My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

[ding]

Not if they exclude the urban heat island effect and use the high variability solar output datasets they don't.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is my go to AGW site

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

Science only offers us evidence


This is very basic sixth grade stuff

Not at all. Science offers theories or theories under construction. SCIENCE is never actually settled, but like all constructions, some are certainly "good enough" to live in and with.

GW is the most interconnected of problems. It involves more specialty expertise than any other pressing issue. Everything from biological experts to tree ring readers to geologists/chemists/oceanographers/solar experts/space tech engineers to modeling experts and economic, social impact evaluators and atmospheric physicists. SOME of the GW science is "good enough" and that includes the GHouse Theory, properties and measurement of GH gases, and for ONLY the past 55 years or so the MEASUREMENT capability of atmospheric temperatures to the accuracy required to MAKE any pronouncement on GLOBAL warming.

The GW theories that have hit brick walls and CRASHED have to do with "accelerated, runaway warming -- trigger temperatures and "tipping points". Because in the 55 years of measurement capability and all the modeling from CRUDE to advanced -- NONE of these things have any empirical evidence.

THe idea that BEYOND the chemical/atmospheric properties of CO2 that most everyone agrees on -- the concept of giving CO2 SUPERPOWERS that are not in evidence is why these adjunct CATASTROPHIC theories are failing.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Not at all. Science offers theories or theories under construction. SCIENCE is never actually settled, but like all constructions, some are certainly "good enough" to live in and with.

GW is the most interconnected of problems. It involves more specialty expertise than any other pressing issue. Everything from biological experts to tree ring readers to geologists/chemists/oceanographers/solar experts/space tech engineers to modeling experts and economic, social impact evaluators and atmospheric physicists. SOME of the GW science is "good enough" and that includes the GHouse Theory, properties and measurement of GH gases, and for ONLY the past 55 years or so the MEASUREMENT capability of atmospheric temperatures to the accuracy required to MAKE any pronouncement on GLOBAL warming.

The GW theories that have hit brick walls and CRASHED have to do with "accelerated, runaway warming -- trigger temperatures and "tipping points". Because in the 55 years of measurement capability and all the modeling from CRUDE to advanced -- NONE of these things have any empirical evidence.

THe idea that BEYOND the chemical/atmospheric properties of CO2 that most everyone agrees on -- the concept of giving CO2 SUPERPOWERS that are not in evidence is why these adjunct CATASTROPHIC theories are failing.

That is your opinion if the current evidence for AGW. The scientific community disagrees with you

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't think Feynman meant what you seem to think he meant. And you reject evolutionary theory as well? Impressive...

He didn't mean that scientists are ignorant of course. What he meant is they study and try to quantify the UNKNOWN fringes of any "theory". So there's "faith" involved in tackling any unknown and that's where the "ignorance of scientists" comes from.

LATELY -- and likely to Feynman's disdain -- MORE AND MORE -- the "activists in labcoats" are ARROGANTLY proclaiming that they KNOW stuff that isn't based on science method or research.

It's that arrogance, fraud, greed issue we were just discussing. As well as too much political/social motivation and the complicity of media to ECHO these "ignorant prophets" to the masses.

 

[flacaltenn]

That is your opinion if the current evidence for AGW. The scientific community disagrees with you

You have no fuckin idea WHAT I believe, never mind your arrogance to speak for every involved scientist. If opinions/polls mattered and they DONT in general -- the only acceptable studies on "BELIEFS" of GW scientists were done in a 3 part 10 year survey of VETTED GW scientists by Bray and von Storch..

THere's not a simple SINGLE question about the veracity or truth of GW. You have to ask over a HUNDRED DIFFERENT questions to assess the confidence of THIS science. And ANY "opinion/polling" on ONE QUESTION like "is the Earth warming and does mankind bear the majority of the guilt" is just juvenile horseshit.

