Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[Abraham3]

Wrong, but I do what I wish when I want to. I don't jump because some internet troll tells me to.

Then don't expect anyone to believe you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody gonna teach Westwall no science. He's got Fox News. Don't need no facts. Don't need no learning. He's entitled to whatever truth that he wants.

You whine worse than my 7 year old.

I do whine about people who pretend to be knowledgeable when, in fact, they are merely political.

Says the guy who "knows" we don't invest any money in fossil fuels.

 

[Meister]

So sayeth the political whore. All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that. Do you know what "consensus" is? It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!

Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.

What a stupid fool.

You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?

Would you care to explain that? FCT? Meister? You praised Westie for that nonsense. Surely you could explain what is meant by it.

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

 

[PMZ]

So sayeth the political whore. All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that. Do you know what "consensus" is? It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!

Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.

What a stupid fool.

You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?

Would you care to explain that? FCT? Meister? You praised Westie for that nonsense. Surely you could explain what is meant by it.

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

If you were right, that science only is what money can buy, the huge advancements of its track record would not exist.

 

[Meister]

You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?

Would you care to explain that? FCT? Meister? You praised Westie for that nonsense. Surely you could explain what is meant by it.

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

If you were right, that science only is what money can buy, the huge advancements of its track record would not exist.

Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.
The huge advancements that you're talking about are the emails from Mann, right?
You know the ones that stated the data didn't add up, or, are you just going to deny those facts? I'm mean, if you take them into consideration your agenda does fall apart.

 

[flacaltenn]

So sayeth the political whore. All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that. Do you know what "consensus" is? It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!

Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.

What a stupid fool.

You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?

Would you care to explain that? FCT? Meister? You praised Westie for that nonsense. Surely you could explain what is meant by it.

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

Yep.. I second that... You always please your grant-giver.. Nice plug for their cause in the Abstract -- a well crafted Press Release prostituting your scientific principles to give the public some alarm --- and a graph made NOT FOR SCIENCE --- but for public policy..

The REST of the study could be science --- but nobody will ever get past the abstract and the propaganda..

 

[orogenicman]

So sayeth the political whore. All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that. Do you know what "consensus" is? It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!

Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.

What a stupid fool.

You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?

Would you care to explain that? FCT? Meister? You praised Westie for that nonsense. Surely you could explain what is meant by it.

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

That sounds like sour grapes because your pseudoscience friends have such a hard time even applying for grants, much less obtaining them. That is the fault of climate scientists, how? Let me give you a clue. If you want to apply for a science grant, you have to demonstrate that:

1) You are a real scientist conducting real scientific research;

2) You have to understand the forms you are filling out, and provide truthful answers to the questions;

3) You have to convince the government that your research is going to provide results, whether it actually does or not.
The problem with most of your denier pals is that they aren't actually scientists. The most vocal member of your club is a former disc jockey. Another is a message therapist. You guys just don't get it.

You don't go to a fast food cashier if you need brain surgery.

 

[flacaltenn]

You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?

Would you care to explain that? FCT? Meister? You praised Westie for that nonsense. Surely you could explain what is meant by it.

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

That sounds like sour grapes because your pseudoscience friends have such a hard time even applying for grants, much less obtaining them. That is the fault of climate scientists, how? Let me give you a clue. If you want to apply for a science grant, you have to demonstrate that:

1) You are a real scientist conducting real scientific research;

2) You have to understand the forms you are filling out, and provide truthful answers to the questions;

3) You have to convince the government that your research is going to provide results, whether it actually does or not.
The problem with most of your denier pals is that they aren't actually scientists. The most vocal member of your club is a former disc jockey. Another is a message therapist. You guys just don't get it.

You don't go to a fast food cashier if you need brain surgery.

Lemme 'splain to ya how you sell "basic unfettered research" to a Government Agency..
My ass was on a plane between San Jose and Dulles 3 times a month for 4 years. My briefcase had 2 or 3 basic vanilla presentations in it for the stuff we were selling in signal and image processing.. THEN --- there was the "customizing" section of slides.

One for Agency A -- who had a pot of money for Stars Wars Ballistic Missile Defense.
One for Agency B -- who had a pot of money for Satellite interp. of Earth Resources.
One for Agency X -- who apparently had a never empty blank check to listen into the Kremlin.
One for the symposium where I was supposed to present a paper..

I took NO exams, they never asked me for "credentials", and I listened VERY CLOSELY to see what their money was ACTUALLY ALLOCATED FOR..

Climate scientists are only different because they have become rock stars in terms of public awareness. And the media attention FURTHER causes them to "tailor the message".

Government doesn't sit there looking for nifty talented scientists to pitch them BRILLIANT new ideas.. They don't even care.. They get a pot 'o money to hand out for a CAUSE -- and they choose the messengers for that cause..

