I thought Climate Changed in NY?

[Crick]

So far they have virtually NO empirical data and their entire theory is based on computer derived fiction.

Shall we do this again?

The temperature record indicating warming unprecedented in magnitude or rate in over 10,000 years is empirical data. It is not "computer derived fiction". The CO2 record, indicating levels unprecedented in magnitude or rate for several million years is empirical data. It is not "computer derived fiction" The PIOMAS record of shrinking ice mass in the Arctic, Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the records showing that a very high majority of the world's glaciers and snow fields are shrinking is empirical data. It is not "computer derived fiction". The satellite data showing a continuing and growing radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical data. It is not "computer derived fiction". The spectra showing that CO2 and all the other greenhouse gases, absorb EM falling on the Earth from the sun and reradiate it in the infrared band is empirical data. It is not "computer derived fiction". Evans 2006 (W.M.F. Evans) direct measurement of the IR radiation of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth is empirical data. It is not "computer derived fiction".

So, Mr Westwall, take this claim of yours and shove it where the sun don't shine because that's where it came from and that's where it really ought to stay.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?

Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.

I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".

Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".

Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country. I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.

So you want to debate possible motivations instead of science?

I have no interest

because you have no science that can back your postulated claim that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Simply show us your science evidence that supports that claim.

I dont have any science...the scientists do. Its on you to show they are wrong. You cant so you go into an easy topic which requires no facts. Motivations.

So you rely on faith an belief?

Check....

Damn my daughter when she was Six could do simple science experiments.


An interesting article on how the NOAA had to take down a simple science experiment for children because of inconvient language in it.


BBC botches grade school CO2 science experiment on live TV - with indepedent lab results to prove it

Hadley CRU isn’t the only government agency that deletes web content related to climate. NOAA/NWS Southern Region Headquarters has gotten into the act. An interesting thing happened today. NOAA deleted an educational web page about an experiment you can do with CO2.

Ordinarily such a thing would go unnoticed, especially since it doesn’t impact anything particularly important like policy, or climate data. It’s just an experiment for kids in the classroom.

Fortunately, I still had the web page open in my browser

JetStream - An Online Weather School Learning Lesson: Go with the Flow

Snip

What could cause NOAA to pull a web page like this on a moment’s notice?

Two things.

1 It was featured on Climate Depot yesterday.

2 It had this passage that must not have agreed with somebody higher up in the NOAA food chain:

It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.

Or maybe it was this one:

The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.

So rather than corrupt young minds with a simple science experiment with some inconvenient language attached to it, NOAA simply deleted it. Of course nothing is really deleted on the Internet anymore. NOAA looks pretty silly thinking it would go away with a simple delete.


The page as it looks today


NWS JetStream Learning Lesson: Its a Gas, Man

 

[jc456]

Back Radiation | Co2 Insanity

Excerpt:
Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

 

[jc456]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

 

[Arianrhod]

Dear Confused,

If you're too busy playing Fallout to do any actual research, I'd recommend you find a third-grader who is not home-schooled and ask them to explain the difference between weather and climate to you.

Good luck!

The Dear Abby Syndicate*

*You do know Abigail Van Buren died in 2013, right?

So, the 70 degree temperature was just a weather event.

OK

As is anything that's happened within the last 24 hours. It's the observation that more and more of these daily events are outliers - e.g. the current flooding in Missouri that's the worst since records were kept in that region - that contributes to an understanding of the study of climate over eons.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

LOL. There you have it folks, peer reviewed articles from people that have spent decades studying the subject are useless. Far better to get one's information from obese junkies on the AM radio, or fake British Lords. LOL

 

[jc456]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

LOL. There you have it folks, peer reviewed articles from people that have spent decades studying the subject are useless. Far better to get one's information from obese junkies on the AM radio, or fake British Lords. LOL

Exactly. Oh BTW, got that scientist name yet who isn't paid out of government funding and in a peer review?

DOH!!!!

BTW, you won't answer little chicken shit you are.

 

[jc456]

Dear Confused,

If you're too busy playing Fallout to do any actual research, I'd recommend you find a third-grader who is not home-schooled and ask them to explain the difference between weather and climate to you.

Good luck!

The Dear Abby Syndicate*

*You do know Abigail Van Buren died in 2013, right?

So, the 70 degree temperature was just a weather event.

OK

As is anything that's happened within the last 24 hours. It's the observation that more and more of these daily events are outliers - e.g. the current flooding in Missouri that's the worst since records were kept in that region - that contributes to an understanding of the study of climate over eons.

or changes to landscape like roadwork adding subdivisions. My nephew is affected in Missouri and they completed a six lane highway 20 miles long contributing to his flooding. so go look where land was filled in with concrete in the areas. yeppers.

BTW, back in the 60s and 70s the Mississippi always flooded. always.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

LOL. There you have it folks, peer reviewed articles from people that have spent decades studying the subject are useless. Far better to get one's information from obese junkies on the AM radio, or fake British Lords. LOL

Exactly. Oh BTW, got that scientist name yet who isn't paid out of government funding and in a peer review?

DOH!!!!

BTW, you won't answer little chicken shit you are.

My goodness, sweet little corksmoker, which government? Are all major universities government funded, in every nation? You see, these articles are from scientists around the world, some teaching, some working for private companies and institutions. And what the hell do you have? A bunch of loonies claiming a worldwide conspiracy of scientists so tight that not one of them has come forward to reveal the conspiracy. LOL

 

[jc456]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

LOL. There you have it folks, peer reviewed articles from people that have spent decades studying the subject are useless. Far better to get one's information from obese junkies on the AM radio, or fake British Lords. LOL

Exactly. Oh BTW, got that scientist name yet who isn't paid out of government funding and in a peer review?

