FairyTales of Global Warming..

[hadit]

Time wasted....as you are clearly unqualified to put the information into an actual context.

Your responses have descended to the level of "I know you are but what am I?" I suggest you start taking a meaningful part in the discussion or you will be placed on the pile of discarded sock puppets.

Your responses constitute no more than SPAM and that is not tolerated.

You still don't get it, you are not a climate scientist. Therefore your best guesses on this subject amount to nothing more than opinions and superficial anecdotes.

Are you a climate scientist that your best guesses on this subject amount to anything more than opinions? If you're not a climate scientist, then you have to take someone else's word on faith and compare it to what you observe. Observation does not support the hysteria.

 

[Discombobulated]

Your responses have descended to the level of "I know you are but what am I?" I suggest you start taking a meaningful part in the discussion or you will be placed on the pile of discarded sock puppets.

Your responses constitute no more than SPAM and that is not tolerated.

You still don't get it, you are not a climate scientist. Therefore your best guesses on this subject amount to nothing more than opinions and superficial anecdotes.

Are you a climate scientist that your best guesses on this subject amount to anything more than opinions? If you're not a climate scientist, then you have to take someone else's word on faith and compare it to what you observe. Observation does not support the hysteria.

I didn't offer an opinion. Perhaps you guys just failed to notice because of your constantly jerking knees. They must be very distracting for you.

 

[westwall]

They seem to think that uninformed opinions about science are somehow relevant.

You like facts? You think you have facts? Lets see some factual evidence, supported by observation and repeatable experiment that proves that an increase of atmospheric CO2 in the amount of X will result in an increase of the global temperature by Y. You might also provide a factual quantification of the so called greenhouse effect. While you are at it, how about telling us what the earth's albedo is. If you have facts, backed by observed data, that proves that CO2 drives the climate, lets see it. Your warmer brethren rely entirely on the output of failed climate models....what do you have?

You've evidently failed to grasp my point here.....so I'll put it in plain language for you.
Since there are obviously no scientists on this thread, opinions don't matter. Because they are just that, opinions. Uniformed opinions of science are completely irrelevant, they are nothing more than superficial anecdotes without context.

You're wrong, I am a PhD geologist. Next.

 

[Discombobulated]

You like facts? You think you have facts? Lets see some factual evidence, supported by observation and repeatable experiment that proves that an increase of atmospheric CO2 in the amount of X will result in an increase of the global temperature by Y. You might also provide a factual quantification of the so called greenhouse effect. While you are at it, how about telling us what the earth's albedo is. If you have facts, backed by observed data, that proves that CO2 drives the climate, lets see it. Your warmer brethren rely entirely on the output of failed climate models....what do you have?

You've evidently failed to grasp my point here.....so I'll put it in plain language for you.
Since there are obviously no scientists on this thread, opinions don't matter. Because they are just that, opinions. Uniformed opinions of science are completely irrelevant, they are nothing more than superficial anecdotes without context.

You're wrong, I am a PhD geologist. Next.

Oh well that's different. You have a PhD in an almost nearly related field.

 

[westwall]

You've evidently failed to grasp my point here.....so I'll put it in plain language for you.
Since there are obviously no scientists on this thread, opinions don't matter. Because they are just that, opinions. Uniformed opinions of science are completely irrelevant, they are nothing more than superficial anecdotes without context.

You're wrong, I am a PhD geologist. Next.

Oh well that's different. You have a PhD in an almost nearly related field.

I can teach ANY climatology class there is.....except for their computer programming classes. Their systems are so far out of date that they are the last ones to use them. On the other hand, a PhD climatologist would be lost trying to teach most 2nd year geology classes and would be useless with 3rd year and above.

I know who's opinion on science I value more.....

 

[Discombobulated]

You're wrong, I am a PhD geologist. Next.

Oh well that's different. You have a PhD in an almost nearly related field.

I can teach ANY climatology class there is.....except for their computer programming classes. Their systems are so far out of date that they are the last ones to use them. On the other hand, a PhD climatologist would be lost trying to teach most 2nd year geology classes and would be useless with 3rd year and above.

I know who's opinion on science I value more.....

Well then if the standard is measured by who's opinion we should value more you seem to be out voted, looks like there's more opinion on the other side of the argument.

 

[westwall]

Oh well that's different. You have a PhD in an almost nearly related field.

I can teach ANY climatology class there is.....except for their computer programming classes. Their systems are so far out of date that they are the last ones to use them. On the other hand, a PhD climatologist would be lost trying to teach most 2nd year geology classes and would be useless with 3rd year and above.

I know who's opinion on science I value more.....

Well then if the standard is measured by who's opinion we should value more you seem to be out voted, looks like there's more opinion on the other side of the argument.

