Poll: Is Anyone having second thoughts about global warming/climate change ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

And by fast warming you mean once you adjust the baseline, right

Of course not. Baseline-shifting fraud is exclusively the specialty of you and several of your denier masters. It's always used in the fudged graphs that deniers post when they claim the models have been wrong, and you commonly attempt to use it, as you just did.

Oh, speaking of the models, let's check out the actual model predictions as compared to reality.

The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth : Scientific Reports

Pretty damn good. And all the scientists know it. That's why they know, with 100% certainty, that deniers are peddling yet another of their frauds when they claim the models were bad.

(And yes, deniers will respond by screaming all the data is faked. It's what conspiracy cultists do.)

We have readings accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880???

Really???

Not only that, but averaged over the entire planet!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It snows in the winter

It gets hot in the summer

Every year.

How much and how little/how hot how cold.....all shifts around.

 

[Redfish]

It snows in the winter

It gets hot in the summer

Every year.

How much and how little/how hot how cold.....all shifts around.

don't confuse liberals with simple facts, facts make their little heads implode.

 

[Redfish]

And by fast warming you mean once you adjust the baseline, right

Of course not. Baseline-shifting fraud is exclusively the specialty of you and several of your denier masters. It's always used in the fudged graphs that deniers post when they claim the models have been wrong, and you commonly attempt to use it, as you just did.

Oh, speaking of the models, let's check out the actual model predictions as compared to reality.

The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth : Scientific Reports

Pretty damn good. And all the scientists know it. That's why they know, with 100% certainty, that deniers are peddling yet another of their frauds when they claim the models were bad.

(And yes, deniers will respond by screaming all the data is faked. It's what conspiracy cultists do.)

look at the scale on the vertical axis in your chart, dipshit. tenths of a degree. since 1880 your silly chart shows .4 degree change. Do you really think the millions of cubic miles of atmosphere can be measured to that level of detail? THINK. Its ridiculous. you can't measure the temp of your oven to tenths of a degree and we can hardly measure he temp of a human body to that level of detail.

But you fools think the atmosphere of the entire earth can be measured to tenths of a degree?


that is the height of ignorance or just plain old stupidity. You are being scammed, wake up.

 

[blastoff]

Geological cycles have been documented. There is nothing magical about them. Its pure science.

And those documented geological cycles should be causing a slow _cooling_ now. They had been causing slow cooling for the past 5000+ years, until humans suddenly shifted that to fast warming.

Can you show us the documented evidence of what natural factor is supposedly causing the current fast warming?

No?

In that case, bringing up "natural cycles" is just invoking mystery magic, and that kind of voodoo isn't science.

Natural cycles like when ice ages came and went that evil man had nothing to do with?

 

[washamericom]

And by fast warming you mean once you adjust the baseline, right

Of course not. Baseline-shifting fraud is exclusively the specialty of you and several of your denier masters. It's always used in the fudged graphs that deniers post when they claim the models have been wrong, and you commonly attempt to use it, as you just did.

Oh, speaking of the models, let's check out the actual model predictions as compared to reality.

The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth : Scientific Reports

Pretty damn good. And all the scientists know it. That's why they know, with 100% certainty, that deniers are peddling yet another of their frauds when they claim the models were bad.

(And yes, deniers will respond by screaming all the data is faked. It's what conspiracy cultists do.)

look at the scale on the vertical axis in your chart, dipshit. tenths of a degree. since 1880 your silly chart shows .4 degree change. Do you really think the millions of cubic miles of atmosphere can be measured to that level of detail? THINK. Its ridiculous. you can't measure the temp of your oven to tenths of a degree and we can hardly measure he temp of a human body to that level of detail.

But you fools think the atmosphere of the entire earth can be measured to tenths of a degree?


that is the height of ignorance or just plain old stupidity. You are being scammed, wake up.

it's like the average color, or the average number in the new york phone book.

 

[mamooth]

look at the scale on the vertical axis in your chart, dipshit. tenths of a degree. since 1880 your silly chart shows .4 degree change. Do you really think the millions of cubic miles of atmosphere can be measured to that level of detail?

Well no. But the average certainly can. That's where your stupid rant crashes and burns, along with Frank's pouty outburst as well. You're both totally ignorant of how basic statistics work. And since you're too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are, you go off on these belligerent ignorance meltdowns.

Let me see if I can put this in terms you'd understand.

I don't understand the physics and statistics behind the Higgs Boson.

If I was both profoundly ignorant and a raging narcissist, I'd start screaming the those egghead scientists clearly don't know 'nuffin, and they were all faking all the data to get research grants.

However, since I'm neither ignorant nor a raging narcissist, I at least understand what things I don't understand, and that in such matters, it would be wisest of me to examine the consensus of the experts in the field.

Take a lesson.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

look at the scale on the vertical axis in your chart, dipshit. tenths of a degree. since 1880 your silly chart shows .4 degree change. Do you really think the millions of cubic miles of atmosphere can be measured to that level of detail?

Well no. But the average certainly can. That's where your stupid rant crashes and burns, along with Frank's pouty outburst as well. You're both totally ignorant of how basic statistics work. And since you're too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are, you go off on these belligerent ignorance meltdowns.

