Why is climate science political?

[bobgnote]

The Raw Story | Tag Archive | Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam

Virginia House Delegate Christopher Stolle (R) might be on the right-wing fringe when it comes to climate science, but at least he’s helping fellow lawmakers temper the tea party’s reaction to costly government studies on the matter.

In a legislative dust-up earlier this year, according to reporter Scott Harper, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, Stolle told Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam (D) that the terms “climate change” and “sea-level rise” are “liberal code words” that must be excised from a study request, or risk having that request shelved.


------------------------

Look what bitches are doing, in Virginia, with denial. Virginia has the second-worst prognosis, for damage, from rising sea levels, after NOLA.

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety. Please comply with these very simple rules.

~Oddball

 

[Big Fitz]

The Raw Story | Tag Archive | Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam

Virginia House Delegate Christopher Stolle (R) might be on the right-wing fringe when it comes to climate science, but at least he’s helping fellow lawmakers temper the tea party’s reaction to costly government studies on the matter.

In a legislative dust-up earlier this year, according to reporter Scott Harper, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, Stolle told Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam (D) that the terms “climate change” and “sea-level rise” are “liberal code words” that must be excised from a study request, or risk having that request shelved.


------------------------

Look what bitches are doing, in Virginia, with denial. Virginia has the second-worst prognosis, for damage, from rising sea levels, after NOLA.

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety. Please comply with these very simple rules.

~Oddball

>yawn< Lose any sleep over this non story non issue, booboo?

 

[Trakar]

Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.

And yet the AGW crowd has been proven wrong over and over and over again. A more complete lack of success would be hard to find. Now Hansen is resorting to falsifying the historical temp records to bolster his failed predictions.

Looks like the AGW crowd doesn't understand as much as the sceptics do. Everytime we check their work it comes up short.

Putting your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and stamping your feet, isn't "checking their work." The only thing i've seen deniers do (remember scientists are skeptics, they don't just don that cape on the internet like deniers are wont to do) is fling their own feces like a troop of chimps trying to protect their private fruit tree (fruit tree - corporate political campaign donors, same as).

 

[westwall]

Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.

And yet the AGW crowd has been proven wrong over and over and over again. A more complete lack of success would be hard to find. Now Hansen is resorting to falsifying the historical temp records to bolster his failed predictions.

Looks like the AGW crowd doesn't understand as much as the sceptics do. Everytime we check their work it comes up short.

Putting your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and stamping your feet, isn't "checking their work." The only thing i've seen deniers do (remember scientists are skeptics, they don't just don that cape on the internet like deniers are wont to do) is fling their own feces like a troop of chimps trying to protect their private fruit tree (fruit tree - corporate political campaign donors, same as).

Yes that describes your efforts to a T. Don't forget the denial of FOIA requests, the despotic rule of the editors of the various journals in barring any study that refuted "The Team", and of course the continuing effort to prevent any scientific study that refutes said "Team".

Have I missed any of your sides tactics?

Below is yet another study showing your statements to be wrong........


"We present a multi-archive, multi-proxy summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps covering the period AD 1053&#8211;1996 using tree-ring and lake sediment data. The new reconstruction is based on nine different calibration approaches and errors were estimated conservatively. Summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterised by two warm (AD 1053&#8211;1171 and 1823&#8211;1996) and two cold phases (AD 1172&#8211;1379 and 1573&#8211;1822). Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century. The lowest temperatures at the end of the 16th century were &#8764;1 °C lower than the 20th century mean."





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112001680

 

[Trakar]

Yes that describes your efforts to a T. Don't forget the denial of FOIA requests, the despotic rule of the editors of the various journals in barring any study that refuted "The Team", and of course the continuing effort to prevent any scientific study that refutes said "Team".

Have I missed any of your sides tactics?

It is evidently easier to assert than to evidence, because either there is a super secret evil global conspiracy in place, or every legitimate investigation of the issues you assert has evaluated the available evidences has found the opposite of what you assert.

Below is yet another study showing your statements to be wrong........


"We present a multi-archive, multi-proxy summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps covering the period AD 1053–1996 using tree-ring and lake sediment data. The new reconstruction is based on nine different calibration approaches and errors were estimated conservatively. Summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterised by two warm (AD 1053–1171 and 1823–1996) and two cold phases (AD 1172–1379 and 1573–1822). Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century. The lowest temperatures at the end of the 16th century were &#8764;1 °C lower than the 20th century mean."





ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053?1996

I'll give the paper a look, but the "highlights" suggest you are ("SURPRISE!") mistaken:

Highlights
&#9658; Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps. &#9658; Highest JJA temperatures 1000–2000 AD occurred at the end of the 20th century. &#9658; Sensitivity analysis suggests higher uncertainties prior to 1400. &#9658; We therefore can’t conclude on how unprecedented current temperatures are. &#9658; Sensitivity analysis highlights importance of data included.