Bray and von Storch asked about 150 questions in each of their surveys and that gives a FAR finer quality product on what the participants "believe".

 

[Vegasgiants]

You have no fuckin idea WHAT I believe, never mind your arrogance to speak for every involved scientist. If opinions/polls mattered and they DONT in general -- the only acceptable studies on "BELIEFS" of GW scientists were done in a 3 part 10 year survey of VETTED GW scientists by Bray and von Storch..

THere's not a simple SINGLE question about the veracity or truth of GW. You have to ask over a HUNDRED DIFFERENT questions to assess the confidence of THIS science. And ANY "opinion/polling" on ONE QUESTION like "is the Earth warming and does mankind bear the majority of the guilt" is just juvenile horseshit.

Bray and von Storch asked about 150 questions in each of their surveys and that gives a FAR finer quality product on what the participants "believe".

Wow you went off the rails. Lol

 

[flacaltenn]

This is my go to AGW site

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

Anything from NASA.GOV has a chance of being credible. NOTHING from CLIMATE.NASA.GOV is anything more a propaganda program run from the WHouse that Obama started.

To wit -- their OPENING graph of CO2 SEEMING to SKYROCKET. There are ice core and other proxy studies that show LARGE and sudden swings in CO2 during those periods of time. Do you have the SOURCE papers for that particular graph? Because that's not how propaganda operates.

I can show you ANY number of studies that show BOTH temperature and CO2 concentrations over past millennia that have VERY high variance.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Anything from NASA.GOV has a chance of being credible. NOTHING from CLIMATE.NASA.GOV is anything more a propaganda program run from the WHouse that Obama started.

To wit -- their OPENING graph of CO2 SEEMING to SKYROCKET. There are ice core and other proxy studies that show LARGE and sudden swings in CO2 during those periods of time. Do you have the SOURCE papers for that particular graph? Because that's not how propaganda operates.

I can show you ANY number of studies that show BOTH temperature and CO2 concentrations over past millennia that have VERY high variance.

Well that is certainly your opinion

All the original studies are in the references

 

[flacaltenn]

Well that is certainly your opinion

All the original studies are in the references

There's no study reference for that opening graph because THERE IS NONE. They took a Vostok ice core study that's widely known and DECEPTIVELY crayon-ed in the MODERN instrumental data at the end. It's another phony "hockey stick" study ATTEMPTING to compare TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

The Vostok ice core study they scarfed has severely LIMITED time resolution. Because it comes from Antarctica. Antarctica is a virtual desert. The ice builds VERY SLOWLY THERE. Thus SLICING an ice core from Antarctica will give you less than 10% of the TIME RESOLUTION that a similar sliced Ice Core from Greenland. Greenland ice record is not AS LONG as the ice in Antarctica but has MUCH MORE VARIANCE in the CO2 concentrations than the Vostok records.

The Vostok ice cores studies WOULD NEVER RESOLVE ANY CHANGES in CO2 quicker than about 600 years. It's a simple ass LONG TERM AVERAGE. The modern instrumention record they TACKED ON to this data to MAKE a "hockey stick" is INSTANTANEOUS and accurate to DAYS.

It's a fraud and propaganda exercise in CChange "fear porn".

 

[Vegasgiants]

There's no study reference for that opening graph because THERE IS NONE. They took a Vostok ice core study that's widely known and DECEPTIVELY crayon-ed in the MODERN instrumental data at the end. It's another phony "hockey stick" study ATTEMPTING to compare TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

The Vostok ice core study they scarfed has severely LIMITED time resolution. Because it comes from Antarctica. Antarctica is a virtual desert. The ice builds VERY SLOWLY THERE. Thus SLICING an ice core from Antarctica will give you less than 10% of the TIME RESOLUTION that a similar sliced Ice Core from Greenland. Greenland ice record is not AS LONG as the ice in Antarctica but has MUCH MORE VARIANCE in the CO2 concentrations than the Vostok records.