DOH!!!!

BTW, you won't answer little chicken shit you are.

My goodness, sweet little corksmoker, which government? Are all major universities government funded, in every nation? You see, these articles are from scientists around the world, some teaching, some working for private companies and institutions. And what the hell do you have? A bunch of loonies claiming a worldwide conspiracy of scientists so tight that not one of them has come forward to reveal the conspiracy. LOL

like i said you wouldn't answer the question. you can't cause there aren't any and my point. Thanks for making my point for me. I am smarter than you as well. I'm smarter than the average bear.

 

[jc456]

I thought Climate Changed in NY?
And Crick and Old Rocks won't give a scientist name not funded by a government that is a peer reviewer.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dear Confused,

If you're too busy playing Fallout to do any actual research, I'd recommend you find a third-grader who is not home-schooled and ask them to explain the difference between weather and climate to you.

Good luck!

The Dear Abby Syndicate*

*You do know Abigail Van Buren died in 2013, right?

So, the 70 degree temperature was just a weather event.

OK

As is anything that's happened within the last 24 hours. It's the observation that more and more of these daily events are outliers - e.g. the current flooding in Missouri that's the worst since records were kept in that region - that contributes to an understanding of the study of climate over eons.

or changes to landscape like roadwork adding subdivisions. My nephew is affected in Missouri and they completed a six lane highway 20 miles long contributing to his flooding. so go look where land was filled in with concrete in the areas. yeppers.

BTW, back in the 60s and 70s the Mississippi always flooded. always.

You forgot about that big Mississippi flood in 93 and the biggest one of all in 1927


Mississippi River flood of 1927 | American history

 

[westwall]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

LOL. There you have it folks, peer reviewed articles from people that have spent decades studying the subject are useless. Far better to get one's information from obese junkies on the AM radio, or fake British Lords. LOL

Exactly. Oh BTW, got that scientist name yet who isn't paid out of government funding and in a peer review?

DOH!!!!

BTW, you won't answer little chicken shit you are.

My goodness, sweet little corksmoker, which government? Are all major universities government funded, in every nation? You see, these articles are from scientists around the world, some teaching, some working for private companies and institutions. And what the hell do you have? A bunch of loonies claiming a worldwide conspiracy of scientists so tight that not one of them has come forward to reveal the conspiracy. LOL

For the most part. Yes. There are a few who have endowments but if you truly are taking university level classes you would know that ALL researchers are constantly seeking for grants. Guess where the overwhelming majority of grants comes from silly boy. Go ahead... guess...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mr. Westwall has been repeating this lie since he came on this board. And has yet to provide any articles from peer reviewed journals backing up his nonsense.

peer review work is useless. It isn't objective. Sorry pal.

There we have it! Perry reviewed work is NOT objective.

What's more objective is the loons paid by oil companies!

Yeah, says the dunce. The dunce demands you debate him in science using something other than science.

 

[skookerasbil]

None of the alarmist nutters in here ever heard of the phrase, "Reality is 95% perception"

Funny thing is, some days that reality is of great assistance to their hoax. But on other days.......like last night here in New York, it blows their whole world to shit!!

Walking into the rink last night for the game, I flip my ciggy away as sleet pelts down on my winter parka and I say out loud, "Who's not winning?"



Only AGW alarmist nutters think people are sitting home in New York last night worrying about global warming!!! Indeed that is real k00k stuff.............

 

[Crick]

Now I remember why I ignored you. Everyone else I ignore, I look at after a while and find something worth responding to. You, not so much. Really... really not so much.

Do you ACTUALLY believe that ANYONE takes late December sleet in New York as proof that global warming has come to a stop? Fer kissakes engage your fucking brain.

 

[skookerasbil]

Only progressives put people on ignore...........so ghey.........no wonder too these same people are on a march to eradicate the 1st amendment of the constitution.

Make no mistake,..,.....these hard core AGW progressives are certifiable fascists. But they have no balls.......no balls. In debates, their goal is to simply shut you up..........totally.


ghey

 

[jc456]

Only progressives put people on ignore...........so ghey.........no wonder too these same people are on a march to eradicate the 1st amendment of the constitution.

Make no mistake,..,.....these hard core AGW progressives are certifiable fascists. But they have no balls.......no balls. In debates, their goal is to simply shut you up..........totally.


ghey

I thought Climate Changed in NY? it did, from one weather system to another.

The libturds put posters on ignore because they lose the debate with them. The last thing they can have is a failure in order to receive funding from their party.

But one day it might be 70 degrees and another might be 26 degrees in a week in many places in Winter. Hmmm, would that be due to climate or would that be due to pressure systems. I know you know that answer it is the likes of the libturds who don't and why they are fun to debate with. They stick hard to their scripts.

 

[Crick]

The libturds put posters on ignore because they lose the debate with them.

No one has ever lost a debate with Skookerasbil. They put him on ignore because he is offensive and his posts are utterly without value. He is an ignorant bigot and there is simply no reason to subject yourself to his spew.

The last thing they can have is a failure in order to receive funding from their party.

JC, if you believe that anyone here is being paid to be here, you need to make it public and notify management so that poster can be banned. If you don't have such evidence, you need to stop making such accusations.

But one day it might be 70 degrees and another might be 26 degrees in a week in many places in Winter. Hmmm, would that be due to climate or would that be due to pressure systems. I know you know that answer it is the likes of the libturds who don't and why they are fun to debate with. They stick hard to their scripts.

Why don't you think of it as chaotic noise lain over the top of the climate signal. Or you could think of it as natural variability. Or you could think of it as the fucking weather.