 

[Billo_Really]

Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​

That's how stupid their argument is!​

 

[percysunshine]

Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​

That's how stupid their argument is!​

That is exactly what the Nazis said.

 

[Billo_Really]

That is exactly what the Nazis said.

The nazis were in to climatology?

I gotta admit, that's a new one!

 

[westwall]

Yes that describes your efforts to a T. Don't forget the denial of FOIA requests, the despotic rule of the editors of the various journals in barring any study that refuted "The Team", and of course the continuing effort to prevent any scientific study that refutes said "Team".

Have I missed any of your sides tactics?

It is evidently easier to assert than to evidence, because either there is a super secret evil global conspiracy in place, or every legitimate investigation of the issues you assert has evaluated the available evidences has found the opposite of what you assert.

Below is yet another study showing your statements to be wrong........


"We present a multi-archive, multi-proxy summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps covering the period AD 1053–1996 using tree-ring and lake sediment data. The new reconstruction is based on nine different calibration approaches and errors were estimated conservatively. Summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterised by two warm (AD 1053–1171 and 1823–1996) and two cold phases (AD 1172–1379 and 1573–1822). Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century. The lowest temperatures at the end of the 16th century were &#8764;1 °C lower than the 20th century mean."





ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD*1053?1996

I'll give the paper a look, but the "highlights" suggest you are ("SURPRISE!") mistaken:

Highlights
&#9658; Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps. &#9658; Highest JJA temperatures 1000–2000 AD occurred at the end of the 20th century. &#9658; Sensitivity analysis suggests higher uncertainties prior to 1400. &#9658; We therefore can’t conclude on how unprecedented current temperatures are. &#9658; Sensitivity analysis highlights importance of data included.

It's not a conspiracy, they are quite open in their disdain for the law and the scientific method. I fond it interesting that you, who claim to be a champion of science, turn a blind eye to the illegal and un-ethical behaviour of the scientists involved.

 

[westwall]

Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​

That's how stupid their argument is!​

Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it. That global warming is occuring is not in doubt. It's been warming for at least 14,000 years. The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.

Lot's of worthless models that bear no relation to actual observed phenomena, but nothing else.

 

[IanC]

The Raw Story | Tag Archive | Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam

Virginia House Delegate Christopher Stolle (R) might be on the right-wing fringe when it comes to climate science, but at least he’s helping fellow lawmakers temper the tea party’s reaction to costly government studies on the matter.

In a legislative dust-up earlier this year, according to reporter Scott Harper, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, Stolle told Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam (D) that the terms “climate change” and “sea-level rise” are “liberal code words” that must be excised from a study request, or risk having that request shelved.


------------------------

Look what bitches are doing, in Virginia, with denial. Virginia has the second-worst prognosis, for damage, from rising sea levels, after NOLA.

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety. Please comply with these very simple rules.

~Oddball

>yawn< Lose any sleep over this non story non issue, booboo?

big fitz- are you kidding? this should be a huge story! a group of CAGW alarmists were hired to give a 'scientific report' and they declared there would be a one metre sea level rise by 2100. in steps a group of real scientists that present facts and figures rather than climate model fantasies and the politicians listened! the politicians then decided that they didnt want to get tricked again so they made it a law that projections must be based on actual measurements rather than voodoo predictions from mysterious climate models that are always wrong.

 

[IanC]

Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​

That's how stupid their argument is!​

that is the stupidest argument I have heard today.

do you know anything about climate change that wasnt printed at HuffPo? there is a reason they stopped calling it global warming, you know.

 

[Big Fitz]

That is exactly what the Nazis said.

The nazis were in to climatology?

I gotta admit, that's a new one!

No. They were into killing people who disagreed with them. Or at least silencing, imprisoning and enslaving them.

 

[bobgnote]

Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it. That global warming is occuring is not in doubt. It's been warming for at least 14,000 years. The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.

Lot's of worthless models that bear no relation to actual observed phenomena, but nothing else.

Feel free to start typing, as soon as the quote is up, fucktard. At the usual graph with CO2 plotted as a red line, get over to the right, and have a look, where that red line goes, which is up toward 400 ppm CO2. Heard of humans, you wingpunk cruiser?

Most queer wingpunks know to get over to the right, and fuck off. What's your sorry excuse, Wallybitch?

 

[westwall]

Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it. That global warming is occuring is not in doubt. It's been warming for at least 14,000 years. The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.

Lot's of worthless models that bear no relation to actual observed phenomena, but nothing else.

Feel free to start typing, as soon as the quote is up, fucktard. At the usual graph with CO2 plotted as a red line, get over to the right, and have a look, where that red line goes, which is up toward 400 ppm CO2. Heard of humans, you wingpunk cruiser?

