Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[westwall]

LOL That clown on your second site is even battier. On page 32 of the site

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf

It show Dr. Spencer's graph, and in spite of the obvious differance in temperatures from 1979 to 2010, states at the top of the page, "No Change in 30 Years". Whom are we to believe, Arvid Pasto, or our eyes.

I'll take Dr. Pasto over your inane sillyness any day of the week, and so will the vast majority of intelligent people. The rest of your ilk? Who cares.

 

[BrianH]

LOL That clown on your second site is even battier. On page 32 of the site

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf

It show Dr. Spencer's graph, and in spite of the obvious differance in temperatures from 1979 to 2010, states at the top of the page, "No Change in 30 Years". Whom are we to believe, Arvid Pasto, or our eyes.

I'll take Dr. Pasto over your inane sillyness any day of the week, and so will the vast majority of intelligent people. The rest of your ilk? Who cares.

Old Rocks reminds me of The Good Shephard. He constantly talked about AGW and CONSTANTLY challenged the validity of a posted link and/or person who wrote it, somehow magically linking them to the energy companies. Of course when it came to his links, they were all true! j/k

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I look at the sites that ol' Walleyes posts, much to his chagrin. Now if you would post some site supporting your ignorance, I will look at them.

 

[westwall]

Well, I look at the sites that ol' Walleyes posts, much to his chagrin. Now if you would post some site supporting your ignorance, I will look at them.

Why bother, you're a complete waste of time. When you come up with something better than a ten year olds nya nnya I know you are but what am I we'll answer whatever bullcrap you post. Till then enjoy your circle jerk.

 

[daveman]

Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.

Or we could do like the AGW cultists want and have the government run every single aspect of our private lives.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.

Or we could do like the AGW cultists want and have the government run every single aspect of our private lives.

Fascism's guiding star is socialism combined with authoritarianism and jingoism.

 

[MaggieMae]

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

So does NOAA lie?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13

 

[MaggieMae]

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

So does NOAA lie?

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010

 

[MaggieMae]

Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

Gee you went from 30 years of the same temperature to less than 10 years (with an escape clause) in a matter of a few posts.
Thank you.

No, I'm just reporting what is in the general media and agreed to by Jones, it's not my fault if you're so blinded by ideology that you ignore basic science in the seaking of your goal. Your just doing what uneducated idealogues do.

Ideology has zero to do with any of this, but I'd hardly know that by all the little piles of "facts" you and others produce to try to make your case. Sorry, but as I said, I'll stick with known science produced by known experts. If they're wrong, that would be a good thing. But if they're right and no one was paying enough attention because they were too busy trying to disprove their data, then we're in deep trouble.

So you guys just carry on with your beliefs. I know where I stand, and no one will convince me otherwise unless YOU can make YOUR figures match your own predictions which, I believe you said previously, is also all guesswork. (Or something to that effect.)

 

[MaggieMae]

Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.

Or we could do like the AGW cultists want and have the government run every single aspect of our private lives.

Fascism's guiding star is socialism combined with authoritarianism and jingoism.

Oh good gawd...is there EVER a thread where the holier-than-thou loudmouth cons jump in with their rhetorical bullshit?

 

[westwall]

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

So does NOAA lie?

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010

Some of what NOAA does is quite good. However, when it comes to AGW then yes they have been caught too. Satellitegate is something you should look into. NOAA knowingly disseminated false data to news agencies and other organizations. Their satellites were reading up to 15 degrees warmer than was actual, and they were not informing the clients of that fact. They are currently defending themselves from a lawsuit for that willfull fraud.

There are a few threads here that describe it in great detail.

 

[westwall]

Gee you went from 30 years of the same temperature to less than 10 years (with an escape clause) in a matter of a few posts.
Thank you.

No, I'm just reporting what is in the general media and agreed to by Jones, it's not my fault if you're so blinded by ideology that you ignore basic science in the seaking of your goal. Your just doing what uneducated idealogues do.

Ideology has zero to do with any of this, but I'd hardly know that by all the little piles of "facts" you and others produce to try to make your case. Sorry, but as I said, I'll stick with known science produced by known experts. If they're wrong, that would be a good thing. But if they're right and no one was paying enough attention because they were too busy trying to disprove their data, then we're in deep trouble.

So you guys just carry on with your beliefs. I know where I stand, and no one will convince me otherwise unless YOU can make YOUR figures match your own predictions which, I believe you said previously, is also all guesswork. (Or something to that effect.)

Complete and utterly false. Politics is all that is driving AGW theory now. Every single thing that is reported is hyperbolic on the part of the AGW fraudsters. There is no empirical science to back them up at all. None. All they have are failed computer models and they wish to use predictions based on those to completely alter the the lifestyle of everyone on Earth.

You'll have to try harder maggie, I am not ignorant of science like the vast majority of those here. I have been a scientist for 40+ years and my company has done more environmental good for the planet than all of the climatologists combined for their whole existence. They "research" and fabricate data to support their political and monetary agenda's.

I fix the environmental disasters that man has done.

However, feel free to believe what you wish. Mother Nature is going to prove the AGW fraudsters wrong. They missed the boat and the climate is going to cool for the next 20+ years in accord with the normal cycles of the world. You say that you will follow known science from known experts and yet they have been consistently wrong for 30 years. If you choose to follow that track record then you're no better then any of the other zealots here. And that is sad, I had hoped you would actually review what has been said and do your own research to obtain a real idea of what is going on like Mathew has.

 

[logical4u]

When deniers lie like that they prove that they KNOW there is global warming.
Thank you.

There you go with the "lie" crap again. Alarmists are the only folks who lie incessantly. If you have a problem with what I said take it up with the satellite record.

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

How often was that equipment calibrated? What is the margin of error? Did the calibration favor the positive side or the negative side?
Seriously, if it was 3 degrees C in the last 25 years, with the limited number of samples taken (compared to the surface area of the planet), it would be a neglible number. If you could demonstrate one area (say 1000 square miles) increased "steadily" by 5 degrees or more, you might be on to something. .6 C, please....

 

[logical4u]

I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles.........to it.

... investors put more energy (pun intended) into what WILL become the industry of the future, employing millions of people? Isn't that a better question? Why?

This next part is a great thought!!!!!

Well, how about we drop the out of control regulation through the EPA, over the top taxation, silly leasing system for petrochem and all subsidies in one fell swoop?

Used to be that way... maybe it's time to return to tried and true methods of generating energy by getting government out of the way.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Use what is "proven" to work.

 

[Big Fitz]

Or we could do like the AGW cultists want and have the government run every single aspect of our private lives.

Fascism's guiding star is socialism combined with authoritarianism and jingoism.

Oh good gawd...is there EVER a thread where the holier-than-thou loudmouth cons jump in with their rhetorical bullshit?

yeah, it's irritating that Ole Rocks decided to do that. But he's not a con. A moron, but not a con.

 

[logical4u]

This is a classical example of the worst sides of free market and government intervention: Using the system to force a false market and protect profits by unfair laws. That's what T. Boone was after. Unfair profits.

I have to agree, but the energy industry didn't nearly bankrupt the country with its "false market," the banks that promised big payouts on investments when they had no assets sure did, though. Oddly, a large part of that resulted from regulations that already existed being ignored and given a pass by the government.

Different crisis. Good point but not germane.

If government regulations price energy to high for the average citizen to purchase, won't it have more or less the same effect? No one will be able to have a house that is energy driven. No computers, no cars, no public sewage treatment, no public water, no well pumps, no street lights, no security systems, it will just be your average third world nation.

 

[Old Rocks]

There you go with the "lie" crap again. Alarmists are the only folks who lie incessantly. If you have a problem with what I said take it up with the satellite record.

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

How often was that equipment calibrated? What is the margin of error? Did the calibration favor the positive side or the negative side?
Seriously, if it was 3 degrees C in the last 25 years, with the limited number of samples taken (compared to the surface area of the planet), it would be a neglible number. If you could demonstrate one area (say 1000 square miles) increased "steadily" by 5 degrees or more, you might be on to something. .6 C, please....

Logical, that is a graph from Dr. Roy Spencer, the fellow Rush Limpbaugh calls his own scientist. And his data leaves out the worst of the warmng in the Arctic.

 

[westwall]

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

How often was that equipment calibrated? What is the margin of error? Did the calibration favor the positive side or the negative side?
Seriously, if it was 3 degrees C in the last 25 years, with the limited number of samples taken (compared to the surface area of the planet), it would be a neglible number. If you could demonstrate one area (say 1000 square miles) increased "steadily" by 5 degrees or more, you might be on to something. .6 C, please....

Logical, that is a graph from Dr. Roy Spencer, the fellow Rush Limpbaugh calls his own scientist. And his data leaves out the worst of the warmng in the Arctic.

Oh you mean the crap data that GISS put out that is counter to what all the other systems say is happening? That crap. Where they average one weather station over 1200 km of terrain? That crapola? Sure olfruad sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, Walleyes, sure. Here is what the satellites show in the Arctic;

Image: Satellite-derived Arctic surface temperature trends part of World warmer, short-term trends need study: report

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.igsoc.org/journal/56/198/j09j079.pdf

Comparison of satellite, thermochron and air temperatures at
Summit, Greenland, during the winter of 2008/09
Lora S. KOENIG, Dorothy K. HALL
Cryospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 614.1, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT. Current trends show a rise in Arctic surface and air temperatures, including over the
Greenland ice sheet where rising temperatures will contribute to increased sea-level rise through
increased melt. We aim to establish the uncertainties in using satellite-derived surface temperature for
measuring Arctic surface temperature, as satellite data are increasingly being used to assess temperature
trends. To accomplish this, satellite-derived surface temperature, or land-surface temperature (LST),
must be validated and limitations of the satellite data must be assessed quantitatively. During the 2008/
09 boreal winter at Summit, Greenland, we employed data from standard US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) air-temperature instruments, button-sized temperature sensors
called thermochrons and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite
instrument to (1) assess the accuracy and utility of thermochrons in an ice-sheet environment and (2)
compare MODIS-derived LSTs with thermochron-derived surface and air temperatures. The thermochron-
derived air temperatures were very accurate, within 0.10.38C of the NOAA-derived air
temperature, but thermochron-derived surface temperatures were 38C higher than MODIS-derived
LSTs. Though surface temperature is largely determined by air temperature, these variables can differ
significantly. Furthermore, we show that the winter-time mean air temperature, adjusted to surface
temperature, was 118C higher than the winter-time mean MODIS-derived LST. This marked difference
occurs largely because satellite-derived LSTs cannot be measured through cloud cover, so caution must
be exercised in using time series of satellite LST data to study seasonal temperature trends.