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

[asterism]

Here is where the raw data is supposedly kept:

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Toro]

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

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



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

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

Why?

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

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

 

[asterism]

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

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

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

Couldn't find any raw data could you?

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

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

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


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

 

[skookerasbil]

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

 

[skookerasbil]

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

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

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

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






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


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


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


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



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



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


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


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

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

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

Couldn't find any raw data could you?

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

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

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


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

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


You have my full attention.

 

[asterism]

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

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

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

Couldn't find any raw data could you?

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

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

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


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

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


You have my full attention.

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

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


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

 

[Abraham3]

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

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

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

Couldn't find any raw data could you?

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

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

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


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

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


You have my full attention.

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

 

[gallantwarrior]

Couldn't find any raw data could you?

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

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

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


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

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


You have my full attention.

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

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


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

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

 

[asterism]

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

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

Then why aren't the raw data sets released?

 

[editec]

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

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

Then why aren't the raw data sets released?

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

 

[asterism]

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

Then why aren't the raw data sets released?

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

Couldn't find any either, could you?

 

[PMZ]

Couldn't find any raw data could you?

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

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

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


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

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


You have my full attention.

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

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

 

[PMZ]

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

Absolutely nothing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[gallantwarrior]

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


You have my full attention.

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

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

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

Absolutely nothing.

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