UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I am aware of around 50 scientific bodies which have confirmed mans role in climate change.

Can you tell us how many scientific bodies suggest that man is not involved in climate change?

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the political head of a scientific body which makes statements which the membership do not get to vote on and the actual scientific body itself.

 

[SSDD]

Ian C -

We all care about scientific consensus.

There isn't a person on this board who wouldn't take the advice of 99 doctors over the advice of 1 doctor. To do is simply logical and sensible.

Consensus is politics, not science. Not very long ago, if you suggested the existence of quasicrystals, the consensus would laugh at you and call you an idiot and if in fact you tried to be so bold as to prove thier existence, they would drum you out of your scientific association which was chemistry by the way....a real science as opposed to climate science....., ruin your chances at getting funding for your research and in short, ruin your career for decades.

Ruin your career...that is till you prove the existence of quasi crystals. Ask Dr. Shechtman about the validity of the consensus.

 

[SSDD]

Seriously dude....take a science class. The people who put this little "experiment" together havn't a clue how to put one together and they certainly have never taken a high school physics class where these type of experiments are used all the time...well they were back in my day...clearly you youngsters are terribly defficient in scientific acumen.

There is a reason that the SAT and various college entrance exams keep getting dumbed down.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Right. That really is just so convincing.

Not quite as convincing as the evidence that the Holocaust was faked, but still.

In all seriousness - do you actually believe this stuff yourself?

And you claim to be a journalist.....for who PRAVDA?

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

So why do you ignore the results of other research which confirms climate change, and the results of which have never been accused of fraud, tampering or anything else?

Why, for instance, do you refuse to use the UK Met Office as a source?

If I list 50 - and yes, I mean FIFTY - major scientific bodies who confirm climate change as a reality, will you explain why you ignore their research?

What climate change? The global temps have been flat for the last 16 years or do you not remain current on the state of research? Piss poor performance for one who claims to be a journalist.

 

[Saigon]

The global temps have been flat for the last 16 years or do you not remain current on the state of research?

Really, Westwall - how can you not know this stuff?!

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

 

[SSDD]

And you claim to be a journalist.....for who PRAVDA?

Even Pravda has stepped down from the AGW bandwagon.

Global warming, the tool of the West - English pravda.ru

 

[SSDD]

Really, Westwall - how can you not know this stuff?!

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

NOAA says? Here is some NOAA for you:

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

 

[Saigon]

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

 

[SSDD]

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

You may not want to believe it but Finland is bought and paid for: And this is just one example of the sort of thing going on in the climate change community.

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan - WSJ.com

 

[Saigon]

And you claim to be a journalist.....for who PRAVDA?

Even Pravda has stepped down from the AGW bandwagon.

Global warming, the tool of the West - English pravda.ru

Actually no, genius - what you posted is from a blog. Which is why it says so at the bottom of the article.

 

[Saigon]

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

You may not want to believe it but Finland is bought and paid for:

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan - WSJ.com

Just answer the questions.

Tiny car factories in small towns are not the issue here. It's about science...remember?

 

[TheOldSchool]

2012 is the 9th warmest year on record. All 9 have come since 1998. That has to mean something.

 

[Saigon]

2012 is the 9th warmest year on record. All 9 have come since 1998. That has to mean something.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

I'm constantly amazed at the bizarre conspiracy theories people concoct to explain what others seems fairly straightforward.

But no - apparently all over the world PhD-level scientists are working together to fake the data. Yawn.

 

[SSDD]

Just answer the questions.

Tiny car factories in small towns are not the issue here. It's about science...remember?

You don't seem to want to talk about science. I have asked you repeatedly where Finland gets their temperature data from outside the borders of that Country and you don't seem to want to answer.

And tiny car factories in small towns who get loans due to the influence of the high priests of climate change is at issue. Money corrupts in Finland as surely as it does in Chicago or Washington DC.

 

[SSDD]

2012 is the 9th warmest year on record. All 9 have come since 1998. That has to mean something.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

You might, if it weren't for the blatant altering of past, and present temperature records....cooling the past...warming the present....presto chango...crisis.

 

[Koios]

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

Indeed, Saigon.

The base facts MGW Denialists overlook are:

A. I am not a climate scientist
B. Niether is anyone else on this godforsaken site

To the Denialists, here's how it works:

Not one fucking snippet anyone here grabs onto proves a fucking thing. It's merely a snippet, which folks who in fact know something about the very complex factors affecting the Earth's climate, have considered along with EVERY OTHER KNOWN FACT, in the gestalt.

And thus a theory develops, which is also submitted for review by every other person who merits, nay demands, being included in reviewing it -- ALL OF IT, and not the cherry-picked then distorted horseshit offered up by Denialists with alphabet soup behind their names in unrelated fields of study, if that. Here's where they fall in the heirarchy ...

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

 

[SSDD]

But no - apparently all over the world PhD-level scientists are working together to fake the data. Yawn.

The data comes from just a few sources....sources that are known to have been altered.

Refer to error cascade....everyone doesn't have to be in on the fraud....they just have to accept the data they are using as true when in fact it isn't.

Again, show me some proof that Trenberth's energy budget is spot on since the entire AGW hypothesis is built upon that bit of "science".

 

[SSDD]

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc. Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.

 

[Koios]

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc. Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.

No; it's not. Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."