Correct. OPINION. Opinion is neither fact, nor science. Thanks for making my point so eloquently.

 

[Meister]

Climate mafia? I have no idea what that means.

Then you are so uninformed that you really have nothing to say here...even the most diehard warmer wacko knows what is meant by that term. You really should try to learn at least something before trying to comment here.

I'm sure we're all much better informed with your superficial anecdotes of science.

What do you have? Let's hear your side, because you seem to be trolling and skirting the discussion. I'm sure you have something that the righties can sink their teeth into...at least that's how you're coming across.

 

[Kosh]

Your responses have descended to the level of "I know you are but what am I?" I suggest you start taking a meaningful part in the discussion or you will be placed on the pile of discarded sock puppets.

Your responses constitute no more than SPAM and that is not tolerated.

You still don't get it, you are not a climate scientist. Therefore your best guesses on this subject amount to nothing more than opinions and superficial anecdotes.

Are you a climate scientist that your best guesses on this subject amount to anything more than opinions? If you're not a climate scientist, then you have to take someone else's word on faith and compare it to what you observe. Observation does not support the hysteria.

True that!

 

[Meister]

You still don't get it, you are not a climate scientist. Therefore your best guesses on this subject amount to nothing more than opinions and superficial anecdotes.

Are you a climate scientist that your best guesses on this subject amount to anything more than opinions? If you're not a climate scientist, then you have to take someone else's word on faith and compare it to what you observe. Observation does not support the hysteria.

True that!

Chart sure looks like it's cyclical.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Kosh]

Are you a climate scientist that your best guesses on this subject amount to anything more than opinions? If you're not a climate scientist, then you have to take someone else's word on faith and compare it to what you observe. Observation does not support the hysteria.

True that!

Chart sure looks like it's cyclical.

Well the few of us that have a PhD in atmospheric science have real charts with real data.

A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

 

[sealybobo]

So what do you do if you are NBC News and the segment you shot on Global Warming tales of horror don't look good in the edit booth? You make shit up.. Because the propaganda must go on...

Vermont Maple Syrup Producer Complains: NBC Edited My Remarks to Support ?Global Warming? | NewsBusters

While hyping the alleged effects on climate change, NBC’s May 6 “Nightly News” tried to localize the impact by citing a different problem in each region. The broadcast played a clip of Burr Morse, a seventh-generation maple syrup producer from Montpelier, Vermont, stating that this season’s weather had been too warm. Contrary to this clip’s implications, Morse told the MRC’s Business and Media Institute that cold weather actually did more to harm this year’s maple syrup season.

Morse complained that NBC had selected a short sample of his full remarks to “support their point which was global warming.” Morse said he didn’t want “to be the cause of any hysteria,” emphasizing that he is confident in the future of the maple syrup industry and its ability to “circumvent the weather with technology.”

NBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander told “Nightly News” that “Short winters are already harming Vermont maple syrup famer Burr Morse.” Then, NBC played a clip of Morse saying “It didn’t quite get cold enough at night.”

Anybody who spent the 2013/14 winter on the East Coast should immediately have become suspicious as the winter remained cold through March, incidentally when the maple syrup harvest typically begins.

In fact, Morse claimed that winter “hung on a month longer than it usually does.” Because of this lingering cold, Morse started tapping his maple trees in April instead of March. By April, however, the nights were slightly too warm for the ideal 20 degree temperature, hence the actual context for NBC’s excerpt.

Rather than suffering from the heat, Morse described this season’s primary hardship as cold, saying a “big part of the season was that it was too cold.”

For being a valuable team player in the Fraud of Global Warming Hype and Fiction -- NBC takes a richochet to the head..

You probably believe in god too I bet. Video: God and Global Warming . NOW | PBS

 

[sealybobo]

Video: Skeptic No Longer Doubts Human Role in Global Warming | Watch PBS NewsHour Online | PBS Video

 

[sealybobo]

Many of the researchers expressing doubts about the science of global warming have financial ties to the oil, auto, electricity and coal industries. These experts appear regularly at Congressional hearings, on television, radio and in print, and at events in order to spread their message. That message varies somewhat from skeptic to skeptic but generally sows doubt about climate change, challenging the consensus of mainstream scientists. They ask whether global warming is really occurring, whether human activity is truly to blame and whether rising temperatures are such a bad thing.

Here are profiles of five of the most famous skeptics:

Reports - The Doubters Of Global Warming | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Kosh]

Many of the researchers expressing doubts about the science of global warming have financial ties to the oil, auto, electricity and coal industries. These experts appear regularly at Congressional hearings, on television, radio and in print, and at events in order to spread their message. That message varies somewhat from skeptic to skeptic but generally sows doubt about climate change, challenging the consensus of mainstream scientists. They ask whether global warming is really occurring, whether human activity is truly to blame and whether rising temperatures are such a bad thing.