Your end product had BETTER make them look good.. At LEAST thru the abstract and the exec summary part..

 

[Abraham3]

You weren't a research scientist. People were paying you for things you'd already built. Not quite the same thing.

 

[flacaltenn]

You weren't a research scientist. People were paying you for things you'd already built. Not quite the same thing.

Oh really?? That's a helluva surprise to me.. Know anything about optical computing? How about Neural Networks? We can chat...

 

[mamooth]

Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.

If you were in touch with reality, you wouldn't be part of the denialist political cult. Knowledge and common sense destroy denialism.

The huge advancements that you're talking about are the emails from Mann, right?
You know the ones that stated the data didn't add up, or, are you just going to deny those facts?

I am going to point out how you're parroting a big lie. No such thing happened.

Apparently, your political cult never informed you about how the phony climategate non-scandal crashed and burned years ago, leaving egg on the face of all who fell for it. But since your cult never told you, and you only get info from your cult, there's no way you could have known that. Hence I have to tell you now.

 

[Meister]

Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.

If you were in touch with reality, you wouldn't be part of the denialist political cult. Knowledge and common sense destroy denialism.

The huge advancements that you're talking about are the emails from Mann, right?
You know the ones that stated the data didn't add up, or, are you just going to deny those facts?

I am going to point out how you're parroting a big lie. No such thing happened.

Apparently, your political cult never informed you about how the phony climategate non-scandal crashed and burned years ago, leaving egg on the face of all who fell for it. But since your cult never told you, and you only get info from your cult, there's no way you could have known that. Hence I have to tell you now.

Your cult would deny the truth...it has to.

 

[PMZ]

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

If you were right, that science only is what money can buy, the huge advancements of its track record would not exist.

Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.
The huge advancements that you're talking about are the emails from Mann, right?
You know the ones that stated the data didn't add up, or, are you just going to deny those facts? I'm mean, if you take them into consideration your agenda does fall apart.

There are no scientists jumping ship. You have zero science to support what your politics wishes was true. Zero. No theories, no data, no scientists, nothing.

 

[PMZ]

I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.

That sounds like sour grapes because your pseudoscience friends have such a hard time even applying for grants, much less obtaining them. That is the fault of climate scientists, how? Let me give you a clue. If you want to apply for a science grant, you have to demonstrate that:

1) You are a real scientist conducting real scientific research;

2) You have to understand the forms you are filling out, and provide truthful answers to the questions;

3) You have to convince the government that your research is going to provide results, whether it actually does or not.
The problem with most of your denier pals is that they aren't actually scientists. The most vocal member of your club is a former disc jockey. Another is a message therapist. You guys just don't get it.

You don't go to a fast food cashier if you need brain surgery.

Lemme 'splain to ya how you sell "basic unfettered research" to a Government Agency..
My ass was on a plane between San Jose and Dulles 3 times a month for 4 years. My briefcase had 2 or 3 basic vanilla presentations in it for the stuff we were selling in signal and image processing.. THEN --- there was the "customizing" section of slides.

One for Agency A -- who had a pot of money for Stars Wars Ballistic Missile Defense.
One for Agency B -- who had a pot of money for Satellite interp. of Earth Resources.
One for Agency X -- who apparently had a never empty blank check to listen into the Kremlin.
One for the symposium where I was supposed to present a paper..

I took NO exams, they never asked me for "credentials", and I listened VERY CLOSELY to see what their money was ACTUALLY ALLOCATED FOR..

Climate scientists are only different because they have become rock stars in terms of public awareness. And the media attention FURTHER causes them to "tailor the message".

Government doesn't sit there looking for nifty talented scientists to pitch them BRILLIANT new ideas.. They don't even care.. They get a pot 'o money to hand out for a CAUSE -- and they choose the messengers for that cause..

Your end product had BETTER make them look good.. At LEAST thru the abstract and the exec summary part..

I like how you project your shyster tactics on others.

 

[flacaltenn]

That sounds like sour grapes because your pseudoscience friends have such a hard time even applying for grants, much less obtaining them. That is the fault of climate scientists, how? Let me give you a clue. If you want to apply for a science grant, you have to demonstrate that:

1) You are a real scientist conducting real scientific research;

2) You have to understand the forms you are filling out, and provide truthful answers to the questions;

3) You have to convince the government that your research is going to provide results, whether it actually does or not.
The problem with most of your denier pals is that they aren't actually scientists. The most vocal member of your club is a former disc jockey. Another is a message therapist. You guys just don't get it.

You don't go to a fast food cashier if you need brain surgery.

Lemme 'splain to ya how you sell "basic unfettered research" to a Government Agency..
My ass was on a plane between San Jose and Dulles 3 times a month for 4 years. My briefcase had 2 or 3 basic vanilla presentations in it for the stuff we were selling in signal and image processing.. THEN --- there was the "customizing" section of slides.

One for Agency A -- who had a pot of money for Stars Wars Ballistic Missile Defense.
One for Agency B -- who had a pot of money for Satellite interp. of Earth Resources.
One for Agency X -- who apparently had a never empty blank check to listen into the Kremlin.
One for the symposium where I was supposed to present a paper..

I took NO exams, they never asked me for "credentials", and I listened VERY CLOSELY to see what their money was ACTUALLY ALLOCATED FOR..

Climate scientists are only different because they have become rock stars in terms of public awareness. And the media attention FURTHER causes them to "tailor the message".

Government doesn't sit there looking for nifty talented scientists to pitch them BRILLIANT new ideas.. They don't even care.. They get a pot 'o money to hand out for a CAUSE -- and they choose the messengers for that cause..

Your end product had BETTER make them look good.. At LEAST thru the abstract and the exec summary part..

I like how you project your shyster tactics on others.

What was THAT supposed to mean Junior? That's how you keep 10 research scientists employed with Government funding. BESIDES what the corporation needs you for..

You match your research interest to whatever piles of money Congress allocates for "crises". No crisis -- No money.. What? You think they just fund any "good ideas" that just walk in door?? Go try that at DARPA or NOAA or the Pentagon.

MAJOR misconception on the parts of the folks here on the forum that think GOVERNMENT is the director and leader of American innovation..

 

[PMZ]

Lemme 'splain to ya how you sell "basic unfettered research" to a Government Agency..
My ass was on a plane between San Jose and Dulles 3 times a month for 4 years. My briefcase had 2 or 3 basic vanilla presentations in it for the stuff we were selling in signal and image processing.. THEN --- there was the "customizing" section of slides.

One for Agency A -- who had a pot of money for Stars Wars Ballistic Missile Defense.
One for Agency B -- who had a pot of money for Satellite interp. of Earth Resources.
One for Agency X -- who apparently had a never empty blank check to listen into the Kremlin.
One for the symposium where I was supposed to present a paper..

I took NO exams, they never asked me for "credentials", and I listened VERY CLOSELY to see what their money was ACTUALLY ALLOCATED FOR..

Climate scientists are only different because they have become rock stars in terms of public awareness. And the media attention FURTHER causes them to "tailor the message".

Government doesn't sit there looking for nifty talented scientists to pitch them BRILLIANT new ideas.. They don't even care.. They get a pot 'o money to hand out for a CAUSE -- and they choose the messengers for that cause..

Your end product had BETTER make them look good.. At LEAST thru the abstract and the exec summary part..

I like how you project your shyster tactics on others.

What was THAT supposed to mean Junior? That's how you keep 10 research scientists employed with Government funding. BESIDES what the corporation needs you for..

You match your research interest to whatever piles of money Congress allocates for "crises". No crisis -- No money.. What? You think they just fund any "good ideas" that just walk in door?? Go try that at DARPA or NOAA or the Pentagon.

MAJOR misconception on the parts of the folks here on the forum that think GOVERNMENT is the director and leader of American innovation..

Did you promise them specific research results for their money?

 

[flacaltenn]

I like how you project your shyster tactics on others.

What was THAT supposed to mean Junior? That's how you keep 10 research scientists employed with Government funding. BESIDES what the corporation needs you for..

You match your research interest to whatever piles of money Congress allocates for "crises". No crisis -- No money.. What? You think they just fund any "good ideas" that just walk in door?? Go try that at DARPA or NOAA or the Pentagon.

MAJOR misconception on the parts of the folks here on the forum that think GOVERNMENT is the director and leader of American innovation..

Did you promise them specific research results for their money?

Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government.

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. IN EVERY CASE --- the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change" and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I find it amazing that AGW has affected solar output

 

[PMZ]

What was THAT supposed to mean Junior? That's how you keep 10 research scientists employed with Government funding. BESIDES what the corporation needs you for..

You match your research interest to whatever piles of money Congress allocates for "crises". No crisis -- No money.. What? You think they just fund any "good ideas" that just walk in door?? Go try that at DARPA or NOAA or the Pentagon.

MAJOR misconception on the parts of the folks here on the forum that think GOVERNMENT is the director and leader of American innovation..

Did you promise them specific research results for their money?

Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government.

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. IN EVERY CASE --- the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change" and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???

If you acted as you claim climate researchers do by promising research outcomes for funds, those would indeed be shyster tactics. If you didn't, than your experience would indicate they don't either. They do what what you did. They research topics to determine how natural systems behave.

 

[PMZ]

I find it amazing that AGW has affected solar output

That's not possible.