The Vostok ice cores studies WOULD NEVER RESOLVE ANY CHANGES in CO2 quicker than about 600 years. It's a simple ass LONG TERM AVERAGE. The modern instrumention record they TACKED ON to this data to MAKE a "hockey stick" is INSTANTANEOUS and accurate to DAYS.

It's a fraud and propaganda exercise in CChange "fear porn".

Well that is your claim.....I see no evidence to support it

 

[flacaltenn]

Well that is your claim.....I see no evidence to support it

I KNOW what I said is true. Where do YOU think that CLIMATE.GOV got 800,000 yr old CO2 concentrations from? Captured alien spacecraft?

You cannot COMPARE the time resolution of MODERN instrumentation to ANY LONG TERM proxy record. Do U even know what a proxy is?

Crayon fear porn. That's YOUR primary source of GW info apparently.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I KNOW what I said is true. Where do YOU think that CLIMATE.GOV got 800,000 yr old CO2 concentrations from? Captured alien spacecraft?

You cannot COMPARE the time resolution of MODERN instrumentation to ANY LONG TERM proxy record. Do U even know what a proxy is?

Crayon fear porn. That's YOUR primary source of GW info apparently.

Ok. You know it in your heart. You just cant show it here


Got it



Thanks

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama created Climate.Gov in 2014 to sway the public opinion on Climate Change. Nothing to DO with it being a "scientific reference". John Podesta (lately Bidens campaign mgr and former Obama advisor) was the LEAD on creating the website. Obama just came out THIS WEEK at a speech at Stanford declaring "WE NEED MORE REGULATION of speech and truth on the Internet". The guy that believes that the PUBLIC and scientific discourse on the WEB is all dangerously fake news, but never says a WORD about CNN/MSNBC/NYTIMES/WashPo that gotten 85% of CRITICAL stories INTENTIONALLY wrong in the past decade.

Obama Will Use Website to Display Climate Change - The Borgen Project

President Obama is currently working on a website that will enable Americans to view how climate change is affecting their own hometowns.

borgenproject.org

This past October, only 67% of Americans believed that global warming is affecting the world, according to a pole by Pew Research Center. On a list of 20 world issues that the Congress and president needed to focus on, global warming ranked number 19 according to Americans.

In response to this, President Obama is currently working on a website that will enable Americans to view how the ever-changing climate is affecting their own regions and hometowns. John D. Podesta, Obama’s counselor, believes that “localizing this information gives a sense of how this affects people and spurs actions. If you’re thinking…how your local community will be affected, it’s likely to change that question of salience.”

Podesta and John P. Holdren, the White House science adviser, formed the idea of climate.data.gov, which strives to illustrate data of calculated wildfires, dangerously rising sea levels and dry spells.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Obama created Climate.Gov in 2014 to sway the public opinion on Climate Change. Nothing to DO with it being a "scientific reference". John Podesta (lately Bidens campaign mgr and former Obama advisor) was the LEAD on creating the website. Obama just came out THIS WEEK at a speech at Stanford declaring "WE NEED MORE REGULATION of speech and truth on the Internet". The guy that believes that the PUBLIC and scientific discourse on the WEB is all dangerously fake news, but never says a WORD about CNN/MSNBC/NYTIMES/WashPo that gotten 85% of CRITICAL stories INTENTIONALLY wrong in the past decade.

Obama Will Use Website to Display Climate Change - The Borgen Project

President Obama is currently working on a website that will enable Americans to view how climate change is affecting their own hometowns.

borgenproject.org

This past October, only 67% of Americans believed that global warming is affecting the world, according to a pole by Pew Research Center. On a list of 20 world issues that the Congress and president needed to focus on, global warming ranked number 19 according to Americans.

In response to this, President Obama is currently working on a website that will enable Americans to view how the ever-changing climate is affecting their own regions and hometowns. John D. Podesta, Obama’s counselor, believes that “localizing this information gives a sense of how this affects people and spurs actions. If you’re thinking…how your local community will be affected, it’s likely to change that question of salience.”