Most queer wingpunks know to get over to the right, and fuck off. What's your sorry excuse, Wallybitch?

Big deal junior. More CO2 means better growing seasons for plants. More plants means more food for critters. CO2 has nothing to do with climate. That's what the Vostok cores show. But you have to have an intellect greater than a gnat to understand that.

Clearly you don't.

 

[Big Fitz]

Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it. That global warming is occuring is not in doubt. It's been warming for at least 14,000 years. The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.

Lot's of worthless models that bear no relation to actual observed phenomena, but nothing else.

Feel free to start typing, as soon as the quote is up, fucktard. At the usual graph with CO2 plotted as a red line, get over to the right, and have a look, where that red line goes, which is up toward 400 ppm CO2. Heard of humans, you wingpunk cruiser?

Most queer wingpunks know to get over to the right, and fuck off. What's your sorry excuse, Wallybitch?

Big deal junior. More CO2 means better growing seasons for plants. More plants means more food for critters. CO2 has nothing to do with climate. That's what the Vostok cores show. But you have to have an intellect greater than a gnat to understand that.

Clearly you don't.

I love it when they forget to check for negative feedback loops.

OMG! THE OCEANS ARE ASSIDIFYING!!!
"So.... we're fixing carbon out of the atmosphere regulating it to lesser levels?"
BUT THEY'RE RELEASING MORE CARBON!
"So it's not really assidifying is it? It's maintaining a balanced state?"
BUT THE WORLD'S GROWING HOTTER?
"Increasing the growing season and making winters less devestating is bad how?"
AND STORMS ARE GROWING MORE NUMEROUS AND FIERCE!
"Yet we have't seen that, And increased storm activity helps clean the atmosphere of other pollutants as well, doesn't it? Isn't it true that Lightning makes Ozone? Again, this is bad how?"
BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!! IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!!!
"Now you're being silly. There's no real evidence that man offers a significant force in which climate changes."
BUT WE MAKE BILLIONS OF TONS OF CO2!!
"And the atmosphere is measured in the quadrillions of tons, and even all CO2 equals several trillion tons at 0.04% of atmosopheric composition. What's a few billion tons more?"
BUT IT HAS TO!!!!
"Why?"
BECAUSE WE WANT GLOBAL ECOFASCISM!!!
"Most of the world doesn't."
WE KNOW! THAT'S WHY WE MUST FALSIFY DATA!
"How's that?"
BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WON'T SUBMIT TO OUR TYRANNY!
"Life's a bitch that way, ain't it."
IT'S NOT FAIR!
"No it's not. Now go away and cry someplace soundproof and air tight with a lock outside.

 

[bobgnote]

Pig Shitz, you need to get a couple of sock puppets and go entertain the public.

Damn, you sure are a clever shithead, with all kinds of oink and doink, going on.

Wallybitch, all the CO2 going around is too much for the plants we have. Temperature is going up, with the methane and the rest.

 

[Big Fitz]

Pig Shitz, you need to get a couple of sock puppets and go entertain the public.

Damn, you sure are a clever shithead, with all kinds of oink and doink, going on.

Wallybitch, all the CO2 going around is too much for the plants we have. Temperature is going up, with the methane and the rest.

awwww... booboo is feeling left out. You know, when you enter junior high this september, assuming you're not shoved into the sped classes, you'll learn that cussing all the time is a great way to make your pointless. You're rapidly descending to a place even beneath Trolling Blunder for stupidity.

BUt for entertainment value, please... explain (between meltdowns) how my simple logical progression is flawed?

How is it that ass-idification of the oceans does not counteract the increase in atmospheric CO2 through carbon fixing? If it isn't... why not? And if it is how can the ppm be rising to beneficial levels? We'll just stick with this for now as to not fuck up your chi so badly you can't do anything but scream "Pig Shitz" I mean I've heard of BOOOOOSH derangement Syndrome but never Big Fitz Derangement Syndrome. Maybe I should be honored you totally blow your fucking diode over anything I say that makes a righteous mockery of your fantasy religion.

May the frauds be with you.

 

[bobgnote]

Big deal junior. More CO2 means better growing seasons for plants. More plants means more food for critters. CO2 has nothing to do with climate. That's what the Vostok cores show. But you have to have an intellect greater than a gnat to understand that.

Clearly you don't.

Here's a plot of CO2 and temperature, as suggested by the Vostok cores, courtesy of Wienerbitch. What do YOU think this graph shows? Get'r'done, Wally, since you are bitch number 2. Wienerbitch and Fatass actually showed up, with media. You didn't.

 

[code1211]

Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​

That's how stupid their argument is!​

Rather than presenting insults, why not present proof that your theory is right?

So far, nobody has.