Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[mamooth]

Billy, you and your team have been predicting an ice age for 35 years straight now. And you've been hilariously wrong for 35 years straight. And everyone knows it.

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...

Well, then I guess you can interpret this as well.

And this:

And as an example of consequences:

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.
?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

...

I'll note that you STILL haven't come up with a scientific article to defend your point.

 

[westwall]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Like I said. I kept it simple for you as that seems to be the maximum level of your intellect. You tell me how any scientist can make a claim of warming when the error bars on the "study" are five times greater than the claimed increase in temperature.

I'll wait.

 

[westwall]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...

Well, then I guess you can interpret this as well.

View attachment 49464

And this:

View attachment 49465

And as an example of consequences:

View attachment 49466

How about you come up with something that doesn't come from a science denying global warming supporter.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

Well, if you don't like the statements by the leadership, you have the oppertunity to vote that leadership out.

 

[westwall]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.
?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

...

I'll note that you STILL haven't come up with a scientific article to defend your point.

Neither have you. EVERYTHING you post is from global warming alarmist sites. Come up with something from an unbiased source. M'kay...

 

[Old Rocks]

Thus lies Mr. Westwall once again. He has been presented with numerous peer reviewed articles from the PNAS, Geology, Nature, and other scientifc journals. He just states that there is this huge worldwide conspiracy, and he is one of the enlightened ones that know the truth. Claims to be a Phd Geologist, and never misses a chance to diss other geologists in the AGU and GSA. And posts links to WUWT and Monkton to prove his points. LOL

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Like I said. I kept it simple for you as that seems to be the maximum level of your intellect. You tell me how any scientist can make a claim of warming when the error bars on the "study" are five times greater than the claimed increase in temperature.

I'll wait.

You're making this up. Why don't you present the 'study' and the explanation from scientists.

I'm not running down every idiotic article you find from the Moonie Times.

 

[Old Rocks]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...

Well, then I guess you can interpret this as well.

View attachment 49464

And this:

View attachment 49465

And as an example of consequences:

View attachment 49466

How about you come up with something that doesn't come from a science denying global warming supporter.

So the University of Washington is a science denying institution. You just keep getting more loopy with time, Mr. Westwall.

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.
?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

...

I'll note that you STILL haven't come up with a scientific article to defend your point.

Neither have you. EVERYTHING you post is from global warming alarmist sites. Come up with something from an unbiased source. M'kay...

Funny- I've posted from Science, PNAS, and the NASA and NOAA websites.

I guess they are biased....towards science.

 

[threegoofs]

Thus lies Mr. Westwall once again. He has been presented with numerous peer reviewed articles from the PNAS, Geology, Nature, and other scientifc journals. He just states that there is this huge worldwide conspiracy, and he is one of the enlightened ones that know the truth. Claims to be a Phd Geologist, and never misses a chance to diss other geologists in the AGU and GSA. And posts links to WUWT and Monkton to prove his points. LOL

As deniers go, he's definitely in the upper quartile for idiocy.

 

[threegoofs]

You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.

Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.

Wow.

I've seen some bad deniers on some boards, but these guys take the cake.

Paid shill poster! thanks for the admission.

Got that answer on the 1981 prediction yet?

Thought so.

 

[RodISHI]

Been pretty cool in the Midwest compared to most others we've spent here in the summer. The dogs are just now fully losing last years fur. That generally happens in May or June.

 

[threegoofs]

Been pretty cool in the Midwest compared to most others we've spent here in the summer. The dogs are just now fully losing last years fur. That generally happens in May or June.

Thanks for the local weather update.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

 

[flacaltenn]

Dat's why Uncle Ferd tells Granny to wait...

... `til the cool of the evenin' to cut the grass...

... so's she won't get a heatstroke.

That would be SEVERAL degrees cooler -- right Waltky?? Not just 0.237 degrees cooler... Tell Uncle Ferd to get a 5 digit reading thermometer -- just to be sure ole Granny don't bake..

 

[threegoofs]

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

 

[flacaltenn]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..