Here are profiles of five of the most famous skeptics:

Reports - The Doubters Of Global Warming | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

More AGW cult BS..

Here are some facts to debunk the AGW cult claims:

Before the Little Ice Age, research studies have shown that there were two major warming periods; the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Holocene Optimum when it was 1.5 to nearly 3 degrees C warmer than it is today. The Vikings colonized Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum when they could actually grow crops on Greenland. By the 1400s Greenland had become so cold that these colonies had to be abandoned

 

[flacaltenn]

Many of the researchers expressing doubts about the science of global warming have financial ties to the oil, auto, electricity and coal industries. These experts appear regularly at Congressional hearings, on television, radio and in print, and at events in order to spread their message. That message varies somewhat from skeptic to skeptic but generally sows doubt about climate change, challenging the consensus of mainstream scientists. They ask whether global warming is really occurring, whether human activity is truly to blame and whether rising temperatures are such a bad thing.

Here are profiles of five of the most famous skeptics:

Reports - The Doubters Of Global Warming | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

So you are ATTEMPTING to impeach a former Predient of the National Academy of Sciences rather than discussing the validity of WHAT was said? How unscientific and leftist of you. The same way you are ignoring the OP and the fact that NBC news is literally making shit up to support this failed propaganda campaign?

Lets dance. Do you think a climate in which glaciers are GROWING would be a better thing than 0.5degC of warming? Really need an answer to some of these questions..

 

[flacaltenn]

So what do you do if you are NBC News and the segment you shot on Global Warming tales of horror don't look good in the edit booth? You make shit up.. Because the propaganda must go on...

Vermont Maple Syrup Producer Complains: NBC Edited My Remarks to Support ?Global Warming? | NewsBusters

While hyping the alleged effects on climate change, NBC’s May 6 “Nightly News” tried to localize the impact by citing a different problem in each region. The broadcast played a clip of Burr Morse, a seventh-generation maple syrup producer from Montpelier, Vermont, stating that this season’s weather had been too warm. Contrary to this clip’s implications, Morse told the MRC’s Business and Media Institute that cold weather actually did more to harm this year’s maple syrup season.

Morse complained that NBC had selected a short sample of his full remarks to “support their point which was global warming.” Morse said he didn’t want “to be the cause of any hysteria,” emphasizing that he is confident in the future of the maple syrup industry and its ability to “circumvent the weather with technology.”

NBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander told “Nightly News” that “Short winters are already harming Vermont maple syrup famer Burr Morse.” Then, NBC played a clip of Morse saying “It didn’t quite get cold enough at night.”

Anybody who spent the 2013/14 winter on the East Coast should immediately have become suspicious as the winter remained cold through March, incidentally when the maple syrup harvest typically begins.

In fact, Morse claimed that winter “hung on a month longer than it usually does.” Because of this lingering cold, Morse started tapping his maple trees in April instead of March. By April, however, the nights were slightly too warm for the ideal 20 degree temperature, hence the actual context for NBC’s excerpt.

Rather than suffering from the heat, Morse described this season’s primary hardship as cold, saying a “big part of the season was that it was too cold.”

For being a valuable team player in the Fraud of Global Warming Hype and Fiction -- NBC takes a richochet to the head..

You probably believe in god too I bet. Video: God and Global Warming . NOW | PBS

Get bent asswart. Lets not deflect from the lying in question here.

 

[Discombobulated]

I can teach ANY climatology class there is.....except for their computer programming classes. Their systems are so far out of date that they are the last ones to use them. On the other hand, a PhD climatologist would be lost trying to teach most 2nd year geology classes and would be useless with 3rd year and above.

I know who's opinion on science I value more.....

Well then if the standard is measured by who's opinion we should value more you seem to be out voted, looks like there's more opinion on the other side of the argument.

Correct. OPINION. Opinion is neither fact, nor science. Thanks for making my point so eloquently.

But for some reason your opinions on climate science carry more weight and have more credibility than those of the overwhelming majority of scientists all around the world. We are indeed blessed to witness your amazing gifts of perception.

 

[Kosh]

Well then if the standard is measured by who's opinion we should value more you seem to be out voted, looks like there's more opinion on the other side of the argument.

Correct. OPINION. Opinion is neither fact, nor science. Thanks for making my point so eloquently.

But for some reason your opinions on climate science carry more weight and have more credibility than those of the overwhelming majority of scientists all around the world. We are indeed blessed to witness your amazing gifts of perception.

To bad you do understand anything beyond your programming!