Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL. The "Conservative" fruitloops here are incapable of even discerning on an internet search what is valid science, and what is flap-yap from unqualified idiots with an agenda.
Oh, we do discern it - and that is what a great many people simply do not loike (sic).
No, I don't think you do. Otherwise, you would be referencing peer reviewed scientific research conducted by certified scientists fully qualified in their fields of expertize instead of referencing politically motivated pseudoscience blogs written by message therapists, creationists, and accountants.
Oh, we do discern it - and that is what a great many people simply do not loike (sic).
No, I don't think you do. Otherwise, you would be referencing peer reviewed scientific research conducted by certified scientists fully qualified in their fields of expertize instead of referencing politically motivated pseudoscience blogs written by message therapists, creationists, and accountants.
When the establishment scientific institutions are being corrected by amateurs whose writings they REFUSE to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, there is obviously something very biased about these institutions.
Wow ---- is it me? Or did someone turn up the elitist arrogance of settled science in here.
The Mushroom asked questions that should be answered.. Instead the annointed like Mann and the IPCC have had to ignore and forcibly censor a large body of evidence that declares the MWP to have been a Global event..
Hypocritical as it is --- when their predictions go off the rails, all of sudden, there are "experts" on Senate panels declaring that the CURRENT warming is "regional" and that it is important NOW "to not focus on just atmospheric warming".. Now that it has waned.
So while they lie about MWP not being global -- it's OK for them to suddenly find heating "hiding" in specific regions now and to downplay IMMEDIATELY CORRELATED temperature tracking of the ONLY CAUSE of climate change they care about --- CO2...
The science may have just gotten BETTER --- but "settled" it's not..
So if this discussion heads for a version of the Fantasy Scientist League --- where we all draft our dream teams and dis the choices of others.. Not interested...
Wow ---- is it me? Or did someone turn up the elitist arrogance of settled science in here.
The Mushroom asked questions that should be answered.. Instead the annointed like Mann and the IPCC have had to ignore and forcibly censor a large body of evidence that declares the MWP to have been a Global event..
Hypocritical as it is --- when their predictions go off the rails, all of sudden, there are "experts" on Senate panels declaring that the CURRENT warming is "regional" and that it is important NOW "to not focus on just atmospheric warming".. Now that it has waned.
So while they lie about MWP not being global -- it's OK for them to suddenly find heating "hiding" in specific regions now and to downplay IMMEDIATELY CORRELATED temperature tracking of the ONLY CAUSE of climate change they care about --- CO2...
The science may have just gotten BETTER --- but "settled" it's not..
So if this discussion heads for a version of the Fantasy Scientist League --- where we all draft our dream teams and dis the choices of others.. Not interested...
The only thing that is not settled is how hot it will get, how fast, and the sum of the consequences. The fact that global warming is real and that it is largely human induced? That is settled.
Was Einstein elitist to dare challenge Newton? No, but only because he was right and could prove to his peers that he was right.
Challenge the accepted science. We welcome it. But do it right. If you promote the scribbling of massage therapists as anything other than pseudoscience, don't expect anything from the scientific community but scorn because that is all that you will deserve.
No, I don't think you do. Otherwise, you would be referencing peer reviewed scientific research conducted by certified scientists fully qualified in their fields of expertize instead of referencing politically motivated pseudoscience blogs written by message therapists, creationists, and accountants.
When the establishment scientific institutions are being corrected by amateurs whose writings they REFUSE to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, there is obviously something very biased about these institutions.
Well, you know, the attempt by amateurs to "correct" the science has a long and colorful history. Hence we have The Flat Earth Society, the Expanding Earth Theory, The Hollow Earth Theory, The Creation Museum, and now Wattsupdoc.
In 2007, McIntyre started auditing the various corrections made to temperature records, in particular those relating to the urban heat island effect. He discovered a discontinuity in some U.S. records in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data and thanked McIntyre for "bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".[26] The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C; it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
McIntyre later commented, "My original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of "fixing" bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and USHCN) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined."
Role in the Climatic Research Unit controversy[edit]
Colby Cosh, writing for Maclean's magazine, believes McIntyre's criticisms of climate science are at the heart of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in NovemberDecember 2009. McIntyre is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails. In the emails, one climate researcher dismisses him as a "bozo". Others speculate over his funding, and argue about whether to ignore or counterattack himalthough, according to Cosh, some unnamed scientists acknowledge that his criticisms have merit.[2]
The Associated Press analysis of the CRU e-mails stated: "Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him. McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. 'Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith,' he said."[28] The independent Science Assessment Panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, said at a press conference that the repeated FOI requests made by Steve McIntyre and others "could have amounted to a campaign of harassment" and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.[29]
In May 2010 BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin wrote that McIntyre "arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit - but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input.
Sounds like McIntyre HAS corrected the scientific establishment in part.
it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
This sudden revelation that the "heat is hiding" kills all those previous assertions that the ocean's ability to sequester MORE CO2 would quit as the surface grew hotter. Evidently, this stuff is beginning to look more like science and less like an award winning documentary..
You are confused. The ocean can sequester a finite amount of CO2 before it becomes CO2 saturated, and starts losing its buffer capacity (which we have seen is already happening in several places). The oceans are getting warmer not because of the CO2 it is sequestering, but because it is directly absorbing heat from the sun's rays, and the currents are dragging that heat into the deep. So while on the surface it may appear to not be warming much currently, the fact is that as a whole, the oceans are still getting warmer, and will continue to get warmer.
This sudden revelation that the "heat is hiding" kills all those previous assertions that the ocean's ability to sequester MORE CO2 would quit as the surface grew hotter. Evidently, this stuff is beginning to look more like science and less like an award winning documentary..
You are confused. The ocean can sequester a finite amount of CO2 before it becomes CO2 saturated, and starts losing its buffer capacity (which we have seen is already happening in several places). The oceans are getting warmer not because of the CO2 it is sequestering, but because it is directly absorbing heat from the sun's rays, and the currents are dragging that heat into the deep. So while on the surface it may appear to not be warming much currently, the fact is that as a whole, the oceans are still getting warmer, and will continue to get warmer.
Is there a shred of tangible empirical evidence to support this fantasy explanation?
Sounds like McIntyre HAS corrected the scientific establishment in part.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted:
it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
In other words, he wasted everyone's time while pulling in even more suckers such as yourself.
Sounds like McIntyre HAS corrected the scientific establishment in part.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted:
it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
In other words, he wasted everyone's time while pulling in even more suckers such as yourself.
Define "discernible"....
[/IMG]
I'm sure the constant revisions of history that GISS is making are ALL legitimate errors --- right???
Wow ---- is it me? Or did someone turn up the elitist arrogance of settled science in here.
The Mushroom asked questions that should be answered.. Instead the annointed like Mann and the IPCC have had to ignore and forcibly censor a large body of evidence that declares the MWP to have been a Global event..
The only thing that is not settled is how hot it will get, how fast, and the sum of the consequences. The fact that global warming is real...
and that it is largely human induced?
Sounds like McIntyre HAS corrected the scientific establishment in part.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted:
it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
In other words, he wasted everyone's time while pulling in even more suckers such as yourself.
Sounds like McIntyre HAS corrected the scientific establishment in part.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted:
it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
In other words, he wasted everyone's time while pulling in even more suckers such as yourself.
When these AGW fanatics are basing huge laws on temperature changes that are two decimal places below one, the fine points are significant.
Damn, I sure hope you don't design safety equipment with that attitude.
The only thing that is not settled is how hot it will get, how fast, and the sum of the consequences. The fact that global warming is real...
That is all true, and of little consequence.
During past Interglacial periods, we have had lush forest growth along the North shore of Alaska and Canada. And we also know that a North Pole Ice Cap is not the norm for our planet. So we do indeed agree that this trend will likely continue, and in 20,000 years that may will happen yet again. As it has many times in the past.
I doubt you will find hardly anybody that honestly claims that "Global Warming does not exist".
and that it is largely human induced?
This is where the debate actually lies.
If it was a "fact" as you and so many try to claim, then why are there so many that disagree with this belief? You and others try to claim this is some kind of "universal truth", when in fact it is anything but.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted:
In other words, he wasted everyone's time while pulling in even more suckers such as yourself.
When these AGW fanatics are basing huge laws on temperature changes that are two decimal places below one, the fine points are significant.
Damn, I sure hope you don't design safety equipment with that attitude.
Erm, AGW fanatics? That's professional. OR not. No one is basing changes in the law on what the global temperature is doing. They are basing those proposed changes on what the global temperatures is doing to regional climates, for instance, in the Arctic where the changes are most severe. Capiche? Many of the proposed changes are inevitable, meaning that they would occur regardless of global warming, such as a switch to cleaner, renewable energy sources. There are many reasons to do this, but only one I can see not to (it takes money out of the pockets of the petrochemical industry - poor dears), and that isn't a valid reason.
There is no evidence that past interglacials came on as rapidly or were as severe aswhat we are seeing with modern temperature rises, and extremes. There is also the fact that past interglacials didn't impact modern human civilization because it didn't exist. But that is neither here nor there because we aren't talking about interglacials. We are talking about a human impact over and above what is there naturally.
When these AGW fanatics are basing huge laws on temperature changes that are two decimal places below one, the fine points are significant.
Damn, I sure hope you don't design safety equipment with that attitude.
Erm, AGW fanatics? That's professional. OR not. No one is basing changes in the law on what the global temperature is doing. They are basing those proposed changes on what the global temperatures is doing to regional climates, for instance, in the Arctic where the changes are most severe. Capiche? Many of the proposed changes are inevitable, meaning that they would occur regardless of global warming, such as a switch to cleaner, renewable energy sources. There are many reasons to do this, but only one I can see not to (it takes money out of the pockets of the petrochemical industry - poor dears), and that isn't a valid reason.
So the effective change in law being promulgated by the EPA declaring CO2 as a pollutant was NOT BASED on Global temps???
There is no evidence that past interglacials came on as rapidly or were as severe aswhat we are seeing with modern temperature rises, and extremes. There is also the fact that past interglacials didn't impact modern human civilization because it didn't exist. But that is neither here nor there because we aren't talking about interglacials. We are talking about a human impact over and above what is there naturally.
Actually, the evidence for that pretty much does not exist.
But the predictions of more rapid warming is nothing new.
I remember learning about this cycle back in the late 1970's, when our science teacher was explaining about ice ages. An Ice Age is pretty much self-feeding. As more snow fall accumulates, it reflects back even more solar radiation into space, cooling things off even more. So as you get more ice, temperatures reduce even faster then would be expected because one compounds the other.
And the reverse was also true. Once the glaciers then ice caps start to melt off, less solar radiation is reflected back into space, causing accelerated warming. It really is simple and self-explanitary once you understand this.
This was commonly accepted 35 years ago, and for some reason I never hear people even mention this today.
Much like I remember my science teacher explaining about the gaps in ice core samples. It is logical that over 100,000 years that there would be gaps in an ice core because of interglacials and warming. In fact it would be expected that there would be gigantic gaps that had been destroyed from melting and recovering of the ice sheets. But for some reason now this is gone and we are supposed to believe that this has never happened, and that the ice cores are 100% accurate going back over 130,000 years and 2 Ice Ages.
I call most of this screaming about "Man Made Global Warming" junk science for a reason. I am not much of a climatologist, but I am an amateur geologist and paleontologist. And I look at the cycles as something normal, and know for a fact that we have been much-much warmer then we are today. When I see sliding scales and fudged data and conflicting theories and revised history, I know that somebody is trying to push an agenda and trying to use a shady form of science to justify it.
And I notice that my questions are still unanswered, but the attacks continue.
