Obama's global warming fraud is greeted with record cold temperatures.

[depotoo]

Did you hear Australia has cut their funding for climate change research?

it's not fake,

I disagree. All of the denier cult's pseudoscience is obviously faked. It's kind of insulting, how lame their attempted scam is. But then, they're not trying to fool the intelligent people, they're just trying to keep the rubes in line.

it's sloppy science and the results are cooked. the theory is flawed. on top of that the motivation now seems to be stop asking questions. i'm afraid that simply won't do.

I agree there. All of your denier cult's pseudoscience is fraudulent, and we've had enough of your Stalinist attempts to criminalize any science that disagrees with the agenda of DerParteiRepublikkan.

But maybe you're different. Every denier I've encountered, without exception, wants climate scientists put in jail. Are you willing to buck the trend and condemn that policy?

I know plenty of people that think this climate change is BS, but none that ever wanted to imprison anybody that disagreed with them. WTF are you talking to anyway?

Really?

Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation was a "Civil Investigative Demand" initiated in April 2010 by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for a wide range of records held by the University of Virginia related to five grant applications for research work by a leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann, who was an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. The demand was issued under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act in connection with claims by Cuccinnelli that Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws in relation to five research grants, by allegedly manipulating data. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented to support the claim. Mann's earlier work had been targeted by climate change skeptics in the hockey stick controversy, and allegations against him were renewed in late 2009 in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy but found to be groundless in a series of investigations.[1][2]

Widespread concerns were raised by University of Virginia's faculty and numerous scientists and science organizations that Cuccinelli's actions posed a threat to academic freedom, and would have a chilling effect on research in the state. The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[3] Cuccinelli tried to re-open his case by issuing a revised subpoena,[4] and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court. The case was defended by the university, and the court ruled that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[5][6]

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Ice volume, even more critical than coverage.,

 

[Obiwan]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Ice volume, even more critical than coverage.,

And meanwhile, the volume of ice in Antarctica has been growing....

Gee, guess you left that out of your equation, didn't you???

 

[Obiwan]

 

[mamooth]

So, we have 46 years of satellite data, and yet they claim to be accurate on data before that time?

Yes. Accurate _enough_. They never said they had today's accuracy, but it was good enough to know there was a hell of a lot more ice back then. The whaling ships, for example, reported ice never melting out in Baffin Bay, something unheard of now.

Basically, you're giving us a fallacy of incredulity. You can't believe someone else was smart and did a very good job, so you therefore declare it has to be invalid. Scientists and everyone with common sense recognize that's a bad argument.

And even with that the earth is many millenia old. Not just 146 years. Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And that's the "climate changed naturally in the past, therefore humans can't change climate" bad argument.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Every country in the world has agreed to take action to stop Global Warming.

It has nothing to do with Obama except for the political riff-raff that have no argument so toss out a Red Herring or Strawman.

 

[mamooth]

How do you get satellite data from 1870?

Talk about clueless!

Nobody said it was satellite data.

Damn, you're stupid. Why did you assume it had to be satellite data?

Anyways, another fine illustration of how you know next to nothing about this topic.

 

[bripat9643]

Every country in the world has agreed to take action to stop Global Warming.

It has nothing to do with Obama except for the political riff-raff that have no argument so toss out a Red Herring or Strawman.

That agreement wouldn't mean diddly squat without U.S. participation.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you get satellite data from 1870?

Talk about clueless!

Nobody said it was satellite data.

Damn, you're stupid. Why did you assume it had to be satellite data?

Anyways, another fine illustration of how you know next to nothing about this topic.

Before the jet passenger air travel age we didn't have regular flights over the polls. the idea that any estimates made before then could be close to accurate is ludicrous, to say the least.

 

[mamooth]

Do you ever take the time to look at others research into the actual data sets?

Yes, which is why I know your conspiracy theory is total nonsense.

And you do realize, even if the data had not been manipulated, it is only 180 years of records? You do realize the earth is many millenia older than 180 years,right?

And we're back to that fallacy again.

Do you even know they have been eliminated some data stations and adding others?

Why do you think that's a problem?

I'll give you a hint, before you say something dumb. "Anomalies".

Do you know, they prefer to use data from stations that are traditionally warmer, due to concrete islands, rather than record in actually areas in which they are stating the temp is from?

No, because that's an outright falsehood on your part. You might have been brainwashed into believing it, but it is still indisputably false.

 

[mamooth]

Before the jet passenger air travel age we didn't have regular flights over the polls. the idea that any estimates made before then could be close to accurate is ludicrous, to say the least.

That's right, because ships weren't invented until 1970.

You cultists just keep escalating the stupid.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, we have 46 years of satellite data, and yet they claim to be accurate on data before that time?

