Why are tax dollars being spent on efforts that have a 2/3rds chance of being wrong?

[rightwinger]

38% confidence it is the hottest on record does not mean 62% chance it is the coldest

It means 62% chance it may be the second or third hottest

Explain this then..
NOAA NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 Real Science
View attachment 36027

The US is not the global climate

Thanks Captain Obvious....

Then why do you elevate one outlier in one region of the globe as somehow disproving global data

Pretty lame attempt isn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

38% confidence it is the hottest on record does not mean 62% chance it is the coldest

It means 62% chance it may be the second or third hottest

Oh brother...

And?

And nothing.... GW is complete bullshit and has been debunked numerous times over. But hey... go for it Chicken Little!!!

Rush Limbaugh debunking doesn't count

 

[rdean]

6% of scientists are Republican. Clearly.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

 

[rightwinger]

6% of scientists are Republican. Clearly.

And only half of those deny global warming

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

38% confidence it is the hottest on record does not mean 62% chance it is the coldest

It means 62% chance it may be the second or third hottest

Explain this then..
NOAA NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 Real Science
View attachment 36027

The US is not the global climate

Thanks Captain Obvious....

Then why do you elevate one outlier in one region of the globe as somehow disproving global data

Pretty lame attempt isn't it?

I'm not elevating anything bub.... the argument is over, GW is complete bullshit.... but hey, have at it!!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gee.. the climate changes... didn't we learn this in like what, first grade?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

OH MY GOD!!!! It's warmer today than it was this time last year!!!

Batten down the hatches!!!! It's the end of the world as we know it.....

 

[rightwinger]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

 

[deltex1]

" I just received an audit on my tax return for 2012 from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the question: "List all dependents?"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps,
2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico ; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."
1 useless President.
Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO The Hell DID I MISS?"

 

[rightwinger]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

Whatever.. have fun with your little cult.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Do they know the exact timing of other changes ?

 

[healthmyths]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Since 1900... what about before 1900? Why is there oil in the Arctic as we learned in grade school oil comes from decayed plants that need warmer temperatures
then the Arctic is today to grow. Explain where those "warmer" temps came from then.

Since 1900... actually temperature recordings were done in 1880 and from then till the digital age depended on eyes to discriminate the mercury levels and to
ask any human standing in cold or heat to accurately read the differences between 70° and 71° and then transcribe their handwriting several times.

"97% believe"?
Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

 

[BULLDOG]

" I just received an audit on my tax return for 2012 from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the question: "List all dependents?"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps,
2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico ; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."
1 useless President.
Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO The Hell DID I MISS?"

I'm sure they get dumb ass answers to questions all the time. They are too polite to tell you that you are an idiot, so they just give you the opportunity to answer the question like an adult would. It's up to you to decide if you are stupid enough to carry your goofy stunt any further.

 

[healthmyths]

Anybody still buying into global warming is a complete nutter.

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

 

[kaz]

Statistical confidence is based on your sample size and measurement variables

Based on that you will have a mean temperature with plus and minus confidence

So, if 2014 has a 38 percent confidence it is the hottest on record
2002 has a 12 percent confidence it is the hottest on record
1993 has a 3 percent confidence it is the hottest on record

Guess which year gets reported as the hottest on record?

That's like saying if you buy two lottery tickets and everyone else buys one they should report you are the winner.

 

[BULLDOG]

97% of scientists concur as well as most of the world

It is Republicans who are nutters

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

 

[healthmyths]

Has anyone asked them as to whether the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time or not? Have they explained how it was way too hot to support life at one time, then cooled and became almost a solid sheet of ice, then warmed back up to where we are today? Do they dispute that our climate is ever changing, and that changes are normal and natural? Do they expect the Earth's climate to remain constant forever? And, is man smart enough to work around climate changes and still survive?

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??