Let me see if I can put this in terms you'd understand.

I don't understand the physics and statistics behind the Higgs Boson.

If I was both profoundly ignorant and a raging narcissist, I'd start screaming the those egghead scientists clearly don't know 'nuffin, and they were all faking all the data to get research grants.

However, since I'm neither ignorant nor a raging narcissist, I at least understand what things I don't understand, and that in such matters, it would be wisest of me to examine the consensus of the experts in the field.

Take a lesson.

Love the claim....why don't you explain the statistics then.

In order to develop a plausible relationship...you need to be able to exclude all others at some distinct level of probability.

 

[mamooth]

Love the claim....why don't you explain the statistics then.

Any intro statistics book will have this, but I'll take it off wiki

Standard error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
SEM is usually estimated by the sample estimate of the population standard deviation (sample standard deviation) divided by the square root of the sample size (assuming statistical independence of the values in the sample):

where
s is the sample standard deviation (i.e., the sample-based estimate of the standard deviation of the population), and
n is the size (number of observations) of the sample.
---

That is, the more measurements you take, the lower the error of the average gets.

In order to develop a plausible relationship...you need to be able to exclude all others at some distinct level of probability.

That's been done. The directly observed evidence contradicts any "natural cycles" theory.

 

[Redfish]

look at the scale on the vertical axis in your chart, dipshit. tenths of a degree. since 1880 your silly chart shows .4 degree change. Do you really think the millions of cubic miles of atmosphere can be measured to that level of detail?

Well no. But the average certainly can. That's where your stupid rant crashes and burns, along with Frank's pouty outburst as well. You're both totally ignorant of how basic statistics work. And since you're too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are, you go off on these belligerent ignorance meltdowns.

Let me see if I can put this in terms you'd understand.

I don't understand the physics and statistics behind the Higgs Boson.

If I was both profoundly ignorant and a raging narcissist, I'd start screaming the those egghead scientists clearly don't know 'nuffin, and they were all faking all the data to get research grants.

However, since I'm neither ignorant nor a raging narcissist, I at least understand what things I don't understand, and that in such matters, it would be wisest of me to examine the consensus of the experts in the field.

Take a lesson.

Is every measuring device in exactly the same location that it was in 1880? Is it possible that in 1880 a measuring station was in a forest and today its on an asphalt parking lot?

Use some common sense, if you have any. This is a massive scam, nothing more.

 

[Redfish]

Love the claim....why don't you explain the statistics then.

Any intro statistics book will have this, but I'll take it off wiki

Standard error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
SEM is usually estimated by the sample estimate of the population standard deviation (sample standard deviation) divided by the square root of the sample size (assuming statistical independence of the values in the sample):

where
s is the sample standard deviation (i.e., the sample-based estimate of the standard deviation of the population), and
n is the size (number of observations) of the sample.
---

That is, the more measurements you take, the lower the error of the average gets.

In order to develop a plausible relationship...you need to be able to exclude all others at some distinct level of probability.

That's been done. The directly observed evidence contradicts any "natural cycles" theory.

OK------------can you correlate that to our political polls that use a sample of 800 out of 330,000,000? How accurate are they?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Love the claim....why don't you explain the statistics then.

Any intro statistics book will have this, but I'll take it off wiki

Standard error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
SEM is usually estimated by the sample estimate of the population standard deviation (sample standard deviation) divided by the square root of the sample size (assuming statistical independence of the values in the sample):

where
s is the sample standard deviation (i.e., the sample-based estimate of the standard deviation of the population), and
n is the size (number of observations) of the sample.
---

That is, the more measurements you take, the lower the error of the average gets.

In order to develop a plausible relationship...you need to be able to exclude all others at some distinct level of probability.

That's been done. The directly observed evidence contradicts any "natural cycles" theory.

No it doesn't especially when you only have 50-100 years of collected data. Geological cycles with warming and cooling and slight changes in CO2 have been occurring for millions of years. I've studied it.

 

[mamooth]

No it doesn't especially when you only have 50-100 years of collected data. Geological cycles with warming and cooling and slight changes in CO2 have been occurring for millions of years. I've studied it.

Most likely, your "study" consists of reading conspiracy blogs.

Warming caused by natural factors shows stratospheric warming. We see stratospheric cooling. Hence, not natural.

Warming caused by natural factors shows a constant increase in outgoing longwave radiation over the whole spectrum. We see OLR going down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. Hence, not natural.

Warming caused by natural factors starts at the surface. We see increased backradiation. Hence, not natural.

 

[Redfish]

No it doesn't especially when you only have 50-100 years of collected data. Geological cycles with warming and cooling and slight changes in CO2 have been occurring for millions of years. I've studied it.

Most likely, your "study" consists of reading conspiracy blogs.

Warming caused by natural factors shows stratospheric warming. We see stratospheric cooling. Hence, not natural.

Warming caused by natural factors shows a constant increase in outgoing longwave radiation over the whole spectrum. We see OLR going down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. Hence, not natural.