Yes. Accurate _enough_. They never said they had today's accuracy, but it was good enough to know there was a hell of a lot more ice back then. The whaling ships, for example, reported ice never melting out in Baffin Bay, something unheard of now.

Basically, you're giving us a fallacy of incredulity. You can't believe someone else was smart and did a very good job, so you therefore declare it has to be invalid. Scientists and everyone with common sense recognize that's a bad argument.

And even with that the earth is many millenia old. Not just 146 years. Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And that's the "climate changed naturally in the past, therefore humans can't change climate" bad argument.

Want a real world example of how all of that historical data you gullible warming pseudoscientists like to cite is generally bogus?

Back in my younger days in the Navy, we were required to submit synoptic weather reports via radio message. One of the measurements recorded was the sea water temperature. Since there was no way to hang someone over the side and stick a thermometer in the water, we used the sea water injection temperature for our steam condensers. That should be good enough, right? Close enough for government work?

Unfortunately, that temperature was measured about 26 feet BELOW the water's surface. Do you think the water at the surface and the water 26 feet below the surface were the same? That is called an induced error and I'll bet no climate scientist ever used that data while making allowances for the possibility that the data was flat out wrong.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Before the jet passenger air travel age we didn't have regular flights over the polls. the idea that any estimates made before then could be close to accurate is ludicrous, to say the least.

That's right, because ships weren't invented until 1970.

You cultists just keep escalating the stupid.

Ships and ice usually don't mix. You are the one escalating the stupidity by ignoring obvious inconsistencies in your data.

 

[mamooth]

That is called an induced error and I'll bet no climate scientist ever used that data while making allowances for the possibility that the data was flat out wrong.

And you'd be completely wrong, because compensation for measuring from ship intakes is very definitely factored in.

And if you knew the basics of the science, you would have known that.

Is it ever going to dawn on you that you simply don't know what you're talking about?

 

[bripat9643]

Before the jet passenger air travel age we didn't have regular flights over the polls. the idea that any estimates made before then could be close to accurate is ludicrous, to say the least.

That's right, because ships weren't invented until 1970.

You cultists just keep escalating the stupid.

Not many ships went North of Greenland before 1970.

 

[mamooth]

Ships and ice usually don't mix. You are the one escalating the stupidity by ignoring obvious inconsistencies in your data.

But ships can tell you where the edge of the pack ice is. And they did. Whaling ships especially hung out in such areas, and kept detailed logs, and those logs still exist. And where the ice didn't retreat out of sight of land, land-based observations were there. It's not as good as satellites, but it's enough for decent estimates.

Again, you all just don't know your facts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ships and ice usually don't mix. You are the one escalating the stupidity by ignoring obvious inconsistencies in your data.

But ships can tell you where the edge of the pack ice is. And they did. Whaling ships especially hung out in such areas, and kept detailed logs, and those logs still exist.

Again, the point, you suck at this.

Really? How precise were their navigation systems? They couldn't even reliably tell where they were most of the time. Your ignorance and arrogance is amazing!

 

[mamooth]

And meanwhile, the volume of ice in Antarctica has been growing....

Just as Dr. Manabe, the father of global warming science, predicted back in 1991, due to the freshening of the surface ocean layer, due to melt water running off Antarctica.

Gee, guess you left that out of your equation, didn't you???

Thanks for letting me point out yet another proven successful prediction of global warming science. Climate scientists have been getting everything correct for decades now, which is why climate science has such credibility. Deniers have been failing laughably with every prediction for decades running, which is why they're considered bad jokes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is called an induced error and I'll bet no climate scientist ever used that data while making allowances for the possibility that the data was flat out wrong.

And you'd be completely wrong, because compensation for measuring from ship intakes is very definitely factored in.

And if you knew the basics of the science, you would have known that.

Is it ever going to dawn on you that you simply don't know what you're talking about?

I don't know? I am a trained Navy engineer, with significant training in thermodynamics, oceanography and weather forecasting. What is your experience? Ever been north of the Arctic Circle in your life? Ever been UNDER the Arctic ice pack you so casually talk about?

Amateur!

 

[bripat9643]

Ships and ice usually don't mix. You are the one escalating the stupidity by ignoring obvious inconsistencies in your data.

But ships can tell you where the edge of the pack ice is. And they did. Whaling ships especially hung out in such areas, and kept detailed logs, and those logs still exist. And where the ice didn't retreat out of sight of land, land-based observations were there. It's not as good as satellites, but it's enough for decent estimates.

Again, you all just don't know your facts.

Whaling in the arctic died out near the turn of the century. So where does your data come from between 1900 and 1970?