Podesta and John P. Holdren, the White House science adviser, formed the idea of climate.data.gov, which strives to illustrate data of calculated wildfires, dangerously rising sea levels and dry spells.

It ran for four years under trump who appointed a climate change skeptic to run it. He got to NASA and changed his mind upon seeing the evidence and fully supported the website

 

[flacaltenn]

Ok. You know it in your heart. You just cant show it here


Got it



Thanks

Got no motivation to WORK for a poster that knows SO little about GW but has GRAND opinions on it.

Here's a clue. THe ONLY CONTIGUOUS 800,000 year CO2 concentration record comes FROM the Vostok Ice Core studies.

Stop being an ass and go compare the chart below to the data shown at the Climate.Gov fear porn site.

This one only covers 450,000 of the 800,000 years shown in the MANGLED and DECEPTIVE chart at Climate.Gov. COMPARE THE DATES AND PEAKS AND VALLEYS of the Ice Ages you're looking at.

You can find one YOURSELF that cover ALL 800,000 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's assuming that you CAN compare the data in the 2 graphs.

 

[ChemEngineer]

That is your opinion [Flacaltenn] if (sic) the current evidence for AGW. The scientific community disagrees with you

Give it up, "giant." You lost. You're inconsistent. You're illogical. You simply keep retelling the same, sad, erroneous story as if you had something meaningful to say.

You do not.

There IS NO "scientific community." That cockamamey phrase is as bogus as everything else you are pushing.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck, famous Nobel Laureate in physics

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan

"Valid criticism does you a favor." - Carl Sagan

Nevertheless, Carl Sagan ignored the valid criticisms I sent to his publisher, in his replies to me by letter. He simply asked me to buy his newest book while ignoring "valid criticism". What a pretentious, hypocrite fop.

 

[ding]

Got no motivation to WORK for a poster that knows SO little about GW but has GRAND opinions on it.

Here's a clue. THe ONLY CONTIGUOUS 800,000 year CO2 concentration record comes FROM the Vostok Ice Core studies.

Stop being an ass and go compare the chart below to the data shown at the Climate.Gov fear porn site.

This one only covers 450,000 of the 800,000 years shown in the MANGLED and DECEPTIVE chart at Climate.Gov. COMPARE THE DATES AND PEAKS AND VALLEYS of the Ice Ages you're looking at.

You can find one YOURSELF that cover ALL 800,000 years.

I got 5 bucks that says he posts a link he doesn't understand and has nothing to do with this and declares victory.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Give it up, "giant." You lost. You're inconsistent. You're illogical. You simply keep retelling the same, sad, erroneous story as if you had something meaningful to say.

You do not.

There IS NO "scientific community." That cockamamey phrase is as bogus as everything else you are pushing.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck, famous Nobel Laureate in physics

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan

"Valid criticism does you a favor." - Carl Sagan

Nevertheless, Carl Sagan ignored the valid criticisms I sent to his publisher, in his replies to me by letter. He simply asked me to buy his newest book while ignoring "valid criticism". What a pretentious, hypocrite fop.

You have nothing so you go for the personal attack? Is your argument that weak?


I accept your concession

 

[Vegasgiants]

Got no motivation to WORK for a poster that knows SO little about GW but has GRAND opinions on it.

Here's a clue. THe ONLY CONTIGUOUS 800,000 year CO2 concentration record comes FROM the Vostok Ice Core studies.

Stop being an ass and go compare the chart below to the data shown at the Climate.Gov fear porn site.

This one only covers 450,000 of the 800,000 years shown in the MANGLED and DECEPTIVE chart at Climate.Gov. COMPARE THE DATES AND PEAKS AND VALLEYS of the Ice Ages you're looking at.

You can find one YOURSELF that cover ALL 800,000 years.

You seem upset