Warming caused by natural factors starts at the surface. We see increased backradiation. Hence, not natural.

Yeah, its that evil old sun that is sending down evil radiation to overheat the earth. Can you libs pass a law forcing the sun to reduce its radiation?

Wake the fuck up, man is not causing climate change, Man is polluting the planet but that pollution is not changing the climate, its a hoax and you fools have bought into it like the ignorant sheep that you are. its really quite pathetic listening to your inane ramblings.

 

[mamooth]

Is every measuring device in exactly the same location that it was in 1880? Is it possible that in 1880 a measuring station was in a forest and today its on an asphalt parking lot

Sure. And when such things happen, corrections are always made.

Those corrections have made the warming look _smaller_, of course. So if there's a conspiracy, why would the scientists change the data to make the warming look smaller? Your conspiracy theory is retarded.

Now, I do understand that deniers will respond by lying outright and claiming the adjustments have gone the other way. And all the scientists know with 100% certainty that you're lying. You may not understand it, given the thoroughness of your brainwashing, but you're irrelevant.

Use some common sense, if you have any. This is a massive scam, nothing more.

Whatever the data is, you auto-scream that it's all a fraud .The rational people can't win with you. Hence, the rational people have written you off. You'll go to your grave screaming conspiracy theories, and nothing we do can change that. That's why you're just ignored now.

 

[Redfish]

Is every measuring device in exactly the same location that it was in 1880? Is it possible that in 1880 a measuring station was in a forest and today its on an asphalt parking lot

Sure. And when such things happen, corrections are always made.

Those corrections have made the warming look _smaller_, of course. So if there's a conspiracy, why would the scientists change the data to make the warming look smaller? Your conspiracy theory is retarded.

Now, I do understand that deniers will respond by lying outright and claiming the adjustments have gone the other way. And all the scientists know with 100% certainty that you're lying. You may not understand it, given the thoroughness of your brainwashing, but you're irrelevant.

Use some common sense, if you have any. This is a massive scam, nothing more.

Whatever the data is, you auto-scream that it's all a fraud .The rational people can't win with you. Hence, the rational people have written you off. You'll go to your grave screaming conspiracy theories, and nothing we do can change that. That's why you're just ignored now.

with each new post you make a bigger fool of yourself.

why don't you libs attack the real problem of pollution, rather than a hoax of man caused climate change?

Everyone would get behind reducing pollution, but you lose credibility when you try to create a false link to climate change.

 

[g5000]

just checking the pulse of the politics usmb'ers.

i keep hearing consensus, and the discussion/debate is over. that certainly raises my interest.

no reason to discuss, imagine that.

i am personally disqualified because i always considered it a hoax cause my Dad did, but i'm voting anyway.

are you voting for a global warming candidate ??

To me, the global warming debate is like this: Say there is a blazing house fire on your block.

LIBERAL: 99 percent of fireman say the house is on fire. We need to put out the fire before it spreads to every house on the block. Therefore, we need to enact legislation banning black refrigerators so we can put out this fire.

PSEUDO-CON: House fire? What house fire? My basement is freezing!

 

[mamooth]

Yeah, its that evil old sun that is sending down evil radiation to overheat the earth. Can you libs pass a law forcing the sun to reduce its radiation?

Why do you think the sun is evil? You're going further over the edge. Step back.

Wake the fuck up, man is not causing climate change,

Argument by incredulity fallacy. Good cultist.

Man is polluting the planet but that pollution is not changing the climate, its a hoax and you fools have bought into it like the ignorant sheep that you are. its really quite pathetic listening to your inane ramblings.

We get it. Your political cult tells you to scream it's all a fraud, and you're a loyal soldier. The cult gives meaning to your life, tells you what a special little snowflake you are, and you can't live without that emotional validation.

However, if there's some other explanation for your belligerent ignorance routine, we're all ears.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

look at the scale on the vertical axis in your chart, dipshit. tenths of a degree. since 1880 your silly chart shows .4 degree change. Do you really think the millions of cubic miles of atmosphere can be measured to that level of detail?

Well no. But the average certainly can. That's where your stupid rant crashes and burns, along with Frank's pouty outburst as well. You're both totally ignorant of how basic statistics work. And since you're too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are, you go off on these belligerent ignorance meltdowns.

Let me see if I can put this in terms you'd understand.

I don't understand the physics and statistics behind the Higgs Boson.

If I was both profoundly ignorant and a raging narcissist, I'd start screaming the those egghead scientists clearly don't know 'nuffin, and they were all faking all the data to get research grants.

However, since I'm neither ignorant nor a raging narcissist, I at least understand what things I don't understand, and that in such matters, it would be wisest of me to examine the consensus of the experts in the field.

Take a lesson.

Is every measuring device in exactly the same location that it was in 1880? Is it possible that in 1880 a measuring station was in a forest and today its on an asphalt parking lot?

Use some common sense, if you have any. This is a massive scam, nothing more.

Did it have the same precision and degree of accuracy........

 

[g5000]

Yeah, its that evil old sun that is sending down evil radiation to overheat the earth. Can you libs pass a law forcing the sun to reduce its radiation?

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions