this year begins with no cooling....hotest first five months on record

[mamooth]

Is your computer candle powered? How do you do it?

You and your Gaian denier nature cult are free to swear off modern technology and go live in a cave if you wish.

However, we won't be going along with you, and trying to guilt trip us into doing so won't work.

 

[Pop23]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

If any wants to see a classic pseudoscience tactic in action, watch flac using the heavily fudged and twiddled satellite data, taken at 14,000 feet, and even regarded by the satellite people as very unreliable, even though the much more reliable surface temperatures are available.

A sure sign you're looking at pseudoscience is when you see someone ignore good data so they can use bad data instead. All deniers do that. The good data contradicts them, so they ignore the good data.

Good data from surface devices that are not calibrated side by side?

 

[mamooth]

Why on earth would you think something has to be calibrated 'side by side'? There are a bazillion precision scales in the world. They're not calibrated 'side by side'. Therefore, by your reasoning, all precision scales must be wrong.

It's far more accurate to have thousands of independently calibrated measurements. For each thermometer biased one way, another will be biased the opposite way, so the sheer number measurements reduces bias to almost nothing. With satellite, it's the exact opposite, so a big bias is guaranteed.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

If any wants to see a classic pseudoscience tactic in action, watch flac using the heavily fudged and twiddled satellite data, taken at 14,000 feet, and even regarded by the satellite people as very unreliable, even though the much more reliable surface temperatures are available.

A sure sign you're looking at pseudoscience is when you see someone ignore good data so they can use bad data instead. All deniers do that. The good data contradicts them, so they ignore the good data.

what a tool. You know I'll ignore you unless you accuse me of being a liar or a shill.. And it's a fairly desperate move for a fanatic warmer. Because even folks not deeply invested in the GWarming debate will figure out how much more uniform and unfunked with the satellite data actually is..

Let's see --- graph says lower trophosphere.. Did you nap thru HS Physical Science? A temperature anomaly from Global Warming would show up where? Only 5 feet above the surface? Where is the highest concentrations of CO2? And if it was all measured at 14,000ft (which it isn't) would not that be far preferable to taking the Lake Tahoe reading at 6800 ft and trying to spread that out between Reno at 3600ft?

What a ditz.. Wanna bet there there isn't a fundamental diff. between the UAH sat data and the GISS data that NASA is getting all hysterical about (once you put them on the same normalization)???

You feeling lucky kitty? Do you KNOW there's a significant diff between the hi -tech satellite readings for the last 6 months and the overcooked 100,000 thermometer data?

NASA is stretching the truth AGAIN -- in order to keep this circus alive...

 

[flacaltenn]

Is your computer candle powered? How do you do it?

You and your Gaian denier nature cult are free to swear off modern technology and go live in a cave if you wish.

However, we won't be going along with you, and trying to guilt trip us into doing so won't work.

Oh that's rich -- you f-n troll. You just blew off modern satellite technology versus 100,000 thermometers and YOU are presuming HE lives in a cave?

Wait....

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

If any wants to see a classic pseudoscience tactic in action, watch flac using the heavily fudged and twiddled satellite data, taken at 14,000 feet, and even regarded by the satellite people as very unreliable, even though the much more reliable surface temperatures are available.

A sure sign you're looking at pseudoscience is when you see someone ignore good data so they can use bad data instead. All deniers do that. The good data contradicts them, so they ignore the good data.

Good data from surface devices that are not calibrated side by side?

In the developed world -- calibration is not an issue. But WHERE the stations are placed is.. Still huge voids in coverage for Africa, polar regions, and many other parts of land and sea.

 

[Ame®icano]

The year 2015 is set to be a record-breaker, according to NASA’s latest global temperature data. This year’s temperature is 0.71°C (1.3°F) above the long-term average, and the first five months have been the hottest ever recorded.

NASA’s annual temperatures show a slight variation, where some years are cooler than others, but as John Abraham for The Guardian reports, “2015 is so far this year, simply off the chart.” Abraham suggests that the recent record-breaking temperatures put global warming critics in a difficult position—the evidence is simply not on their side. Temperatures for the last 12 months are at record levels. The idea that the rate of global warming is slowing down or ‘paused’ has been thoroughly refuted. Abraham points out that when surface temperatures and ocean heat content are combined, there is a clear pattern of warming increasing.

First Five Months Of 2015 Were The Hottest Ever Recorded IFLScience

These things are happening when science is settled for political gain or for the money. I remember, based on scientific data, New York suppose to be under water in June this year. Well, there is still time left... Back in 70's they were predicting that civilization will end in 15-30 years unless immediate actions were taken. What's worse, they keep repeating the same story every year. Political left jump onboard by trying to impose carbon tax, because taxing always solve every "problem". Of course, anyone that question any data would be ridiculed and called denier, because hey, science has spoken

 

[Ame®icano]

Mars is showing the same temp increases (.01%) that Earth is.....damn martian coal plants and SUVs!

