More record temps

But guess what s0n??????????


NOBODY CARES!!!!!

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming

Thursday, March 24, 2011

President Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations, among others, argue that global warming is chiefly caused by human activity. A plurality of voters recognize that this view is held mostly by liberals rather than by all Americans.

In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters mistakenly think most Americans agree that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Forty-six percent (46%) recognize that the view is held primarily by liberals (To see survey question wording, click here.).

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming - Rasmussen Reports™






Know what that means asshole?

Your side lost the debate!!!!:fu:

Of course, kicking numbers around for shits and giggles can be a bit of fun I guess!!!!:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:



I'm afraid you can't change objective reality with a vote.

But the IPCC scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom never did any research on the subject,

What percentage have never done any research on the subject?
How do you objectively decide whether or not their research counts as "any research on the subject"?
How long did it take you to review all of their publications to make that determination? That's a lot of work on your part, impressive.
 
Last edited:
And please with the investigation that found proof of no wrongdoing.........completed by a comittee of peers. In my line of work over the last 25 years, Ive had to initiate somewhere in the whereabouts of 350 investigations. In every single case, an OUTSIDE and UNAFFILIATED division of quality assurance came in to review the evidence and take statements. Had I tried to investigate even one of those 350 cases on my own..........Id lose my job.......... because of the outside PERCEPTION that I could not have arrived at a determination wihtout some level of subjectivity.

The IPCC is a fraud.


What field of science do you do your research in?
 
And please with the investigation that found proof of no wrongdoing.........completed by a comittee of peers. In my line of work over the last 25 years, Ive had to initiate somewhere in the whereabouts of 350 investigations. In every single case, an OUTSIDE and UNAFFILIATED division of quality assurance came in to review the evidence and take statements. Had I tried to investigate even one of those 350 cases on my own..........Id lose my job.......... because of the outside PERCEPTION that I could not have arrived at a determination wihtout some level of subjectivity.

The IPCC is a fraud.


What field of science do you do your research in?

The kookster's field is obviously 'crapology'. Crap is the only thing he knows but he knows it very intimately and personally. In fact, it is the only thing he ever posts.
 
I'm afraid you can't change objective reality with a vote.

But the IPCC scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom never did any research on the subject,

What percentage have never done any research on the subject?
How do you objectively decide whether or not their research counts as "any research on the subject"?
How long did it take you to review all of their publications to make that determination? That's a lot of work on your part, impressive.

:rolleyes: Read up.

Bitten by the IPCC
 
wow 65 degrees here this morning, that 20 degrees less than the same time a few days ago...Global Cooling? At this rate it will be colder than Pluto in a few weeks
 
And please with the investigation that found proof of no wrongdoing.........completed by a comittee of peers. In my line of work over the last 25 years, Ive had to initiate somewhere in the whereabouts of 350 investigations. In every single case, an OUTSIDE and UNAFFILIATED division of quality assurance came in to review the evidence and take statements. Had I tried to investigate even one of those 350 cases on my own..........Id lose my job.......... because of the outside PERCEPTION that I could not have arrived at a determination wihtout some level of subjectivity.

The IPCC is a fraud.


What field of science do you do your research in?

The kookster's field is obviously 'crapology'. Crap is the only thing he knows but he knows it very intimately and personally. In fact, it is the only thing he ever posts.
What field of science do you do your research in?
 
I'm afraid you can't change objective reality with a vote.

But the IPCC scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom never did any research on the subject,

What percentage have never done any research on the subject?
How do you objectively decide whether or not their research counts as "any research on the subject"?
How long did it take you to review all of their publications to make that determination? That's a lot of work on your part, impressive.





After reviewing three "studies" and observing the lack of scientific rigour, then witnessing the continuing falsification of the historical record it is no longer neccessary to read anything from climate 'mafia'. They have demonstrated their complete lack of scientific ethics so they no longer matter.
 
And please with the investigation that found proof of no wrongdoing.........completed by a comittee of peers. In my line of work over the last 25 years, Ive had to initiate somewhere in the whereabouts of 350 investigations. In every single case, an OUTSIDE and UNAFFILIATED division of quality assurance came in to review the evidence and take statements. Had I tried to investigate even one of those 350 cases on my own..........Id lose my job.......... because of the outside PERCEPTION that I could not have arrived at a determination wihtout some level of subjectivity.

The IPCC is a fraud.


What field of science do you do your research in?

The kookster's field is obviously 'crapology'. Crap is the only thing he knows but he knows it very intimately and personally. In fact, it is the only thing he ever posts.




