if you cant prove it then shut the fuck up, lying bastard.
> ...



Mockery, unfounded accusations, blowing smoke and whining like a little bitch; but no facts, no evidence, and no class...typical Warmista.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years
> ...



That is hundreds of millions, not thousands, and the chart shows a variance of about 10 degrees C and we are on the lower part of the cycle, so why wouldn't anyone expct global temps to go back up?



mamooth said:


> > Last 10,000 years
> 
> 
> 
> Deliberate cherrypick of one spot, thus fails hard. And it's truncated, probably deliberately so, to stop many years before the present. Extended up to 2013, that red line would be suddenly shooting up past -30, more or less in an eyeblink. Which would again prove our case.



So what contrary evidence do you have instead?

That's right....NONE!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2014)

I'll admit that the surface land hasn't seen warming in many years. This is what we call the pause.

We of course can argue about the total system when it has to do with the oceans.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 24, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I'll admit that the surface land hasn't seen warming in many years. This is what we call the pause.
> 
> We of course can argue about the total system when it has to do with the oceans.



What you call the pause, We call natural fluctuations in climate due more to solar activity and water vapor more than anything else, But they just make stuff up for things they cant explain.


----------



## April (Jan 24, 2014)

I know I want MY Global Warming...schools closed here due to the freezing temps.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 24, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I'll admit that the surface land hasn't seen warming in many years. This is what we call the pause.
> 
> We of course can argue about the total system when it has to do with the oceans.



Since the AGW's are using the phrase 'Greenhouse gasses' the following analogy is appropriate, Matthew.

Say we have a greenhouse with a 20' high apex and a large 1,000 gallon water tank in the middle on the ground.

The temperatures inside go through basically four phases:

1) Morning; suns coming up and the temperatures at the apex rise first, the ground level temps climb next, then we see the water temperatures start to go up (after an initial continued decline prior to ground air temps warming up) as the lagging indicator.

2) Afternoon: all temperatures continue to rise at every level due to additional heat.

3) Evening: ground level temps fall first as what heat is still trapped rises to apex, apex plateaus for a while, and the water tank temperatures continue to climb until its temps are equal to the ground air, then it declines as well.

4) night time; all temps drop.

What we are seeing now is a distinct signature for phase 3.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 24, 2014)

AngelsNDemons said:


> I know I want MY Global Warming...schools closed here due to the freezing temps.



-7 where you are -23 windchill.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 24, 2014)

Jroc said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > I know I want MY Global Warming...schools closed here due to the freezing temps.
> ...



BUT, if you average that with the hot temps in Australia you will feel much warmer!



Ever hear the one about the statistician who had one foot in boiling water and one in ice water so he could feel comfortable in the average?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...


 I owe you another rep for that one


----------



## polarbear (Jan 24, 2014)

Jroc said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > I know I want MY Global Warming...schools closed here due to the freezing temps.
> ...



The "windchill"  is the killer, more so than the actual temperature because a body can loose over 1500 watts per m^2 even in moderate winds.
It may also be what is killing the AGW doomsday prophecies which tell you that the 1.5 watts/m^2 heat the CO2 is preventing  from being lost will warm the planet...and "prove" that with "computer models" where the wind does not chill anything.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 24, 2014)

Yesterday I went out to start my truck after my shower to warm it up. I was outside for all of 30 seconds and my hair froze solid lol


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2014)

polarbear said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...



Yeah -- actually I've been LOOKING for reports of sea ice building that even MENTION wind speeds, or currents or sea state or all the other DYNAMIC forces that move heat around. And it's silent. 
Very few reports on sea ice reference anything other than the air temp trends.. 

Here for instance, is a 2012 paper explaining AntArctic sea ice builds to wind speeds and patterns.. 

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Pretty juvenile to be describing ice building and melting with TEMPERATURE as the ONLY factor that matters..


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Looks like you're full of shit:


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> So what contrary evidence do you have instead?



Do keep up with the very basics of the science, will you please? Pretending that the real science is all a socialist conspiracy plays well with your cult, but most people aren't in your cult.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > So what contrary evidence do you have instead?
> ...



Did you draw that black line yourself?...What a wiki joke...it's -29 windchill here I'm freezing.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 24, 2014)

If it's Global Warming wot has given California what it deserves then I'm all for it.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 24, 2014)

Temperatures aren't even measured correctly by these nutjobs anyone who believes that stupid chart were temperatures are way up is a brainwashed idiot


----------



## polarbear (Jan 24, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



It is juvenile and none of these "experts" have any actual experience,   how thick ice does build when everything is factored in. 
No matter how cold the air above the ice is, the water below the ice continues to dissolve it.
That`s why we have to scrape the snow off the ice roads on our rivers and lakes. 
http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/provinces/northwest_territories/images/body/full/road.jpg






It`s not as if a chained up 180 000 pound Super B tanker truck would get stuck in a few inches of snow. 








That snow layer would insulate the ice below it and it would get too thin for heavy loads very quickly.

A "temperature anomaly" of a fraction of a degree above "normal" matters shit as far as ice thickness is concerned when the wind blows and starts chilling everything which is exposed to it at a rate of over 1500 watts per m^2 *as if it was 3 times as cold.*

These 1500 watts of heat energy that the wind chill removes from the ground does not heat up the air by any appreciable amount either.
The higher the wind speed the higher the mass of air was which removed the energy from a square meter of ground...and the temperature is wattsec divided by the mass and the specific heat. The heat energy from that 1 m^2 can longer contribute to the 15 µm  CO2 1.5 watt/m^2 "back radiation" but is removed at a rate ~ 1000 times higher by heat conduction and convection....which is the part where all these "energy budgets" and computer models are dead wrong:





The recent "polar vortex" resulted in wind chills of over -60 degrees in Canada and when that air mass which carried our Canadian "heat energy" got to New York it sure as shit did not warm them up.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 24, 2014)

Global Warming religionists are dancing naked in the streets of Noo Yawwwwk to demonstrate that their faith will keep them warm.  Importantly, though, they are not having intercourse in the streets as that would make them....well....a _special kind_ of idiots.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Lol, so you have to prove you don't understand science.

Any scientist can prove anything in any other field of science IF he follows the scientific method and has proper peer review. Of course the turf protection kicks in, but in theory it is true and once in a while you have cross pollination from one field to another.

In this case a geologist has taken ice core samples and derived the historical  temp record, and it doesn't matter that he is a geologist putting out FACTS that impact climate science.

And this is a good thing for science as a whole because it helps to prevent an echo chamber effect of scientists telling each other what they expect to hear.

But then dumbshits like you will just keep on repeating ad hominem bullshit like you have been if you hear/read it from the authority sources you trust.

Because, deep down, you don't have the slightest clue what science is about, and it is NOT the sycophantic network of ass kissers you seem to think it is.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 24, 2014)

If he took temperatures from ice cores, then he has collected temperature from the location of that ice.  Those are not global temperatures.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 24, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Global Warming religionists are dancing naked in the streets of Noo Yawwwwk to demonstrate that their faith will keep them warm.  Importantly, though, they are not having intercourse in the streets as that would make them....well....a _special kind_ of idiots.



That you have to make things up puts the lie quite clearly to your bullshit.

How much satisfaction can you possibly get from pushing such a pathetic fabrication?


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> How much satisfaction can you possibly get from pushing such a pathetic fabrication?



From the fabrication itself?

Oh a little.....

But the REAL satisfaction comes from seeing the GW faithful go into their buck-and-wing as a (measurable) result of it.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 25, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QtyR9KT8NU]Huge multi vehicle pileup on icy Indiana highway - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If he took temperatures from ice cores, then he has collected temperature from the location of that ice.  Those are not global temperatures.



Obviously, but where would one measure the global temperature? 

lol, no where, it is a calculation, and unlike the tree ring proxy data, ice core temps are consistent with modern mesurable temperatures.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 25, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > How much satisfaction can you possibly get from pushing such a pathetic fabrication?
> ...



Well, it might have been fiction, but it isn't far from reality, not at all.

600 strip naked on glacier in global warming protest | Greenpeace International


----------



## Jroc (Jan 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



it's some kind of religious ritual


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 25, 2014)

Did they select the most ugly of their number? 

Or are they ALL that way?


----------



## Jroc (Jan 25, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Did they select the most ugly of their number?
> 
> Or are they ALL that way?



 we've only got a year and a half until we are doomed.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 25, 2014)

Jroc said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Did they select the most ugly of their number?
> ...



But only if we are very, very lucky.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 25, 2014)

Detroit, coldest January on record, also most snow ever as well.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 26, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Abe --- I've got some credentialed vetted scientists for you that will back up Crighton.
> It IS a tenet of science that the better explanations not be based on opinion polling. Now matter how deep the pile of PhDs are...



That is not my contention.  And it is hard to believe your misstatement of my position is not intentional.  MY opinion is based on the consensus of the opinions of climate scientists which are based on the results of their studies.  It is NOT based on the opinions of the general public.  It is NOT based on the opinion of mass media talking heads.  It is NOT based on the opinions of political or entertainment celebrities.

A true consensus among true experts IS A VALID AUTHORITY.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Abe --- I've got some credentialed vetted scientists for you that will back up Crighton.
> ...



Yeah, that is why we know that Copernicus was WRONG as the Terra centric view of the universe was the consensus of the astronomers of his day.

"The Earth spins around the sun", lol, what a silly wanker.

/s


----------



## Jroc (Jan 28, 2014)

> *University of Michigan cancels classes Tuesday due to extremely cold weather in Ann Arbor*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



University of Michigan cancels classes Tuesday due to extremely cold weather in Ann Arbor | MLive.com


----------



## whitehall (Jan 29, 2014)

If you live in the great state of Louisiana or Florida and always wanted to wrestle an alligator now is the time to do it. They are too damned cold to bite you. You can depend on the radical left to change the wording from "global warming" to climate change when it's so damned cold that you can't go outside. It's a religion to the left. Their senses and instincts tell them it's freaking cold but they believe what the pervert guru warmer, Al Gore sezs and it must really be warm.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 29, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6UlsJVDmZM]Icy storm slams South Students Stranded on Highways | Winter Storm Strands Commuters & Students - YouTube[/ame]

Current map of Global warming












'Once in a generation' ice storm descends on South as brutal cold continues to blanket the Midwest - closing schools and grounding more than 2,600 flights | Mail Online


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 29, 2014)

Not  only schools closed.

Not only flights cancelled.

Global Warming Protest marches cancelled.

Some good HAS come of it!


----------



## mamooth (Jan 29, 2014)

Meanwhile, Alaska bakes under record highs.

And the kooks still don't understand what "global" means.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, Alaska bakes under record highs.
> 
> And the kooks still don't understand what "global" means.



And idiots like you still don't know what 'science' means.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2014)

> *Here we go again: Winter storm heading for Atlanta, Southeast*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.


Here we go again: Winter storm heading for Atlanta, Southeast - CNN.com


----------



## polarbear (Feb 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, Alaska bakes under record highs.
> 
> And the kooks still don't understand what "global" means.



which part of Alaska is "baking"?
Current Alaska Weather Map


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 11, 2014)

I see it's -9degF in DeadHorse Alaska right now.. 
Time to break out the sunscreen and the Eskimo Pies !!!!


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2014)

polarbear said:


> which part of Alaska is "baking"?



All of it, two weeks ago. Which is when I made the post. You left that bit of info out.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 11, 2014)

It was warmer in Anchorage at that point than it was in Palm Beach.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It was warmer in Anchorage at that point than it was in Palm Beach.



Super fun fact there.. So Anchorage is at the same lattitude as Oslo and Stockholm and is moderated by the proximity to the ocean..


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 11, 2014)

Lake Superior is expected to completely freeze over.   

Ice Expert Predicts Lake Superior Will Completely Freeze Over This Winter | CNS News


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 11, 2014)

Alaska is expected to completely melt.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It was warmer in Anchorage at that point than it was in Palm Beach.
> ...



Oslo and Stockholm are not exactly tropical locales and Palm Beach is also moderated by the ocean.  Except in Anchorage's case, the oceans offshore are part of the Kurushio current and have just finished passing through the Arctic while the oceans off Palm Beach, which has the narrowest continental shelf on the planet, are the Gulf Stream and have just finished an Equatorial traverse of the entire Atlantic Ocean.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2014)

> *Deadly ice and snow storm bears down on U.S. South *
> 
> A major winter storm that has caused at least six deaths unfurled across much of the U.S. South on Tuesday, and forecasters warned that ice could cripple road travel and bring widespread power outages in coming days.
> 
> ...



The Himalayan Times : Deadly ice and snow storm bears down on U.S. South - Detail News : Nepal News Portal


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It was warmer in Anchorage at that point than it was in Palm Beach.



Lol, well that was weather not climate change, unless you think there is any risk of Alaska becoming warmer than Miami within the next century.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Alaska is expected to completely melt.



lol, that was funny....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 12, 2014)

I luv me some snow; BRING ON THAT DANGED NEW ICE AGE! ! ! !


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

First rule of this debate:  Weather N.E. Climate


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2014)

As long as there's a pause = global warming is going to be impossible to defend in the eyes of many.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I luv me some snow; BRING ON THAT DANGED NEW ICE AGE! ! ! !



Jet stream = horizontal temperature gradient and Coriolis force.

Consequences of Rotation for Weather

When you change climate zones by shifting the climate you will have some effects on the jet streams position as it either shifts north or south. We're talking about a climate system out of balance right? So why can't the weather be more extreme just like a jar of hot water at a constant volume one second and yet after you change a variable like volume the system will have a period of extremes until it can get back into balance.

Think about it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I luv me some snow; BRING ON THAT DANGED NEW ICE AGE! ! ! !
> ...



Yeah, good point BUT it is kind of hard to predict how it will change.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 13, 2014)

Matthew said:


> As long as there's a pause = global warming is going to be impossible to defend in the eyes of many.



What pause?  The ToA imbalance is still present and growing.  The OHC, where >90% of thermal energy accumulation is stored, is rising and its rate increased significantly at the same time surface warming slowed.  Several theories relating the transfer of heat from the ocean surface to deeper waters to the reduction in the temperature of the SST, as well as temperatures corrected for data lacking at the poles essentially eliminate the surface warming hiatus. 

There has been no downward change in the basic rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy.  The energy is simply going to different places.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > As long as there's a pause = global warming is going to be impossible to defend in the eyes of many.
> ...



Why did it suddenly decide to hide in the deep ocean? Why is it going to "different places" NOW and not in the early 90s or 80s? Take all the time you need..


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 14, 2014)

I believe for the same reason the system changed in 1941.  I don't know why you should have a problem with this idea.  You're the one that's constantly pushing for non-linear response.  Why does the Pacific switch from Nina to Nino?  What causes the PDO?  I would suggest that this is simply a multi-decadal oscilllation to which the system is subject under conditions of external warming.

The fact that no denier has been able to overcome is that persistent ToA imbalance.  Until that zeroes, it is absolutely futile to claim that global warming has stopped.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 14, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I believe for the same reason the system changed in 1941.  I don't know why you should have a problem with this idea.  You're the one that's constantly pushing for non-linear response.  Why does the Pacific switch from Nina to Nino?  What causes the PDO?  I would suggest that this is simply a multi-decadal oscilllation to which the system is subject under conditions of external warming.
> 
> The fact that no denier has been able to overcome is that persistent ToA imbalance.  Until that zeroes, it is absolutely futile to claim that global warming has stopped.



Total mass of the worlds oceans is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1.5×10^18 short tons) or 1.4×10^21 kg.

Total mass of the world's atmosphere is The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×10^18 kg.

So the oceans have about 1,000 times the mass of the atmosphere, and would therefore hold thermal mass that would be a lagging indicator of change in climate or global average temperature.

Imagine a large tank of water in a large green house. After everything has reached  its lowest temperatures just as dawn breaks, the upper part of the green house air warms first, then the air close to the ground. The last thing to warm is the tank of water, and the same goes with the cooling cycle except the lower air on the ground cools first then the upper air, then last the water tank.

The oceans are a lagging indicator and they are cooling last. This wouldn't surprise any engineer with any real world experience.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 14, 2014)

But they aren't cooling at all.  They have been warming and the rate at which they warm has been increasing since 1998.  Does your aquarium in the greenhouse do that: Continue to grow warmer while  its environment is cooling?  Let's take an extreme.  We'll start with the aquarium at 15C but we'll raise the air to 40C.  Obviously, the aquarium begins to warm.  We wait till the aquarium hits 20C and then begin to lower the air temperature to 20C over a period of a few hours.  What does  the temperature in the tank do.  Since the air is still warmer than the tank, it continues to increase its temperature but it does so AT A DECREASING RATE.

It is not possible under the scenario you all are trying to push, for the temperature increase in the ocean to accelerate.

Besides which, as I've now stated numerous times.  The radiative imbalance at the ToA is insurmountable evidence that the world is still accumulating solar energy.  Until that stops, arguing otherwise is simply a waste of your breath.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 14, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> But they aren't cooling at all.  They have been warming and the rate at which they warm has been increasing since 1998.  Does your aquarium in the greenhouse do that: Continue to grow warmer while  its environment is cooling?



Well actually yes, for the relatively short period in which the air temperature is still warmer than the water tank though the air temperature is going down. that means the tank is still warming while the air temperatures are cooling. 

After the ground air temps and tank temps reach equality then the water tank starts cooling along with the air temps.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 14, 2014)

Snow Totals Piling Up Fast; 130 Year Old Record Falls « CBS Philly



> PHILADELPHIA (CBS) &#8212; The onslaught on Wintry Weather continues this morning. Snow is piling up fast across the Delaware Valley as our monster Nor&#8217;easter climbs up the Eastern seaboard.
> 
> And with the snowfall in the city of Philadelphia Thursday, a 130-year-old record was shattered. For the first time in the city&#8217;s history, there have been four 6+ inch snowfalls or more in season. In addition, we are now in the top 5 snowiest winters of all-time.
> 
> ...



So in summer its Global Warming, in winter  it's Climate Change I guess.


----------



## editec (Feb 14, 2014)

The E coast is freezing even as AZ and the W coast is having a heat wave.

GLBAL_ WEIRDING _strikes again!​


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 14, 2014)

editec said:


> The E coast is freezing even as AZ and the W coast is having a heat wave.
> 
> GLBAL_ WEIRDING _strikes again!​



So Kansas must be Goldie Locks perfect!

lol


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 15, 2014)

And what has all this cold weather in the US done to the global averages?   Did I hear someone say "Nothing"?  Bingo!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> And what has all this cold weather in the US done to the global averages?   Did I hear someone say "Nothing"?  Bingo!



There is nothing about real drops in temperature that can keep AGW cultists from doctoring the temperature records with 'adjusted' data to show whatever the hell they want the data to show.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 15, 2014)

The bi-polar left calls it global warming in the summer and "climate change" in the winter so they have the argument surrounded. The US has 1/6 the population of the world so why doesn't the left get off their flabby asses and convince the other 5/6 of the world that they are changing the weather? Oh, is it about American decadence? That's another problem the anti-American global warmists will have to work out. It's a religion to these people. They have to disregard geological history and ignore what their own senses tell them and have faith in spite of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I believe for the same reason the system changed in 1941.  I don't know why you should have a problem with this idea.  You're the one that's constantly pushing for non-linear response.  Why does the Pacific switch from Nina to Nino?  What causes the PDO?  I would suggest that this is simply a multi-decadal oscilllation to which the system is subject under conditions of external warming.
> 
> The fact that no denier has been able to overcome is that persistent ToA imbalance.  Until that zeroes, it is absolutely futile to claim that global warming has stopped.



Well if you are right about this being an effect of ocean oscillations and you probably are ,, then this would be a mighty powerful NEGATIVE feedback on warming.  MOST  of that swept away heat is never gonna leave Davy Jones from 700m deep..


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 15, 2014)

You might want to look up the AMOC before you make that claim.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You might want to look up the AMOC before you make that claim.



Lol, dude, if you have something to ASSERT, then why don't you just say it?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 15, 2014)

Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sound familiar?


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 16, 2014)

Jroc said:


> *Where's my Global Warming!  *



You're another moron, like Bill O'Reilly, who thinks the United States is the entire world.

Australia is dealing with the hottest weather on record currantly - 107+ degrees, forcing them to cancel sporting events.

BBC News - Heatwave halts Australian Open tennis matches

Australia's Horrifying Heatwave | TIME.com

Australian heatwaves more frequent, hotter and longer: Climate Council report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australian heatwaves getting hotter and longer, says Climate Council | World news | theguardian.com


Why are you so fucking ignorant, anyway?  Is it from all the FOXNEWS?

Oh, and btw - a question mark, not an exclamation point, should be at the end of your thread title.  But you're ignorant.  Whatcha gonna do?


----------



## bianco (Feb 16, 2014)

The globe stopped warming 16 years ago.

Global warming is a croc.


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > *Where's my Global Warming!  *
> ...









So, tell me Mr. "not ignorant".......what sort of temperature do you expect in a country that is 76% near desert/desert?

Hope you were looking in the mirror when you made that incredibly stupid statement.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 16, 2014)

I'm quite sure the Australians KNOW what's normal in Australia and what is not.

We all have mirrors.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sound familiar?



Lol, do you know what an  assertion is?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > *Where's my Global Warming!  *
> ...



A bunch of idiot journalists repeating theories based on bad science does not equate to ignorance on the part of those who reject the bad science.

BTW, eat shit.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 16, 2014)

The science has been good enough to convince the scientists.  What makes you think you know better?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm quite sure the Australians KNOW what's normal in Australia and what is not.
> 
> We all have mirrors.



That's good, for an OZie I guess, lol.

Point is Australia affirms a claimed pattern while another set of data suggests the theory invalid. That means the theory has problems at least.

If someone comes up with a theory and three thousand experiments support it, but ten disprove it, guess what Sherlock? The theory is disproven or at the very least any anomalies would show it needs revision.


The Anthropomorphic theory of Global Warming is in need of very heavy revision at a minimum.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2014)

bianco said:


> The globe stopped warming 16 years ago.
> 
> Global warming is a croc.



Your proof of which is?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite sure the Australians KNOW what's normal in Australia and what is not.
> ...



And your Phd is in which branch of atmospheric physics? 

When you, as a layman, make a statement like that, you had better back it up with a link to a credible source. Otherwise it is regarded as mere flap-yap.


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> > The globe stopped warming 16 years ago.
> ...



Because your global warming scientists say that it has stalled. Met Office in Britain for example.

*Global warming has STALLED since 1998: Met Office admits Earth's temperature is rising slower than first thought

    Earlier forecasts predicted a much steeper rise in global temperatures
    But latest figures from Met Office show slower rise than previously warned
    Figures raise questions about the true danger posed by greenhouse gasses 

*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ns-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Pray tell how did mankind cause the massive droughts of the past?

*The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. 

Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.*

Oh and in between droughts....

*Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.

Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. 

The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall  the kind that would cause devastating floods today.*

Scientists: Past California droughts have lasted 200 years


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 16, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Point is Australia affirms a claimed pattern while another set of data suggests the theory invalid. That means the theory has problems at least.



What are you talking about?  What pattern?  What data?  What theory?



JimBowie1958 said:


> If someone comes up with a theory and three thousand experiments support it, but ten disprove it, guess what Sherlock? The theory is disproven or at the very least any anomalies would show it needs revision.



The trouble is that NO experiments have disproven AGW.  If three thousand support AGW, however, and ten do not, guess what Sherlock?  AGW becomes accepted science.



JimBowie1958 said:


> The Anthropomorphic theory of Global Warming is in need of very heavy revision at a minimum.



You've presented nothing so far that would justify such a revision.  None of you have.  And it's "anthropogenic", not "anthropomorphic".  Completely different meaning.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 16, 2014)

> *The Great Lakes are on the cusp of a record for ice cover.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Deep freeze pushes Great Lakes ice cover to 88%, close to 1979 record | Detroit Free Press | freep.com


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 16, 2014)

bianco said:


> The globe stopped warming 16 years ago.
> 
> Global warming is a croc.


Enjoying your record heatwave, Aussie?


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


Maybe you should read slower, for comprehension: *it's the hottest in over 100 years*, since they have kept records.  

When was the last time they had to cancel the Australian Open, due to heat?  Never.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 16, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Over 95% of the world's climate scientists say there is global warming.

What are you basing this "bad science" on?  FOXNEWS nitwits like O'Reilly?


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 16, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bianco said:
> ...




Holy shit!  From your own link:


However, Dr Richard Allan of the  University of Reading said: Global warming is not at a standstill but  does seem to have slowed down since 2000, in comparison to the rapid  warming of the world since the 1970s.












+5


*In fact, consistent with rising greenhouse gases, heat is continuing to build up beneath the ocean surface. *


He was backed by Bob Ward of the London School of Economics, who said it would be wrong to interpret that warming had stopped.


However, he also condemned the Met Office for releasing data without an explanation of its full meaning.


*Its true to say this isnt the Met Offices finest hour, he said.*
*
*
*The sceptics have simply exploited  that fact. I think on this particular occasion the Met Office has fallen  short of the standards one would expect of them. *


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 16, 2014)

Jroc said:


> > *The Great Lakes are on the cusp of a record for ice cover.*
> >
> >
> >
> ...


That's from global warming, dumbass.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 16, 2014)

It's cold air that more typically stays above the Arctic Circle.  And for it to be over the American midwest means some OTHER mass of air is up north.  The temperature anomaly data show precisely that.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > > *The Great Lakes are on the cusp of a record for ice cover.*
> ...


...Oh Ok


----------



## Jroc (Feb 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It's cold air that more typically stays above the Arctic Circle.  And for it to be over the American midwest means some OTHER mass of air is up north.  The temperature anomaly data show precisely that.



Oh really?...so how were the Great Lakes formed again?....Oh yeah, the climate has changed since then. So is climate change something New?..No it isn't. Can man control the climate? No he can't. Get over yourself, or just admit global warming is a religion, and pray with your proselytizing, bought and paid for, scientists.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The science has been good enough to convince the scientists.  What makes you think you know better?



Not ALL scientists, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



1) Science does not operate on votes, dude, nor consensus. If you understood science you would know that. Copernicus was right even though he went against the scientific consensus of his time.

2) The 'adjustments' to the temperature data are fraudulent. For example the heat island effect is being used to raise temps to urban levels instead of reducing urban temps at invalid sites to rural temps.

Fox News is like all the other networks; 95%a entertainment and 5% substance.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 20, 2014)

> *Farmers Almanac more accurate than government climate scientists*
> 
> This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers Almanac predicted this winter would be bitterly cold.
> 
> ...






> Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey, and also predicted a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.
> 
> Were using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. Its going to be very cold, Sandi Duncan, the almanacs managing editor, told CBS News in August.





> The Farmers Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles  a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists dont put much stock in the almanacs way of doing things, the book says its accurate about 80 percent of the time.




Report: Farmers? Almanac more accurate than government climate scientists | The Daily Caller


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Basing it on idiots like you who do not know how science works.

You think it is something they vote on or something, but it isn't.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> > The globe stopped warming 16 years ago.
> ...



Weather, not climate, lol


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


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



Yeah, cause using 'adjusted' data proves so much, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > > *The Great Lakes are on the cusp of a record for ice cover.*
> ...



Do you know what a tautology is?

When record freezes are also predicted by 'global warming' you essentially have an untestable hypothesis, which means it is NOT SCIENCE, dumbass.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 21, 2014)

Climate has ALWAYS changed!
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years






Last 10,000 years






Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science












NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit



> As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts &#8211; also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony&#8216;s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 &#8211; an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen&#8217;s Y2K error.
> 
> As CA readers recall, Hansen&#8217;s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 &#8211; a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.









Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



> Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability&#8217;s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
> 
> NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
> 
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?



> I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
> 
> However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today&#8217;s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.









Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don&#8217;t understand computer programming, don&#8217;t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
 ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
 ; plot *past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted *to look closer to
 ; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
 ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
 ;
 ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions* (stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline*
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions *(stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)*

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so *many changes that aren't documented.*

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. *There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations*

...


Here, the* expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING *- so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
 the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). *What the hell is
 supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have *

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
 hitting *yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
 data integrity*, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,&#8217;(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).&#8217;
printf,1,&#8217;Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.&#8217;
printf,1
 printf,1,*&#8217;NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY&#8217;
printf,1,&#8217;REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values&#8217;
printf,1,&#8217;will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be*,&#8217;
printf,1,&#8217;which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful&#8217;
printf,1,&#8217;than it actually is. 

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
 printf,1,*'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
 printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
 printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
 printf,1,'observed temperatures*.'


.....


; *Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!*
 ;
 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
 (...)
 ;
 ; *APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION*
 ;
 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
 densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

*;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ****

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
 ; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
 ; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). *We have identified and
 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
 ; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
 ; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data*, and apply the same calibration
 ; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Feb 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Warming, that explains why I had ice grow from my guttering to the ground for the first time ever. 

No science involved in that huh


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not "settled" Sorry you people are acting on faith, and Al Gore and the rest of his kind make millions of dollars off you people. Kind of like a corrupt preacher
> ...





> Al Gore did a very good thing with his film


Yeah he proved that he could continually lie about global warming and gullible idiots like yourself would believe him no matter what.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

What lie or lies do you believe he has told?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Climate has ALWAYS changed!
> Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years



What's the temperature record for the duration of human civilization look like?



JimBowie1958 said:


> Last 10,000 years



Except this isn't a record of global temperatures.  This is a SINGLE Greenland ice core.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These are lovely pictures. But you've presented neither the provided justifications for these changes or any evidence that such justification is lacking or any evidence that these changes were made to make GW look worse.  You've provided nothing except evidence that the data were adjusted.  Hardly a significant revelation as the point was never hidden by anyone.



JimBowie1958 said:


> > As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts  also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998  an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
> >
> > As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007  a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.



Look at that red line folks and tell us that you believe THAT to be an accurate measure of global temperatures over that time period.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does the author make ANY attempt to even gloss over the justification given for these changes?  No.  This isn't a search for the truth, it's unwarranted slander.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Two points.  
1) The author does state that this is a compendium of code snippets but then formats it in a manner to give the impression that all of this came from a single file.  It did not.  These were collected across dozens, perhaps hundreds of files and were very likely selected for their susceptibility to mischaracterization
2) The adjustments made here, as can be seen from the comments, were those needed to "hide the decline".  As one can ALSO see from the comments, the "decline" is the idiopathic change in the ring width-to-temperature proportionality factor that took place in the 20th century.  Proxy data always requires calibration against instrumented records and that can be seen being done here as well - though the author attempts to give that some devious implication. 

This entire post is a reeking pile of hot steaming bullshit.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 26, 2014)

Is it ever gonna warm up? Damn global warming. Record cold in Detroit tomorrow again -6 to -15


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Mind your fingers and toes.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Mind your fingers and toes.



Wow, did you ever unleash a cascading torrent of memories.

I haven't seen or heard that since about 1964.

Thanks for reminding me of my senility, lol.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

Sorry to hear about that.  At least you're aware of your condition.  That's pretty rare.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 28, 2014)

2014 is going to be a very interesting year, weatherwise.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 28, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 2014 is going to be a very interesting year, weatherwise.



Agreed, as for most of us it always is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 28, 2014)

Well, there is a very good chance that those areas most affected by this cold winter, may have a summer as extreme in the other direction. 

Just noticed your location. What an amazing lot of history in just one small town. Visited there for a day on a trip covering Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown. Best fudge, and variety of fudge, I ever had in the little candy shop there.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 28, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, there is a very good chance that those areas most affected by this cold winter, may have a summer as extreme in the other direction.



May, but the effect a very cold Great Lakes system may have on regional weather is kind of hard to calculate, isn't it? It must have some impact, but to what degree?

And we seem to be heading into a la nina cycle






So my amateurish WAG is we will have a very cool summer, relatively speaking.



Old Rocks said:


> Just noticed your location. What an amazing lot of history in just one small town. Visited there for a day on a trip covering Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown.



Yes, more American blood has been shed in Spotsylvania County than any other spot in the world. Especially since Fredericksburg is technically part of the county despite their feud.



Old Rocks said:


> Best fudge, and variety of fudge, I ever had in the little candy shop there.



I've heard; I cant eat fudge any more.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Feb 28, 2014)

Up to another foot of snow forcasted for this weekend. Ughhhhhh

Sick of it


----------



## mamooth (Feb 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> And we seem to be heading into a la nina cycle



Everyone else is predicting the opposite. However, El Nino tends to make for cooler summers for the eastern USA.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What lie or lies do you believe he has told?



Everything dumbass.  Every goddamn thing that Al Gore has said about global warming is a lie and you are one of those just gullible enough to believe and accept Al Gore's bullshit rant.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.  You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > And we seem to be heading into a la nina cycle
> ...



Well, I hope you are right.

I was just looking at the chart and noticing what looked like a beginning of a la nina and took a WAG.

I would prefer  a warm summer myself.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.  You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.





> Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.



Wrong again, dumbass.

Those aren't "unsubstantiated assertions".  It is a well known fact that Al Gore is a habitual liar, but I know in your small & feeble liberal mind, you refuse to believe and accept anything that says that he lied about Global Warming, and so you go on like the good little kool-aid drinking gullible idiot promoting the lies over and over.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.  You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.
> ...



As the saying goes, "Just saying it doesn't make it so".  I'm not the one making extreme claims without the first hint of evidence.  If he's a "habitual liar" you should have no problem quoting demonstrable lies from the man.  Until you do, all we have are your unsubstantiated assertions which, in regard to this sort of disagreement, are of significantly less value than would be a hot crock of shit.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





> all we have are your unsubstantiated assertions which, in regard to this sort of disagreement, are of significantly less value than would be a hot crock of shit



No, all we have is your proven loyalty and gullibility in Al Gore who has spewed lies over and over about global warming and yet you stand by and defend the liar.  

What the corrupt Al Gore's lies about global warming amount to is significanty less value than a hot crock of shit.  

Hey shit-for-brains,

You want proof, here's proof, but we both know that you will dispute it all.  Because in your mind, Al Gore was never wrong no matter what.  You sure are gullible.

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton


----------



## mamooth (Mar 3, 2014)

Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.

The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.
> 
> The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.



Lol, you lose the discussion and then revert to sarcasm.

Typical libtard bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

"Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.


----------



## Jroc (Mar 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> "Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.



You choose Al Gore?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.  You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.
> ...



*Flap-yap from an ignoramous. Link or be considered a liar.*

A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments - News from Parliament - UK Parliament

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

*See, that is how it is done. Monkton is a liar.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > "Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.
> ...



OK, dumb ass, point out the lies concerning AGW in Gore's lectures or movie. With links and backing scientific material.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.
> ...



I won't bother to be sarcastic. I will simply tell you flat out, if you are claiming that almost all the scientists in the world are incompetant or in on some vast conspiracy, you are tin hat material. Grow up, learn to accept reality. 'The way things oughta be' is an idiots response to reality. Getting one's view of reality from an obese junkie doesn't say much for your intellect.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 4, 2014)

Coldest start to March is KC history. As a bonus we got 2 inches of ice & sleet


----------



## Roudy (Mar 4, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Now that's ironic.


----------



## Jroc (Mar 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



all of it, Al Gore loves you idiots. He makes lots of money off of you


----------



## Roudy (Mar 4, 2014)

Jroc said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


That article on NASA was very interesting, thanks.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

"STOP DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE! I WANT TO RAGE AT PEOPLE!"-- the denialist mantra.

When a group puts so much effort in deflecting discussions away from the science, as denialists do, that's a sure sign they're engaging in cult pseudoscience.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Its not conspiracy for the most part, it is group think by a bunch of scientists afraid to break with their perception of what 'everyone knows'. S small percentage of scientists who should know are focused solely on their particular issues and not digging into things that might cost them ability to publish in scientific journals and thus lose tenure.

The scientific establishment has a long history of consensus on things that were regarded as fact but were entirely wrong, like eugenics, Piltdown Man, flogiston, etc. Then there were many theories that were long ridiculed for decades until the evidence simply became over-whelming then finally accepted like Continental drift and LENR.

But people like you do not have the courage to buck the system, and that I cannot explain unless its just that you suffer from over-regard for science.

IT has a long list of limitations and failures.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> "STOP DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE! I WANT TO RAGE AT PEOPLE!"-- the denialist mantra.
> 
> When a group puts so much effort in deflecting discussions away from the science, as denialists do, that's a sure sign they're engaging in cult pseudoscience.



You mean like this science and forensic evidence?

Climate has ALWAYS changed!
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years






Last 10,000 years






Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science












NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit



> As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts  also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998  an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
> 
> As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007  a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.









Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



> Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readabilitys sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
> 
> NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
> 
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?



> I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
> 
> However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with todays version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.









Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that dont understand computer programming, dont fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
 ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
 ; plot *past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted *to look closer to
 ; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
 ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
 ;
 ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions* (stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline*
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions *(stop in 1960 to avoid
 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)*

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so *many changes that aren't documented.*

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. *There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations*

...


Here, the* expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING *- so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
 the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). *What the hell is
 supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have *

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
 hitting *yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
 data integrity*, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).
printf,1,Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.
printf,1
 printf,1,*NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY
printf,1,REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values
printf,1,will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be*,
printf,1,which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful
printf,1,than it actually is. 

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
 printf,1,*'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
 printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
 printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
 printf,1,'observed temperatures*.'


.....


; *Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!*
 ;
 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
 (...)
 ;
 ; *APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION*
 ;
 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
 densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

*;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ****

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
 ; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
 ; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). *We have identified and
 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
 ; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
 ; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data*, and apply the same calibration
 ; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

So you're just reposting the same old debunked list of cherrypicks, distortions and fabrications now.

No point in debunking it all again, since you'd simply repost it all again.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So you're just reposting the same old debunked list of cherrypicks, distortions and fabrications now.
> 
> No point in debunking it all again, since you'd simply repost it all again.




It was never debunked you fucking liar.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> It was never debunked you fucking liar.



I could go down the line with the debunkings, yet another time, but I'll just save time, show the first point was debunked, and thus demonstrate you're merely parroting cult propaganda.

Your first bit is "CO2 always follows climate". That strange claim relies on the logical fallacy that the present must act exactly like the past, even if present conditions are wildly different. It's debunked by common sense. If conditions are different now, the outcome will be different. That's been pointed out to you, and you had no response, other than to repost the same debunked nonsense. Same all the way down the line.

And while you may think your cult leaders appreciate the way you've tossed away your integrity for the goals of the cult, they actually consider you to be a UsefulIdiot and hold you in contempt. You'll be left hung out to dry whenever it's convenient for them to do so.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > It was never debunked you fucking liar.
> ...



That does not debunk anything. The statement is that the historical record shows CO2 lagging behind temperature fluctuations. That does not prove that it will always be this way but it does show that you have to make the case that CO2 is now for the first time we know of actually driving the global temperatures.

And you have failed to anything of the sort.



mamooth said:


> And while you may think your cult leaders appreciate the way you've tossed away your integrity for the goals of the cult, they actually consider you to be a UsefulIdiot and hold you in contempt. You'll be left hung out to dry whenever it's convenient for them to do so.



There is no cult except in your fevered imagination.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

Wow more Global Warming pics

Niagara Falls comes to frozen halt AGAIN as subfreezing temperatures freeze water | Mail Online


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 4, 2014)

More Global Warming .... errr.... I meant to say, Climate Change.

Then this summer it will be Global Warming again.

Atlantic City, New Jersey - Coldest March Temp since 1800s!!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



STFU stupid!

The only ignoramus's around here is the gullible shit-for-brains idiots like yourself who believe and accept the lies of global warming, and continue to spread those lies over and over.  

You are whining just like Dishonest Abe does.  Whining for a link or some proof.  Crybaby.

Here some proof:
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton

We both know that you will automatically reject anything that says Al Gore is a liar or global warming is a lie, because it doesn't support your belief in the bullshit lies of global warming.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 4, 2014)

I'll continue believing the best meteorological organizions on gods earth.  Do I believe our understanding is complete? fuck no. This is why I am a skeptic!


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 4, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Do you have any idea what a stupid ass you sound when you tell people who just clearly demonstrated that you're wrong to "shut up"?

Is that why you wear the makeup? To avoid being spotted on the street?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



:

    You are an idiot if you really think that gullible Old shit-for-brains "clearly demonstrated that I'm wrong", but then again, you were gullible enough to believe in the lies of global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

Well, your wonderfully erudite posts certainly thrill everyone on the board. Everyone that enjoys the maudlin ranting of an imbecile.


----------



## Jroc (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Dude anyone who believes the propaganda of that conman Al Gore has some serious issues, or you may be invested in trading of carbon credits which would mean you're part of the scam?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Do you disagree that using "shut up" in a debate makes someone look exceptionally stupid?


----------



## Jroc (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you disagree that using "shut up" in a debate makes someone look exceptionally stupid?



Sometimes people get frustrated...who cares


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you disagree that using "shut up" in a debate makes someone look exceptionally stupid?



Dude, this isn't a debate. In a debate both sides answer questions and you Warmistas do not.

Now when people claim that 'X' has been 'debunked' but wont say why since 'it has already been said', THAT does look stupid. It looks like a stupid cheap trick to claim a win where there was none and rely on the opponent to not bother.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you disagree that using "shut up" in a debate makes someone look exceptionally stupid?
> ...



Some people on this thread like Mamooth should shut up. They add nothing to the discussion and are not any better than a partisan troll.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Once again, you take a complex and nuanced situation and reduce it to simplistic absurdity.

Viscount Monckton, who is a Lord, though not a member of the House of Lords, feels that Tony Blairs House of Lords Act of 1999 was unconstitutional, an act which turned the House of Lords from a hereditary body that had to approve legislation from the House of Commons into a House of political appointees, or a 'House of Cronies'.

The house of Lords Act was strongly opposed by a number of lords and Monckton was only one of them, and many of them consider it unconstitutional along with Monckton.

House of Lords Act 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The House of Lords Bill was expected to face a tough fight in the House of Lords. Several Lords threatened to disrupt the Government's other bills if they continued with the plan to abolish the hereditaries' right to sit in the House of Lords. The Earl of Onslow, for instance, said, "I'm happy to force a division on each and every clause of the Scotland Bill. Each division takes 20 minutes and there are more than 270 clauses."[20] Lords had plenty of other means by which they could obstruct the Government's programme.
> 
> On 19 January 1999, the Leader of the House of Commons, Margaret Beckett, introduced the House of Lords Bill into the House of Commons.[2] The House of Commons passed the bill by a vote of 340 to 132 on 16 March.[24] The next day it was presented to the House of Lords, where debate on the bill was far longer. One significant amendment made to the Bill was the so-called Weatherill Amendment, named for the Lord Weatherill, the former Speaker of the House of Commons. The Weatherill Amendment put into place the deal agreed to by the Prime Minister and Viscount Cranborne, and allowed ninety-two hereditary peers to remain members of the House of Lords.[25]
> 
> ...



Tony's Cronies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> During his first term of office, Blair created 203 life peers, whom the Conservatives referred to as "Tony's Cronies".[3] In 1999, William Hague, the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Opposition, referred in the House of Commons to the House of Lords Bill, which would become the House of Lords Act 1999, as replacing the House of Lords with a "house of cronies."[4] When the bill was passed, it removed the rights of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords; they were replaced by life peers and the House of Lords was called "a chamber of Tony's Cronies", as a large number of life peers had been appointed by Blair to replace the hereditary peers.[5] However, while the bill was going through the Parliamentary stages, the Conservative hereditary peers voted through an amendment that an independent body, which became known as the House of Lords Appointments Commission, would be created to check all further nominations to the House of Lords. This was intended to prevent the Prime Minister from being able to create new life peers at will or on personal grounds.[6] It also made the provision for "people's peers" to be created, independent of political influence, which was viewed in the media as a way to balance against "Tony's Cronies".[7]
> 
> Despite the House of Lords Act removing a large amount of Conservative Peers, the Conservatives still held a majority in the House of Lords, leading Blair to appoint more and more peers; in 2004 alone he made 23 new appointments.[8] This came after Conservative peers sometimes voted with crossbenchers and Liberal Democrat peers against Labour's proposed legislation. It was also due to poor attendance from the Labour Party's working peers.[9] In 2005, Blair appointed 16 new life peers to the House of Lords, giving Labour their first ever majority in the House.[10] These regular appointments of new peers on apparent favouritism was criticized by the Scottish National Party's chief whip, Pete Wishart, as a "typical Establishment fix".



Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, SMOM (born 14 February 1952) is a British public speaker[1] and hereditary peer. He is known for his work as a journalist, Conservative political advisor, UKIP political candidate and for his invention of the mathematical puzzle Eternity.[2]
> 
> Early on in his public speaking career topics centered on his mathematical puzzle and conservative politics.[1] In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to controversial views on climate change,[3][4][5][6] the European Union[7] and social policy.



So Viscount Monckton isn't a liar, he just disagrees with Labor's arbitrary changes to the 'unwritten Constitution' of the UK, and his political opponent are making a big deal of his opposition as though he is engaging in fraud when he is only stating how he thinks should still be.

More typical  libtard bullshit.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Mar 5, 2014)

> Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap
> 
> Climate change skeptics are pointing to the record cold weather as evidence that the globe isn't warming. But it could be that melting Arctic ice is making sudden cold snaps more likelynot less
> 
> Read more: Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather |


 TIME.com Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather | TIME.com

Performing uncontrolled and uncontrollable experiments on a system we don't understand is so intelligent.

psik


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 5, 2014)

If not the ocean then back into space  lol


----------



## westwall (Mar 5, 2014)

Matthew said:


> If not the ocean then back into space  lol








Or, maybe it never even arrived.  The "cold Sun" and all of that....


----------



## Roudy (Mar 5, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> > Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap
> >
> > Climate change skeptics are pointing to the record cold weather as evidence that the globe isn't warming. But it could be that melting Arctic ice is making sudden cold snaps more likelynot less
> >
> ...


Like I said before, the Global Warming point of view as follows:

It gets cold = It's because of Global Warming
It gets hot = It's because of Global Warming
*There is no time when it's not because of Global Warming.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 5, 2014)

Roudy said:


> Like I said before, the Global Warming point of view as follows:



Nah. that's just your crazy point of view. The normal people all understand that warming means warming. It's solely the denialists here who attribute everything to warming. It must be something their cult teaches them to say.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 5, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Some people on this thread like Mamooth should shut up. They add nothing to the discussion and are not any better than a partisan troll.



I apologize for getting Jim so flustered. I sometimes forget just how emotionally invested denialists are in the mythology of their cult's infallibility. When we point out their cult has been lying to them, that's hard for them to process, and they lash out in response. I'll try to be gentler in the future, more considerate of Jim's delicate sensibilities.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

So to all the AGW cultists:

How much money have you given to the church of AL Gore? do you give money every time you post to offset the carbon you use?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, your wonderfully erudite posts certainly thrill everyone on the board. Everyone that enjoys the maudlin ranting of an imbecile.



And everyone like yourself who is a good, little, kool-aid drinking, gullible moron has enjoyed the raving lunatic bullshit spewing rantings of one Al Gore.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

I got a challenge for you.  Find an Al Gore quote - or even just a reference to something Al Gore has done - from one of us "good, little, kool-aid drinking, gullible morons" at any point in, say, the last YEAR.

And, when you cannot find such a thing, come back here and we'll all line up  neatly so you can plant a bit wet kiss on each and every one of our good, liitle, kool-aid drinking gullible, moron asses.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

You have to remember that these AGW cultist have nothing to base their religion, otherwise they would post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Then again they also try and promote that all CO2 is man made.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> You have to remember that these AGW cultist have nothing to base their religion, otherwise they would post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Then again they also try and promote that all CO2 is man made.



Email the people that have the code.  Maybe they will explain it to you in terms of a 7th grader can even understand! Nothing me or the rest of us warmers will ever convince you otherwise.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > You have to remember that these AGW cultist have nothing to base their religion, otherwise they would post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Then again they also try and promote that all CO2 is man made.
> ...



So in other words you have zero links to datasets with source code that proves your AGW cultist religion.

Basically it is based on a belief rather than actual science as has been pointed out time and time again.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Silly dumb fuck, you don't even understand the idiocy of the question you are asking. You want to know what the scientists who deal specifically in this kind of physics state, here is a link from the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The absorption spectrum of CO2 is all you need to establish the effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. And we have already added more than 40% of the amount there was prior to the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, your wonderfully erudite posts certainly thrill everyone on the board. Everyone that enjoys the maudlin ranting of an imbecile.
> ...



In other words, not a single link to a reputable source that provided evidence that AGW is not a fact. In fact, every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every major University have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

All silly ass willfully ignorant fools like you have are the statements of fools with no credentials, and the ranting of obese junkies on the radio.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2014)

Want to know why the weather is so schizo?  Simple actually, it's because the jet stream (the dividing line between warm southern weather and cold northern weather) has been going lower and lower more times in recent history.

What is causing this?  Many scientists say that it's because of all the pollution in the air, which causes the jet stream to act erratically.

Nope, it's not so much global warming, it's more like global climate change, and if we don't do something soon, it's gonna end up changing the places where we can and can't grow crops.

If we don't adjust, we're all gonna die.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 5, 2014)

You just gotta have faith. Even when your senses and the freaking weather channel tells you it's cold it's really global warming. If you have faith in global warming you don't even have to argue, all you have to do is call normal people "deniers" or even "heretics" for failing to believe. If the majority of low information democrat voters ever figure out that the earth revolves around the sun the warmers might be in trouble.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2014)

whitehall said:


> You just gotta have faith. Even when your senses and the freaking weather channel tells you it's cold it's really global warming. If you have faith in global warming you don't even have to argue, all you have to do is call normal people "deniers" or even "heretics" for failing to believe. If the majority of low information democrat voters ever figure out that the earth revolves around the sun the warmers might be in trouble.



No, it's global CLIMATE CHANGE.

And.................you've gotta admit..................when places like Vancouver and Sochi are having problems with keeping enough snow around for the Winter Olympics, yet places like Atlanta and Washington DC end up getting snowed in (because of the screwy way the jet stream dropped south), there is some kind of climate change showing up.

But.....................keep sticking your head in the sand.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Are you a dumbass?  Don't answer that because I already know the answer.

Once again you request a link, and I have already provide proof not only in this thread, but also in the thread started by Dishonest Abe, "_Evidence that global warming is happening"_.  Are you too lazy or too stupid to do a search?

But I ask you, why do you or any of you kool-aid drinking gullible idiots want to see some kind of proof that disproves the bullshit lies about global warming that you all believe and accept? 

All any of you will do when you see something that disputes your belief in global warming as a lie, is that you will automatically reject it because it doesn't support the bullshit that you so faithfully believe in.  

*AGW IS NOT REAL*

16 Signs That ?Global Warming? Was A Lie And That We Have Now Entered A Period Of Global Cooling


----------



## Jroc (Mar 5, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Want to know why the weather is so schizo?  Simple actually, it's because the jet stream (the dividing line between warm southern weather and cold northern weather) has been going lower and lower more times in recent history.
> 
> What is causing this?  Many scientists say that it's because of all the pollution in the air, which causes the jet stream to act erratically.
> 
> ...




You people are sooo... full of yourselves. We cant control the climate. Not possible, never has been possible. If the climate is changing, it's changing. it's always changing, always has been.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2014)

Jroc said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Want to know why the weather is so schizo?  Simple actually, it's because the jet stream (the dividing line between warm southern weather and cold northern weather) has been going lower and lower more times in recent history.
> ...



Never said anything about controlling the climate.  

What I DID say was that because of the cumulative effect of all the crap we've dumped into the atmosphere, that is the reason that the jet stream has decided to go all erratic.

Yes, you are correct, the climate DOES change, and will always change, but the garbage we put in the air will have some kind of effect over time.

It's not an intended consequence, but it's something that is happening because of what we've been doing.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I got a challenge for you.  Find an Al Gore quote - or even just a reference to something Al Gore has done - from one of us "good, little, kool-aid drinking, gullible morons" at any point in, say, the last YEAR.
> 
> And, when you cannot find such a thing, come back here and we'll all line up  neatly so you can plant a bit wet kiss on each and every one of our good, liitle, kool-aid drinking gullible, moron asses.



Bah, the controversy goes back much further than that, so why limit it to the last year?

On The Coldest Day In America In 20 Years, Here Are Al Gore?s Stupidest Global Warming Quotes



> America could actually use some global warming right about now.  It is being projected that low temperatures across the Midwest could be 30 to 50 degrees below average on Monday morning.  On Sunday, fans that attempted to tailgate before the playoff game between the 49ers and the Packers at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin were discovering that their beers were actually turning to ice before they could drink them.  That is cold.  But things are going to get really chilly when nightfall arrives.  In fact, it is being projected that much of the nation will experience wind chill temperatures of more than 40 degrees below zero, and wind chill temperatures of more than 50 degrees below zero are expected in parts of North Dakota and Minnesota.  The weather is expected to be so cold that the governor of Minnesota has actually decided to close public schools statewide on Monday.  The last time that happened was back in 1997.  The reason why the governor of Minnesota did this is because when temperatures get this low they can literally be life threatening.  When wind chill temperatures get down to about 50 below zero, if your skin is exposed you can literally develop frostbite in about five minutes.  This is being called the coldest day in America in 20 years, and these cold temperatures have many Americans wondering what ever happened to all of that global warming that Al Gore and other climate scientists have been warning us about for so many years.
> 
> If the planet really is getting significantly warmer, our winters should not be like this.  Back in the year 2000, one prominent climate scientist boldly declared that future generations of children just arent going to know what snow is.
> 
> ...





> So are we really experiencing global warming?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> ...



And here is some more if you really need it...

Just how stupid is Al Gore, anyway? - Louisville Public Policy | Examiner.com


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Do you know what percentage of the greenhouse gases CO2 is? Do you know what the most catalytic of the greenhouse gases are?

Do you subscribe to this untestable, nonscientific theory of Climate Change that essentially states that no matter how the weather changes it affirms climate change? Do you subscribe to this tautology that implies that the Earth's Climate should not change?

Do you agree that the warming we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1820 correlates with the increase in human created CO2 and therefore this additional CO2 MUST be causing the increase in temperatures?

IF so, then you really do not understand what science is. You simply accept the word of people who have socially engineered their way into positions of authority and you are not capable of evaluating it for yourself.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > You have to remember that these AGW cultist have nothing to base their religion, otherwise they would post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Then again they also try and promote that all CO2 is man made.
> ...



Matthew, you really should look at this:

Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years






Last 10,000 years






Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science












NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit



> As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts  also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998  an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
> 
> As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007  a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.









Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



> Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readabilitys sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
> 
> NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
> 
> ...



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Any decent scientist should be able to reproduce the RAW data set.

That is all that Kosh is asking for, so why cant any of you Warmistas give him a link to these datasets?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



lol, isn't it funny how you Warmistas have to keep loading your terms with fudge words?

Ah, that scientist objects to AGW? then he isn't reputable, lol.


----------



## Roudy (Mar 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, the Global Warming point of view as follows:
> ...


Please us at what point does the Global Warming hypothesis fail then. What are the events that need to occur? Record low temperatures?  Record number of storms?  Record snow levels?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Want to know why the weather is so schizo?  Simple actually, it's because the jet stream (the dividing line between warm southern weather and cold northern weather) has been going lower and lower more times in recent history.
> 
> What is causing this?  Many scientists say that it's because of all the pollution in the air, which causes the jet stream to act erratically.
> 
> ...



And the Earth's climate has never changed before? Not since homo sapiens evolved?

Really?

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Then what is the point of all these Luddite laws the Warmistas keep pushing like the Kyoto Protocal and the laws it would have entailed?

To die starving in the heat?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Roudy said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



The AGW Climate Change theory cannot fail; it is a tautology.

And the Warmistas wont give you a fail scenario; they have too much riding on it going on forever.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, the Global Warming point of view as follows:
> ...



Lol, and Mamooth the fool demonstrates that he/she/it does not understand Climate Change theory.

Why don't you just shut up and go play in the street?


----------



## Jroc (Mar 5, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...







> if we don't do something soon, it's gonna end up changing the places where we can and can't grow crops.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Some people on this thread like Mamooth should shut up. They add nothing to the discussion and are not any better than a partisan troll.
> ...



You haven't flustered me, not at all.

You are the threads comic relief, dumbass.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 1. According to a leaked UN report that absolutely rocked the &#8220;global warming&#8221; believers, the earth has not gotten any warmer for the past 15 years.



Surface warming has slowed.  The deep ocean began warming dramatically at the same time and the radiative imbalance at the ToA has actually increased slightly (which all by itself throws everything you've got in the trash).  The hiatus is a tick compared to the 1941-1979 dip and is thus within natural variability.



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 2. The amount of ice covering the Arctic is up by 50 percent compared to this time in 2012.



REALLY?








			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 3. In just one week in late November, a combined total of more than 1000 new cold temperature and snowfall records were set in the United States.



And that was because of a large Rossby Wave in the jet stream caused by the high temperatures in the Arctic.  And if you look at an image of Rossby waves, you will see that for every area that gets cold Arctic air, a region of the Arctic gets warm air from the tropics.








			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 4. In just one week in December, a combined total of more than 2000 new cold temperature and snowfall records were set in the United States.



The global temperature did NOT set any records.



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 5. On December 15th, 53 percent of the United States was covered in snow.  That was the highest level on this date in 11 years.



See #3.  I suspect that is going to be an appropriate answer to a lot of these points.



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 6. A snowstorm that spanned more than 1,000 miles slammed into New England on Sunday.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 7. Some areas of upstate New York were hit with about six feet of snow a few days ago.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 8. Chicago just experienced that coldest temperatures that it has seen in December in nearly 20 years.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 9. On December 7th, Eugene, Oregon recorded the lowest temperature that it has seen since December 11th, 1972.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 10. A few days ago, three feet of snow closed roads in Jerusalem.  It was the worst snow storm in Israel since 1953.



And in between the NE US and Israel is fond unseasonably warm weather.  Rossby Waves.  No change in the global temperature.  See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 11. Heavy snow also fell on parts of Saudi Arabia.  That was considered to be extremely unusual.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 12. The recent snowfall in Turkey was so bad that it closed 900 roads.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 13. Temperatures have dropped so low that some Syrian war refugees are actually dying from the cold.



See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 14. Cairo, Egypt just had the first snowfall that it has experienced in 100 years.



This is getting boring.  See #3



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 15. It was so cold in Canada recently that the Arctic Winter Games biathlon trials were forced indoors.



Surely no one could miss the fact that these *16* reasons are in fact *ONE*



			
				Wildcard's scholarly article said:
			
		

> 16. According to NASA satellite data, a temperature of minus 135 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in Antarctica back in July.



So what?  One temperature at one time.  The global average temperature has not dropped.  The ToA imbalance shows, by DIRECT MEASUREMENT, that the Earth is still accumulating heat.  If you think this was proof of jack shit, you need to wipe that stupid makeup off your face and go back to school.  Like... middle school.  Early middle school.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.
> 
> The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.



Do you practice being stupid or does it come naturally for you?

I'm guessing that it comes naturally for you, because after all you are a libtard.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard's scholarly article said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Dishonest Abe,

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.



So, you have no response.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard's scholarly article said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bah, the controversy goes back much further than that, so why limit it to the last year?



So you knew you wouldn't find a single instance of anyone on the rational side caring about Al Gore. Your side has been engaging in a chronic lie campaign about people here "worshipping" Gore. You should have done the decent thing by admitting it and apologizing, but instead you're choosing to deflect with ever more rants about Al Gore.

This is why the Gore Rule exists. That is, whoever brings up Al Gore first loses, because they reveal themselves to be shameless propagandists. And it's always the denialists who bring up Al Gore. They seem to consider Gore to be some kind of deity-figure, albeit an evil one.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.



It just gets ever more curious, how the magic sunspots drive all climate changes. Even though they don't even manage a correlation with anything. You just have to have faith, I guess.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Any decent scientist should be able to reproduce the RAW data set.



All the datasets are online. Can you not use a search engine? Oh wait, you can't, being you're a cut-and-paste parrot.

You also have some very curious ideas here. Most people understand that, by definition, you can't reproduce raw data. Do you understand what raw data is?



> That is all that Kosh is asking for, so why cant any of you Warmistas give him a link to these datasets?



It's like toying with Birthers. We could cut the discussion short, but first we'll amuse ourselves watching you put more layers of tinfoil on your beanie.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Do you know what percentage of the greenhouse gases CO2 is?



Yes. Why do you think that's important? The fact that you bring up such a red herring would seem to demonstrate how little you know of the science.



> Do you know what the most catalytic of the greenhouse gases are?



Vague handwaving with undefined terms.



> Do you subscribe to this untestable, nonscientific theory of Climate Change that essentially states that no matter how the weather changes it affirms climate change?



Of course no one believes in such craziness. You fabricated that nonsense, so don't expect us to defend it.



> Do you subscribe to this tautology that implies that the Earth's Climate should not change?



Red herring.



> Do you agree that the warming we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1820 correlates with the increase in human created CO2 and therefore this additional CO2 MUST be causing the increase in temperatures?



Who feeds you all your strange scientific strawmen? After all, we know you're just parroting someone. Who's your source?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Still waiting for the AGW cultists to post actual datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

Have not seen anything but AGW church propaganda, I guess that is all they have.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.



Predicted what?  The hiatus?  The drop in TSI has been known since it began but is responsible for only a very tiny portion of the warming slowdown.  The amount of heat going into the deep ocean vice remaining on the Earth's surface is orders of magnitude larger than the drop in TSI.  And work with TSI - particularly real time - no longer makes use of sunspots.  Welcome to the satellite age.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.
> ...



And the AGW church propaganda rolls along...

Kind of hard to believe a hiatus when you promote a hockey stick as valid science.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.
> ...



And the AGW church propaganda rolls along...

Kind of hard to believe a hiatus when you promote a hockey stick as valid science.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.
> ...



lol, there is a cyclic correlation, dude.

just because you are ignorant of it doesn't mean it don't exist.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that no one could have predicted this and yet a great many did, using sunspot corelations.
> ...



Who predicted this cold winter in the US and Europe.

Weather Eye: 'Old Farmer's Almanac' correctly predicted this harsh winter | The Columbian

Report: Farmers? Almanac more accurate than government climate scientists | The Daily Caller

Who did NOT predict this cold winter:

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming - Businessweek








> The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom &#8220;verification&#8221; map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.
> 
> &#8220;Not one of our better forecasts,&#8221; admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center&#8217;s acting director. The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October&#8217;s forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23. The main cause in both cases was the same: Underestimating the mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year&#8217;s Eve.



Report: Farmers? Almanac more accurate than government climate scientists | The Daily Caller



> This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers&#8217; Almanac predicted this winter would be &#8220;bitterly cold&#8221;.
> 
> Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration&#8217;s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be &#8220;above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.&#8221;
> 
> ...



If only US climate scientists had used real science instead of AGW bullshit maybe they would have called it right like Farmers Almanac.  And how does FA call the weather months in advance? Well it is complicated but among  the things they look at are.....SUN SPOTS!

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know what percentage of the greenhouse gases CO2 is?
> ...



Lol, thanks for your response, douche bag. You make it very plain you do not understand a godamned thing about AGW or climate.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> lol, there is a cyclic correlation, dude.



There is a slight correlation of temps with the 11-year sunspot cycle, but that's because sunspots and temps are both correlated with TSI, not because sunspots drive climate.

And that slight correlation is overwhelmed by the current warming.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Lol, thanks for your response, douche bag. You make it very plain you do not understand a godamned thing about AGW or climate.



You do turn pissy whenever any of those stupid assertions you can't back up get challenged. I suppose it's an attempt to deflect from the fact you can't ever back anything up.

Whenever you locate your balls and are ready to discuss the science, I'll be around.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > lol, there is a cyclic correlation, dude.
> ...



CO2 does not drive climate either, but the whole AGW religious propaganda correlation says it does.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, thanks for your response, douche bag. You make it very plain you do not understand a godamned thing about AGW or climate.
> ...



You say it is global warming and not 'climate change', and that is directly contrary to the current AGW theory.

So, you defend a theory that basically says you are full of shit.

Maybe there is something to AGW after all!


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 8, 2014)

Was that response supposed to show us YOUR elevated level of climate science knowledge?

Any conversation about "climate change" versus "global warming" is a complete waste and a clear indication that you can't think of anything better to bring up.

The evidence: temperature records, satellite data regarding the radiative imbalance, melting snow and ice worldwide, timing changes in all manner of seasonal biological events, all of it show clearly and indisputably that the world is getting warmer.  Attempts to say it is not are just willful ignorance and and an unwillingness to face the facts.

The primary cause for that warming is the greenhouse effect working on human GHG emissions and deforestation which reduces the world's biological CO2 sink.  As temperatures rise, more CO2 will be coming out of solution from the ocean.  Large amounts of methane will be released as the Arctic permafrost thaws.

Can you refute any of that?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Was that response supposed to show us YOUR elevated level of climate science knowledge?
> 
> Any conversation about "climate change" versus "global warming" is a complete waste and a clear indication that you can't think of anything better to bring up.
> 
> ...



And yet the AGW cult can not post one link with datasets with source code to prove that CO2 drives climate, yet they want others to refute scientifically what they can not even prove with religious dogma.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Was that response supposed to show us YOUR elevated level of climate science knowledge?
> 
> Any conversation about "climate change" versus "global warming" is a complete waste and a clear indication that you can't think of anything better to bring up.
> 
> ...



Anyone?  These are the basics.  Refute ANY of this.  C'mon.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 10, 2014)

Snowiest start to November for Maine on record.

Suddenly Ski Season in New England NECN


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 10, 2014)

Even though it’s still early November, a January-like cold wave just entering Montana and the Dakotas on Sunday will bring 30 below zero temperatures to scattered locations in Montana and Wyoming by Wednesday morning.

Siberian Express to Bring -30 deg. F to Wyoming Roy Spencer PhD


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 10, 2014)

Record cold In Colorado



> The forecast minimum for Fort Collins on Saturday is -1F, which would be the first November 15 below 0F ever recorded there. From my experience, temperatures usually come in several degrees colder than forecast there during Arctic cold snaps.
> 
> Record Cold In Colorado Real Science


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 10, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Even though it’s still early November, a January-like cold wave just entering Montana and the Dakotas on Sunday will bring 30 below zero temperatures to scattered locations in Montana and Wyoming by Wednesday morning.
> 
> Siberian Express to Bring -30 deg. F to Wyoming Roy Spencer PhD



Dude, its only weather, not climate unless it gets WARMER.

Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 11, 2014)

Minnesota breaks snow fall record from 1898.

Central U.S. takes the plunge with brutal cold snow


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Minnesota breaks snow fall record from 1898.
> 
> Central U.S. takes the plunge with brutal cold snow


don't you know it doesn't count to the globe?  Only Australia gets that claim.  Ask all of the warmer k00ks out there.  Cherry pickers and then they flick at us.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Minnesota breaks snow fall record from 1898.
> ...



Damned fluoridated water!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 12, 2014)

Jroc said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > It happens ever winter. The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's cold! AGW is a hoax!".
> ...




Are you a scientist?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2014)

This is what I woke up to at 0530 this am...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Yes I am..  and your point?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 12, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...




No you're not, Billyboob.  You use Breitfart as your scientific research.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


You are a fool.  Simple as that.. You believe anything your masters tell you..


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 12, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Nope, sorry, I'm going with the "real" scientists on this one.


----------



## Jroc (Nov 12, 2014)

this had been the coldest Michigan summer i can remember. Only 2 days in the 90s? That's unheard of and it looks like another antarctic winter coming this year...F...ck!!


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2014)

Enjoy!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 Nope!!! are you?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Well since you're not a scientist how do you know they are correct? Why don't you ask those smart intelligent scientist to provide the experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere changes temperature?  Or don't you look for evidence of things people tell you and instead just believe?

BTW, check out Herr Koch and his 1901 experiment that proves the real science.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...




Not at all, which is why I rely on the expertise of scientists.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you go to your car mechanic when you need surgery?  After your doctor tells you that you have an illness, and after you get a second opinion, do you contact a poster on a forum to see if those two doctors are correct?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


No I ask my surgeon what are the risks, i ask for his success percentage, I get a second opinion, and i learn what the 3% of failure really means. I see you have no real education, and cannot think for yourself.  ashame. Another mind wasted.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Because the majority of scientists say Climate Change is man made.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




But you don't argue with your surgeon and tell him he's full of shit.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 so they re automatically right, right!  You just blindly follow it.  Your choice.  But when they come for your pocket book and the temperatures are still the same in five more years, you will hear the words, I told you so loud and clear.   Just makes you a fool.  I see you would never get a second opinion on a medical procedure, you would just accept your fate.  LOL foolish pattern there.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 How do you know?  I go out and research myself and I look for others who work in the field and I ask questions and if the individual cannot provide  evidence, you're damn straight I would.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 read it already, Herr Koch 1901 did the experiment and proved adding CO2 does not cause anything to happen.  Read it!! I know you didn't.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Absolutely.  If I see 100 doctors and 99 of them tell me I have cancer, I'm going to get my affairs in order.

There are no scientist coming for my wallet, you irrational boob.

When you finish your degree in science, shoot me an IM.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Oh, I have researched.  I've researched what reputable scientists are saying, instead of posters on a forum.

I think that's a rational approach.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 Nope, but the people for who they work for will!!! If they have their way.  Me, I'm going to kic and scream a very long time as loudly as possible before that happens and then all I want from you is a thank you!!!

Cancer is a known ailment, pick something like a virus,  ewwww, there's a good one, was there really an ebola virus in the US?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Herr Koch has been outdone with new technology, and more educated scientists.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 I see you didn't read the article from the link you posted.  shame!!!!!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Now you're just getting silly and irrational.  I gotta go back to work.

Cya.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 but I'm right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





And you got your degree from?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


who didn't disprove at all his experiment.  Try again.

Edit: As a matter a fact, if you read the material, they found that water vapor was needed in order to get warmth in the atmosphere.  REad it, it's there.  So CO2 does absolutely nothing, and yet you believe those who hide their work.  BTW, that isn't science like behavior.  That alone should give you a clue of the sneaky climate haters.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


why do I need a degree?  It's a piece of paper.  I have knowledge from experience in life and know when someone is trying to lie to me.  I also learned through my education to do research and never blindly believe someone who tells me something without proof.  But you do, good for you, but that is a failure methodology.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 13, 2014)

This journal letter talks about people like jc. It points out how deniers auto-declare that any refutations of their conspiracy kookery are proof of even more conspiracies against them.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/111004/article

Naturally, the deniers are auto-declaring how that journal letter is further proof of a conspiracy against them.

As this part of the letter indicates, it's important to let everyone know just how few the deniers are, and how they make a noise which is vastly out of proportion to their numbers.
---
In a representative Australian sample, (Leviston _et al_ 2013b) found that only around 6% of respondents denied that climate change was happening, whereas the publicʼs estimate of the prevalence of that opinion was in excess of 20%—more than three times greater. Conversely, the prevalence of the majority opinion (agreement with the scientific consensus; just over 50%), was considerably _under_-estimated (by 15% or more). Given the well-known linkage between the perception of a consensus and actual opinion (e.g., Lewandowsky _et al_ 2013b), peopleʼs mis-calibration of the perceived public-opinion landscape—in particular the inflation of a small minority into 1/5 of the population—raises the possibility that peopleʼs attitudes are disproportionately shaped by a small but very vocal minority. It must be of particular concern that the scientific community does not appear to be immune to such misperceptions. There is some evidence that 'skeptical' voices are affecting—and arguably distorting—the course of climate science and the communication of its findings (Freudenburg and Muselli 2010, Brysse _et al_ 2013).
---


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This journal letter talks about people like jc. It points out how deniers auto-declare that any refutations of their conspiracy kookery are proof of even more conspiracies against them.
> 
> Conspiratory fascination versus public interest the case of climategate - IOPscience
> 
> ...


that link merely points to your fear of me and those like me, because you know we're right.  Thanks!!!


----------



## mamooth (Nov 13, 2014)

jc, when I pointed out how you auto-define everything as a conspiracy against you, it probably wasn't the wisest move on your part to instantly confirm my point.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 One other point, if 11 out of 12 jurors vote guilty to someone on trial, are they guilty?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, when I pointed out how you auto-define everything as a conspiracy against you, it probably wasn't the wisest move on your part to instantly confirm my point.


 dude, dudette, i don't care what you write.  you're a k00k, and as a k00k I don't have to say anymore than that for you.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




LOL!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Are you one of the jurors?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, when I pointed out how you auto-define everything as a conspiracy against you, it probably wasn't the wisest move on your part to instantly confirm my point.




I don't know why these lunatics think they are more knowledgeable than scientists.


----------



## MaryL (Nov 13, 2014)

I give up, how many people  confuse global warming with religion? Besides, global warming is more about overall long-term climate changes, and some of the short term effects are drastic extreme weather changes. Like here in Denver, we went from 55 degrees to 20 degrees or so in a few short hours Monday 11/10/14 . In my life, I have never seen this before, ever. But on average, the weather has been getting drier and warmer. It isn't a religion taken on faith, it's a fact to be observed.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2014)

Denver cold shatters 1882 record.

Denver cold shatters two records wind chill warning in effect - The Denver Post


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Denver cold shatters 1882 record.
> 
> Denver cold shatters two records wind chill warning in effect - The Denver Post




And cold weather confuses you?

*It’s Cold and My Car is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really Happening?*

*



*


*What is the relationship between weather and climate?*

Weather is what’s happening outside the door right now; today a snowstorm or a thunderstorm is approaching. Climate, on the other hand, is the pattern of weather measured over decades.

It s Cold and My Car is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really Happening Union of Concerned Scientists


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


A....  that would be NO... If you believe Cook Et al and his fabrications you would buy this crap.. But in real life...




less than 1% actually attributed all warming to man and Cook was shown a deceiver which is much worse than any one you call a denier.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Denver cold shatters 1882 record.
> ...



And they refuse to see the trend that is now 19 years long without warming and 13 years of cooling.  Unless you buy cricks or old goats pot of crap adjusted data.   When you lie you will always BE FOUND OUT..


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




the consensus project


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> the consensus project



Left wing nut job think tank.... To funny you post that garbage as proof! It even quotes Cook Et Al as if it has some basis in fact....


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > the consensus project
> ...




Strange that oil wells are included in your pic concerning climate change. 

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.






Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> And they refuse to see the trend that is now 19 years long without warming and 13 years of cooling.  Unless you buy cricks or old goats pot of crap adjusted data.   When you lie you will always BE FOUND OUT..



No, you see the latest propaganda now is that it's getting colder BECAUSE of global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Love the Hat tip to Cook Et Al...  But its still crap...  I am stunned that even with the Paper by Legates Et Al showing the deceptions ans lies you still 'BELIEVE'.... INSANITY:  The behavior that ends badly, constantly repeated with the same result, but done anyway expecting a different result.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And they refuse to see the trend that is now 19 years long without warming and 13 years of cooling.  Unless you buy cricks or old goats pot of crap adjusted data.   When you lie you will always BE FOUND OUT..
> ...




Here, I'll post this again for ya.  Hope it helps.

*What is the relationship between weather and climate?*

Weather is what’s happening outside the door right now; today a snowstorm or a thunderstorm is approaching. Climate, on the other hand, is the pattern of weather measured over decades.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Here I'll fix that for you.

Weather is when it's colder than normal and doesn't support the global warming cult kooks. Climate, on the other hand, is when it's hotter than normal and is therefore indisputable proof.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




Strange, that's not what scientists are saying.  Since you're smarter than 97% of the scientists, do you mind telling me where you got your degree?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Now its 99%... So you lie better than Cook Et Al and his 97%... I wonder where you pulled that fecal number from?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Really, Billy Boob. 13 years of cooling? 

10 Warmest Years on Record Globally Climate Central


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> [
> 
> Really, Billy Boob. 13 years of cooling?
> 
> 10 Warmest Years on Record Globally Climate Central



You really are a moron. Presenting fabricated and adjusted data for your graph.  Your not worth the time to go out and pull the unadjusted data and show you your a liar..

You are the definition of a real climate DENIER...  Remove the +1.27 deg C adjustment over the last 12 years and you got nothin... Last month alone they added 0.77Deg C to keep the lie alive. This month it will have to be almost a full 2 deg C..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And they refuse to see the trend that is now 19 years long without warming and 13 years of cooling.  Unless you buy cricks or old goats pot of crap adjusted data.   When you lie you will always BE FOUND OUT..
> ...




As a matter of fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Jennifer is a left wing hack.  Her papers are questionable at best and her understanding of thermal dynamics is 3rd rate.. I wouldn't show it to any student.


----------



## MaryL (Nov 13, 2014)

I don't think you get it, global warming is just a name. Call it man made climate change. Call it anything you like.  The extremes in weather are part of this, like when  here in Denver, we get mild  warm dry weather for weeks and suddenly we  get plunged into a frozen arctic cold in a matter of hours. That has never happened in my lifetime. But on average, it's been getting warmer and drier. Hence the name. That is also something I have noticed in my long life here in the queen city on the plains.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Now, now, liar Billy Boob. What you are saying is that there is an international conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists from every nation, culture, and political system on Earth. And how much did you want for that bridge in Brooklyne?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


 LOL. Dr. Jennifer Francis is a Phd in Meteorology. Did you even finish the third grade, Billy Boob?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

I guess the north American continent is just nothing and the rest of the world is burning up...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Now, now, liar Billy Boob. What you are saying is that there is an international conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists from every nation, culture, and political system on Earth. And how much did you want for that bridge in Brooklyne?



You deal in lies... I deal in facts..  You are so delusional you think your lies are facts..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 34042
> 
> I guess the north American continent is just nothing and the rest of the world is burning up...


Silly little ass, North America is less than 2% of the Earth's surface. And the rest of the world has had a rather warm year, as has many parts of North America.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now, now, liar Billy Boob. What you are saying is that there is an international conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists from every nation, culture, and political system on Earth. And how much did you want for that bridge in Brooklyne?
> ...



This is the kind of thing I deal in:

Changes in Snowmelt Runoff Timing in Western North America under a Business as Usual Climate Change Scenario - Springer

*Abstract*
Spring snowmelt is the most important contribution of many rivers in western North America. If climate changes, this contribution may change. A shift in the timing of springtime snowmelt towards earlier in the year already is observed during 1948–2000 in many western rivers. Streamflow timingchanges for the 1995–2099 period are projected using regression relationsbetween observed streamflow-timing responses in each river, measured by the temporal centroid of streamflow (CT) each year, and local temperature (TI) and precipitation (PI) indices. Under 21st century warming trends predicted by the Parallel Climate Model (PCM) under business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions, streamflow timing trends across much of western North America suggest even earlier springtime snowmelt than observed to date. Projected CT changes are consistent with observed rates and directions of change during the past five decades, and are strongest in the Pacific Northwest, Sierra Nevada, and Rocky Mountains, where many rivers eventually run 30–40 daysearlier. The modest PI changes projected by PCM yield minimal CT changes. The responses of CT to the simultaneous effects of projected TI and PI trends are dominated by the TI changes. Regression-based CT projections agree with those from physically-based simulations of rivers in the Pacific Northwest and Sierra Nevada.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

*And this;*

Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants Abstract Nature

Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate1. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history2, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change3. We gathered information on species and global warming from 143 studies for our meta-analyses. These analyses reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees. Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations. The synergism of rapid temperature rise and other stresses, in particular habitat destruction, could easily disrupt the connectedness among species and lead to a reformulation of species communities, reflecting differential changes in species, and to numerous extirpations and possibly extinctions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

*Real scientists doing real science, not the inane flap-yapping of a boob.*

Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years - Jones - 2010 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

We review the surface air temperature record of the past 150 years, considering the homogeneity of the basic data and the standard errors of estimation of the average hemispheric and global estimates. We present global fields of surface temperature change over the two 20-year periods of greatest warming this century, 1925–1944 and 1978–1997. Over these periods, global temperatures rose by 0.37° and 0.32°C, respectively. The twentieth-century warming has been accompanied by a decrease in those areas of the world affected by exceptionally cool temperatures and to a lesser extent by increases in areas affected by exceptionally warm temperatures. In recent decades there have been much greater increases in night minimum temperatures than in day maximum temperatures, so that over 1950–1993 the diurnal temperature range has decreased by 0.08°C per decade. We discuss the recent divergence of surface and satellite temperature measurements of the lower troposphere and consider the last 150 years in the context of the last millennium. We then provide a globally complete absolute surface air temperature climatology on a 1° × 1° grid. This is primarily based on data for 1961–1990. Extensive interpolation had to be undertaken over both polar regions and in a few other regions where basic data are scarce, but we believe the climatology is the most consistent and reliable of absolute surface air temperature conditions over the world. The climatology indicates that the annual average surface temperature of the world is 14.0°C (14.6°C in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and 13.4°C for the Southern Hemisphere). The annual cycle of global mean temperatures follows that of the land-dominated NH, with a maximum in July of 15.9°C and a minimum in January of 12.2°C.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 34042
> ...




There's slim chance of ever having a rational discussion about Climate Change with someone named Billy Bob.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

True enough. However, there are many lurking, and one cannot simply let idiots spread their lies to those ignorant of the science.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This journal letter talks about people like jc. It points out how deniers auto-declare that ...
> ---



lol, you are a total fool.

You dodge the facts and engage in ad hominem like it means shit.

Stop wasting our time and go back to your pipe, ho.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Denver cold shatters 1882 record.
> 
> Denver cold shatters two records wind chill warning in effect - The Denver Post




THATS just WEATHER, DAMNIT!

IT's only climate if it gets HOTTER!

Shit for shinola, how many damned times I gotta tell you that, you whiny brat?

/sarc


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > This journal letter talks about people like jc. It points out how deniers auto-declare that ...
> ...




Oh look, we've got another scientist on board!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> True enough. However, there are many lurking, and one cannot simply let idiots spread their lies to those ignorant of the science.



Then stop posting you old shit-for-brains.

Climate science is looking like a gaggle of morons with temps setting cold records and the libtard media like the New Yahk Times and the London Met are all admitting the temps have stalled for over a decade now.

Get a life, you fucking idiot.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Strange, that's not what scientists are saying.  Since you're smarter than 97% of the scientists, do you mind telling me where you got your degree?



A. The 97% "consensus" has already been debunked

B. Scientists are not infallible and I'm not sure why you believe everything they say is gospel.  Throughout history there have been instances of scientific consensus being wrong and once accepted theories disproven, just as this ultimately will be.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Strange, that's not what scientists are saying.  Since you're smarter than 97% of the scientists, do you mind telling me where you got your degree?
> ...




No it hasn't.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Well, I guess that's your little secret, huh toots.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

A Roy Spencer article in the Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch's personal rant-sheet).  And behind a paywall.  Now THERE is a source of the most impeccable standing.

The 97% claim has not been debunked.  Find us a rational study (and Legates' does not constitute a rational study) that gets results with any significant difference.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 14, 2014)

Once again, Jimmie Boy, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




Your article is bullshit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



If you say so then it must be true.......


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

I admire your ability to admit what must be a painful truth.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




Yep, it is true. Why on earth would I listen to an Evangelical on the issue of Climate Change?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, Jimmie Boy, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.



Once again, you old shit, you demonstrate that you don't understand the slightest thing about how science works.

Here is a hint; it doesn't validate data and theories by consensus or voting.

You are an embarrassment.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> I admire your ability to admit what must be a painful truth.



And you demonstrate how you engage in wishful thinking.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 bazinga


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, when I pointed out how you auto-define everything as a conspiracy against you, it probably wasn't the wisest move on your part to instantly confirm my point.
> ...


I have never stated that I am more knowledgable than anyone.  I am one who is asking questions and no one can answer.  If that makes me smarter than you I apologize for the insult.  But see I don't just accept what someone says.  I ask that they back it up with proof.  So tell me, how is that me making me think I'm smarter than your scientist?  wouldn't you think that your smart scientist would follow science law and perform an experiment to prove a hypothesis? And also, once said model is proven wrong, go back and re-model?  I still don't see how that is me thinking I'm smarter.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> A Roy Spencer article in the Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch's personal rant-sheet).  And behind a paywall.  Now THERE is a source of the most impeccable standing.
> 
> The 97% claim has not been debunked.  Find us a rational study (and Legates' does not constitute a rational study) that gets results with any significant difference.


a.....yes it has!