You can't bring up data from Mars... Damn you...

 

[Ame®icano]

did you ask that on the thread about cooling .....i doubt it......why do conservatives hate science

Face palm

Exactly...

 

[Papageorgio]

Take five months of data and that is now proof of what?

Oh, nothing!

 

[Ame®icano]

Take five months of data and that is now proof of what?

Oh, nothing!

Crickets...

 

[mamooth]

I remember, based on scientific data, New York suppose to be under water in June this year.

Only you deniers have made that prediction. Nobody on the rational side has said such a thing. It's exclusively deniers here who ramble about how NYC supposed to be underwater now.

I have no idea why you predicted that. It's one of the countless things you've been wrong about. That's why you have no credibility, because you get every single thing wrong.

Now, if you're saying we said it, you should back it up, by linking to the exact quote with full context, and then demonstrating the person who said it represents every rational person.

 

[Papageorgio]

I remember, based on scientific data, New York suppose to be under water in June this year.

Only you deniers have made that prediction. Nobody on the rational side has said such a thing. It's exclusively deniers here who ramble about how NYC supposed to be underwater now.

I have no idea why you predicted that. It's one of the countless things you've been wrong about. That's why you have no credibility, because you get every single thing wrong.

Now, if you're saying we said it, you should back it up, by linking to the exact quote with full context, and then demonstrating the person who said it represents every rational person.

I think it is related to a documentary on ABC a few years back where one global warmer claimed NY would be under water by June 2015.

 

[mamooth]

Bob Woodruff said that, but no scientist said it.

 

[Ame®icano]

I remember, based on scientific data, New York suppose to be under water in June this year.

Only you deniers have made that prediction. Nobody on the rational side has said such a thing. It's exclusively deniers here who ramble about how NYC supposed to be underwater now.

I have no idea why you predicted that. It's one of the countless things you've been wrong about. That's why you have no credibility, because you get every single thing wrong.

Now, if you're saying we said it, you should back it up, by linking to the exact quote with full context, and then demonstrating the person who said it represents every rational person.

Really? Dude, deniers are those who are challenging your predictions. Of course, only lefties are rational...

Lets begin.

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” - George Wald, Harvard biologist, Nobel winner

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” - Barry Commoner, Washington University scientist, also politician

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years, if present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000." - Kenneth Watt, professor emeritus at the University of California at Davis

More?

 

[mamooth]

More what? You evading the issue by not posting the consensus of climate scientists, and instead cherrypicking from people nobody cares about?

Nobody but a journalist predicted NYC would be underwater. Your claim was false. Your whole argument about claims not coming true is bull. You're making that all up so that you have an excuse to run from the actual science.

 

[Ame®icano]

More what? You evading the issue by not posting the consensus of climate scientists, and instead cherrypicking from people nobody cares about?

Nobody but a journalist predicted NYC would be underwater. Your claim was false. Your whole argument about claims not coming true is bull. You're making that all up so that you have an excuse to run from the actual science.

Do you know what scientific consensus means?

It means there is no proof, so we decide to say this and that to get more funding.

Have you heard of Fritz Zwicky? If not, google his name. The scientific consensus ridiculed him for all of his theories about dark matter, pulsars, neutron stars, supernovas, just to be proved wrong decades later. They rejected him, they scolded him, they even called him a crackpot. Only some 20 years after he died he was vindicated as being right in most of cases.

Real scientists believe in proofs. The fake ones and wannabees are relying on consensus.

 

[kwc57]

Is your computer candle powered? How do you do it?

You and your Gaian denier nature cult are free to swear off modern technology and go live in a cave if you wish.

However, we won't be going along with you, and trying to guilt trip us into doing so won't work.

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm not the one calling for the end of abundant, cheap and efficient energy in coal and petroleum. You do realize that is why we have all the technology we have today don't you? If we get rid of it like you climate change believers want to, you will have to rely on very expensive, inefficient and spotty wind and solar power.....or just do without. So how will you power your computer and can you limit yourself to when they wind is blowing or sun is out?

 

[kwc57]

Bob Woodruff said that, but no scientist said it.

Well yes and no. Woodruff presented it in the show based the show on the climate change scientist's "settled science". He's simply reporting what the "leading" climate scientists were saying. If you're going to believe and push the science, you have to own it when its wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

Aren't these exactly the predictions that the Church of AGW makes every day? I mean, the film could easily be a report from the IPCC, of Michael Mann's latest post on his blog.

Fact is, Anthropogenic Global Warming is like Scientology, but less rational and with far less fact to support it...