And yet he can understand simple forum rules which you, the supposed "enlightened one" can't. I'll take his word, and observed superiority, over your proven and demonstrable incompetence any day of the week.
 
I've came to the conclusion that we could have a negative energy balance right now and still get a warming planet. Look at cru, which excludes much of the arctic ocean area and the giss----see the difference. The cru since 2004 has seen NO warming, but giss has seen .16c or so of warming with rss and uah showing the same.

I think the period from 1997-2004 was enough to send the arctic over a tipping point, meaning less sea ice to reflect the sun light, which the oceans take more and more of the heat energy and release that heat throughout the year. This keeps the arctic warmer and this loops into its self. Arctic amplification it is called. The cru proves without a doubt that much of the rest of the planet HASN'T warmed at all since 2004 period.

Reasons for this as I've stated
1# Grand minimum since 2005, which is bringing about a negative forcing and counter balancing the co2 forcing.
2# It was never warming as fast as the slope would have you to believe in the 1990's as it was correcting for the vei 6 volcano over a 6 year period. So .14c is about all we ever warmed to start out with.

Solar cycle 5 did cool the planet over a decade to near .15 or so. So I believe based on the historic data that it is possible for the grand minimum to be stabilizing the global temperature.

How do I explain the rest of the worlds glacial melting? The same way more or less as I believe once you get to a point they will melt. All you need is above freezing to melt ice. This is how I explain Antarctica east ice sheet melting and some of Greenland.

The arctic amplification is enough to warm our planet up even through the balance is near a balance overall with negative forcing and positive forcing balancing each other.

Even James Hansen is coming around to some of my thinking. :eek: But he states that sulfur is negative human emissions are doing a lot of it, but I'm saying a natural grand minimum is doing it.


Old rocks or anyone do you agree?
 
Last edited:
I've came to the conclusion that we could have a negative energy balance right now and still get a warming planet. Look at cru, which excludes much of the arctic ocean area and the giss----see the difference. The cru since 2004 has seen NO warming, but giss has seen .16c or so of warming with rss and uah showing the same.

I think the period from 1997-2004 was enough to send the arctic over a tipping point, meaning less sea ice to reflect the sun light, which the oceans take more and more of the heat energy and release that heat throughout the year. This keeps the arctic warmer and this loops into its self. Arctic amplification it is called. The cru proves without a doubt that much of the rest of the planet HASN'T warmed at all since 2004 period.

Reasons for this as I've stated
1# Grand minimum since 2005, which is bringing about a negative forcing and counter balancing the co2 forcing.
2# It was never warming as fast as the slope would have you to believe in the 1990's as it was correcting for the vei 6 volcano over a 6 year period. So .14c is about all we ever warmed to start out with.

Solar cycle 5 did cool the planet over a decade to near .15 or so. So I believe based on the historic data that it is possible for the grand minimum to be stabilizing the global temperature.

How do I explain the rest of the worlds glacial melting? The same way more or less as I believe once you get to a point they will melt. All you need is above freezing to melt ice. This is how I explain Antarctica east ice sheet melting and some of Greenland.

The arctic amplification is enough to warm our planet up even through the balance is near a balance overall with negative forcing and positive forcing balancing each other.

Even James Hansen is coming around to some of my thinking. :eek: But he states that sulfur is negative human emissions are doing a lot of it, but I'm saying a natural grand minimum is doing it.


Old rocks or anyone do you agree?

Matt you just went and did a very long post to basically say you don't know but you may have some ideas perhaps, if the data you have is correct... Maybe...

I have an idea. Why not give the same faith or benefit of the doubt to the concept that climate scientists are still human and will protect themselves when their livelihood is threatened. They use misleading charts and graphs to make claims that often are based on the most circumstantial of evidence, and create these using climate models based on an incomplete set of factors and what actual hard data they do collect gets run through various algorithms and ever more elaborate and complex equations. You can make anything you want appear to be true if you run it through enough complexities.

You say you are not sure and just curious about this, yet you do not question their claims only try and prove them... Why not be a bit more objective and see what ya find..
 
Nationally, 1,966 daily high maximum temperature records have been broken or tied so far this month (through July 23). Sixty-six of those records were all-time maximum temperature records.More impressive, however, are the figures for highest minimum temperature records. Because of the extremely high humidity levels during this heat wave, a whopping 4,376 record highest minimum temperature records were broken or tied through July 23. Of those minimum temperature records, 158 were all-time records.

Heat wave 2011: humidity the stunning hallmark - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post
 

Forum List

Back
Top