BTW, we'll do the look up once you all have completed the assignment you've had for a year to provide the experiment that proves your 120 PPM claim.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 so are all of yours.  So what?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


 right, when you can listen to the Pentacostal!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 14, 2014)

It's just weather.

Coldest November Weather in Decades Infiltrates Wyoming to Texas From the North Pole


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 14, 2014)

It's just weather

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/sault-mi-receives-1-months-snow-in-1-day/


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

Where is all that cold air coming from?  Is the Earth suddenly cooling off?  No.  The Polar Vortex is being deformed by Rossby Waves which are bringing typical Arctic air much further to the south in the eastern North American continent.  Warm, sub-tropical air, west of the Rockies and throughout the eastern Pacific is being driven much further north than normal by the exact same phenomenon.  Super Typhoon Nuri (?) being driven into the Aleutians is easily as unusual as the cold November weather in Georgia and Tennessee.  The same pattern is being repeated around the planet.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 15, 2014)

Explanation of the Hockey Stick Fraud


----------



## Crick (Nov 15, 2014)

*The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature*
Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt  to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

*The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".*
Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline".* Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:*

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". *That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline".* Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."

Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

*There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled*. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.






_Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (Mann et al 1999)._

*The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995*
Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

Clearing up misconceptions regarding hide the decline ​


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 17, 2014)

It's just weather



> We're only midway through November, and winter weather records in Boise are falling left and right.
> 
> Temperatures at the Boise Airport bottomed out at 6 degrees Monday morning, breaking a 134-year-old record of 7 degrees set on Nov. 17, 1880.
> 
> Record cold in Boise Monday morning 151 and possibly again Tuesday Boise Garden City Mountain Home Idahostatesman.com


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where is all that cold air coming from?  Is the Earth suddenly cooling off?  No.  The Polar Vortex is being deformed by Rossby Waves which are bringing typical Arctic air much further to the south in the eastern North American continent.  Warm, sub-tropical air, west of the Rockies and throughout the eastern Pacific is being driven much further north than normal by the exact same phenomenon.  Super Typhoon Nuri (?) being driven into the Aleutians is easily as unusual as the cold November weather in Georgia and Tennessee.  The same pattern is being repeated around the planet.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where is all that cold air coming from?  Is the Earth suddenly cooling off?  No.  The Polar Vortex is being deformed by Rossby Waves which are bringing typical Arctic air much further to the south in the eastern North American continent.  Warm, sub-tropical air, west of the Rockies and throughout the eastern Pacific is being driven much further north than normal by the exact same phenomenon.  Super Typhoon Nuri (?) being driven into the Aleutians is easily as unusual as the cold November weather in Georgia and Tennessee.  The same pattern is being repeated around the planet.


 So what?  Is there more cold air in the Northern Hemisphere as a result?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 18, 2014)

It's just weather.

*Record Breaking Cold Blankets United States -- Coldest November Morning Since 1976*

WeatherBELL Models Premium Weather Maps


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 18, 2014)

It's just weather



> Over the past 7 days if we look at the entire country there have been a lot of cold records being set. The chart below shows for example, 1360 daily low maximum records. This means those places had cold high temperatures which were records. Simply put, those cities and towns saw their coldest daily highs ever recorded.
> 
> Dry Cold Into The Weekend But Is It Record Breaking - Weather Wisdom - Boston.com


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2014)

A small group of alarmist morons, with EPA talking points, and no evidence to back up their claims want us to just 'believe them'...  However we are still waiting for them to produce the science of what 120ppm has done to temps.

Then they are exposed in the lies when making huge changes to the climate record thinking that no one will mind or care.. 3 deg C or 6 deg F in change is a major change in the climactic record.






The raw data shows alarmists as liars, con-men, and fraudsters....

Even with their massive data manipulations they have been unable to win.  Then we post facts which are provable by simple observations.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. *During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*

*That Null Hypothesis falsified the AGW theroy..  killed it dead!*


----------



## Jroc (Nov 18, 2014)

> *Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/#ixzz3JUDiEa8d


----------



## Saigon (Nov 18, 2014)

Actually, it looks like 2014 may be the hottest year on record. 

My god, Jroc, what is it going to take for you to wake up? How can you be so out of touch?

You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from?






NASA GISS Research Features Rising Temperatures A Month Versus a Decade


----------



## Saigon (Nov 18, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> A small group of alarmist morons,



I think you mean the entire scientific community, actually.

Of the 60 largest scientific organisations on earth - not one backs up your claims here. Some 59 confirm AGW. 

It's also worth mentioning that recent polling around the world shows well over 80% of the public understanding climate change, plus an even higher percentage of business leaders.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 19, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Actually, it looks like 2014 may be the hottest year on record.
> 
> My god, Jroc, what is it going to take for you to wake up? How can you be so out of touch?
> 
> ...









It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.


----------



## Politico (Nov 19, 2014)

Don't get too worked up guys. If the AGW guys hold in enough farts they will have to eventually defeat mother nature.


----------



## Jroc (Nov 19, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Actually, it looks like 2014 may be the hottest year on record.
> 
> My god, Jroc, what is it going to take for you to wake up? How can you be so out of touch?
> 
> ...


You believe in your religion you're a pious man...As I said we've had the coldest summer on record here in MI...Wow!! Tampa FL got down to 37 degrees last night!!


----------



## Saigon (Nov 19, 2014)

Jroc - 

Try and post with a little common sense. 

Firstly, weather is not climate. If you don't know the difference - find out. 

Secondly, for most of us, science is science and politics is politics. This is science, so leave the politics out of it.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 19, 2014)

What the mainstream media wont tell you about global warming Hot Air


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A small group of alarmist morons,
> ...


 making shit up!!!!


----------



## boedicca (Nov 19, 2014)

This reminds me.  I need to call the furrier and get my coats out of storage.

Thanks!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Jroc -
> 
> Try and post with a little common sense.
> 
> ...


 sure weather is climate, why else would you always point out Australia or the poles?  The question is do we believe in magic and I think on here you've heard .....NO... So keep your peers fudging the data pal it will make you sleep at night.  The rest of us will party hardy while the earth is cooling off.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 19, 2014)

RedFan - 

Rather than just search for sources that back up your mistakes, try to look at genuine scientific sources. 

You might also try looking at what has been posted from GISS with an open mind, rather than just shouting "But look at what this blogger proved!". 

It's childish, dude.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 19, 2014)

jc456 - 

I have you on ignore mode because you do not read or write well enough to debate any topic. You are semi-literate at best. 

Thus you need not respond to me posts, as I do not see your replies. 

My advice would be to attend some literacy classes, and come back when you have improved your skills in that area.


----------



## Jroc (Nov 19, 2014)

Saigon said:


> RedFan -
> 
> Rather than just search for sources that back up your mistakes, try to look at genuine scientific sources.
> 
> ...


How about you come to the realization that we don't control the climate one way or the other, and if it is indeed changing we can't stop it. The earth's climate has been changing since it's existence


----------



## Saigon (Nov 19, 2014)

Jroc - 

We know for a 100% certain fact that humankind CAN and DOES change the climate. 

Would you like to see absolute proof of that?

Check out the ozone hole. Man created the hole, banned the CFC's that caused it to grow, and now it is getting smaller. That directly effects skin cancer rates in Australia and New Zealand. That can be measured very easily. 

So no - I am not going to come to a 'realisation' that is simply nonsense and disproven.


----------



## Jroc (Nov 19, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Jroc -
> 
> We know for a 100% certain fact that humankind CAN and DOES change the climate.
> 
> ...


Ummm yeah ok and Michigan was once a glacier...Global warming


----------



## Saigon (Nov 19, 2014)

Jroc -

Try and understand. Really.

You only make yourself look like you are about ten years old by playing these games.

If you want to understand about the ice ages and warmer periods in the past, do a little research and get up to speed. It's not that difficult.

Here's a link for you: Global Warming Natural Cycle mdash OSS Foundation

Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period, give or take some thousands of years.

The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle.


----------



## Politico (Nov 20, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Jroc -
> 
> We know for a 100% certain fact that humankind CAN and DOES change the climate.
> 
> ...


Yeah only problem with that. Not only has it never gone away. Even after closing up one year it came back even larger 20 years later. And it will continue to expand and contract because that's what it does.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

Saigon said:


> jc456 -
> 
> I have you on ignore mode because you do not read or write well enough to debate any topic. You are semi-literate at best.
> 
> ...


 hahaahahaha, why do you have announce to me that you put me on ignore?  Why communicate at all?  Why not hit the ignore button and be on your way.  You're a coward that's why, you have no material that is valid to draw the conclusions you draw.  You fail, and because you fail you are angry and because you are angry you want everyone to know that, and to know that I, me, little jc tripped you up is utterly unacceptable to you.  So your only logical choice is to ignore me.  hahahahhahaha, you're a joke and lack the skills to even understand what happens in science.  See in science a hypothetical is determined and then tested and from the tests a theory evolves.  You have no theory because you have no test that shows the hypothetical correct.  So, take some of your own advice and go get learned because your lack of knowledge is shown in every post!!!


----------



## Saigon (Nov 20, 2014)

Jc - 

I announced it because I have noticed that you were still responding to my posts; hence, I thought it better to tell you so that you wouldn't waste your time. 

And no - I'm not angry with you. Why would I be?

Just try to do better with your reading and writing and maybe some day someone will actually read one of your posts.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 20, 2014)

Politico said:


> Yeah only problem with that. Not only has it never gone away. Even after closing up one year it came back even larger 20 years later. And it will continue to expand and contract because that's what it does.



Um....no. That is complete nonsense. The ozone hole does not expand and contract like some animated balloon. Really - what an imbecile you are.








Indicator A-12 Trend in the area of the ozone hole


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah only problem with that. Not only has it never gone away. Even after closing up one year it came back even larger 20 years later. And it will continue to expand and contract because that's what it does.
> ...


 uh yes it does!  You should really read up on how the ozone needs the sun!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Jc -
> 
> I announced it because I have noticed that you were still responding to my posts; hence, I thought it better to tell you so that you wouldn't waste your time.
> 
> ...


quite honestly I don't care what you do, did with your ignore button.  you don't respond, you don't respond.  It shows you don't have the ability to answer the only question that I have, do you have an experiment that shows adding 120 PPMof CO2 increases temperatures?  that's my question and my only one.  The resulting posts are all from the inability of your team to produce that one experiment.  The one that supposedly there are thousands of.  As such I don't understand the difficulty of producing one of them.  But I get it, you can't argue with something you don't have, so the mere fact that you put me on ignore confirms you don't have one.  So stop posting to others on the subject since you can't produce!!!               WiNNiNg


----------



## mamooth (Nov 20, 2014)

jc, everyone ignores you. You're an illiterate whining buttboy who has nothing useful to add to any conversation.

Being you're literally too stupid to understand how stupid you are, let me once more remind you of how stupid you are. Being you're so dim, that fact will have to be hammered into your skull hundreds of times before it sinks in. You simply shouldn't be bothering the grownups.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, everyone ignores you. You're an illiterate whining buttboy who has nothing useful to add to any conversation.
> 
> Being you're literally too stupid to understand how stupid you are, let me once more remind you of how stupid you are. Being you're so dim, that fact will have to be hammered into your skull hundreds of times before it sinks in. You simply shouldn't be bothering the grownups.


Well I'll admit that I ain't the smartest man on the planet, but I'm not the one stating a claim and not being able to provide the proof of the stated claim.  I at least know one has to validate a hypothesis.  Do you?  And if you do, then show the experiment that proves your claim! It's just that fnn simple htoomam! BTW, if you cannot produce said experiment, than it is you who is too stupid to know you're stupid!!!!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 20, 2014)

Nothing to see here, folks.  It's just weather.....

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11...l-off-to-buffalo-snow-an-all-time-u-s-record/


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 20, 2014)

More "weather"

141 year old cold weather record falls in Jacksonville Weather - Home


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 20, 2014)

Global warming?

One hell of a market to buy that in Buffalo these days.  Only where's the delivery?


----------

