Thank you Obama!!! It's because of him!!!
Thank you Obama!!! It's because of him!!!
Granted, it has been getting warmer for the last 200-300 years (excepting the past 17 years and the 30 years from 1940 to 1970). It is certainly possible that this natural long-term warming trend could continue into the future.
However, for those who would like to get more informed on climate change alarmism, please check out the following links.
As Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
1. Data manipulation: Historical raw temperature data has been manipulated, not once but thousands of times, to show more warming than actually measured. Raw temperature data from hundreds of surface stations have been deleted. Hundreds of “virtual” (i.e., fictitious) stations have been added to show temperatures in locations where no stations existed. One example: In Luling, TX, raw temp data was adjusted downwards 0.91 C in 1934 and upwards 1.35 in 2013. That’s a 2.26 C net adjustment or about 4 degrees Fahrenheit! Data has similarly been manipulated internationally.
2. Unreliable surface station temperature data: In addition to data being manipulated and stations created out of thin air, the raw data itself is suspect. A survey of official temperature surface stations found that 83% did not meet compliance standards. Some were too close to heat sources, such as parking lots, buildings, air conditioner units, highways, or walls, all which create artificial heat zones. Some were painted the wrong color, which led to greater heat absorption and higher temperatures. When only stations that met reliability standards were averaged, the temperature increase was less than half that reported when all noncompliant stations were included.
dsfgsad wrote:
Sally V wrote:But the Earth HASN'T been warming for quite some time now. In fact, the Earth hasn't warmed since 1996. And all the "climate scientists" everyone is alluding to have been wrong time and time and time again. Look back at the previous IPCC reports (I, II, III and IV). Look at their projections and they were wrong more often than right. All these scientists predicted much more severe hurricane activity after Katrina but instea the last major hurricane to hit the US was Wilma in 2005. They even had to make up a new name "Superstorm" for Sandy to make it sound more onerous and because it never reached hurricane level. These "climate scientists" are crackpots beholden to their research grants.
Oh look, it's Sally again. Let's put it simply for you. On one hand, you could say global warming as a) not happening, or b) is happening but is natural. I guess you subscribe to either a) or b), or maybe an eclectic mix of the two. You presume this based on YOUR OWN research, or gut feeling, because experts disagree with you. You justify this by saying the experts are wrong 'more often than not' (source?).
So... what's YOUR record on accurately predicting broad climate trends? I'd say you're 0 out of 0, because you lack an honours, masters or doctoral thesis on the matter.
What you're aying is that YOUR hunch os just as valid as an expert's opinion. You back this up with an assertion climate scientists have been wrong before. This doesn't make your stance any less breathtakingly arrogant.
You're not that smart, Sally, to have a viewpoint as valid as an expert's. Why do you think you are?
I also very seriously doubt you've undertaken a comprehensive literature review to prove climate scientists are wrong >50 per cent of the time. I put it to you you pulled that statistic out your a$$.
The funniest part about this arrogant educated idiot ranting on and on about climatologists being able to predict climate because they flunked out of the real sciences and switched to a joke of a degree, is that 95% of the learned and revered climatologists models are wrong. A five year fresh out of nursery school old can do a better job predicting climate trends.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/?Yay!
fisky wrote:
However, for those who would like to get more informed on climate change alarmism, please check out the following links.
A few more links for anyone interested in understanding rather than confirmation of "climate change alarmism".
1. Data manipulation: . . .
a) In depth essay on the processing applied to raw temperature data and why it's done:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/b) Analysis of the specific case of Luling, Tx by someone who is more interested in getting it right rather than feeding conspiracy theories (blogger is Nick Stokes of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team):
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/06/ushcn-tempest-over-luling-texas-theres.html2. Unreliable surface station temperature data: In addition to data being manipulated and stations created out of thin air, the raw data itself is suspect. . . .
This is addressed by 1.a above and by a number of papers in the literature, but just as a sanity check one also has to wonder why the independent satellite observations are consistent with the surface temperature measurements if they're so much in error.
fisky wrote:
Stuff suggesting that GW is largely a grand conspiracy
OK, probably foolish of me, I admit - but being the eternal optimist I would like you to consider one simple question:
Why is it that with mega-dollars beyond anyone's wildest imagination available to anybody who can put together the research results that would thoroughly discredit the basic picture of GW has this not been done?
Sure, there are plenty of industry shills and flat-earthers who spread ignorance. There are also a few serious scientists who have doubts and point them out. But just imagine the billions upon billions upon countless billions of dollars that it would be worth to Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Auto, Big Electric, Big Natural Gas to find convincing evidence that it is OK to burn as much fossil fuel as we feel like.
And yet, nobody has claimed this prize.
Curious. No?
Eternal Optimist wrote:
fisky wrote:Stuff suggesting that GW is largely a grand conspiracy
OK, probably foolish of me, I admit - but being the eternal optimist I would like you to consider one simple question:
Why is it that with mega-dollars beyond anyone's wildest imagination available to anybody who can put together the research results that would thoroughly discredit the basic picture of GW has this not been done?
Sure, there are plenty of industry shills and flat-earthers who spread ignorance. There are also a few serious scientists who have doubts and point them out. But just imagine the billions upon billions upon countless billions of dollars that it would be worth to Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Auto, Big Electric, Big Natural Gas to find convincing evidence that it is OK to burn as much fossil fuel as we feel like.
And yet, nobody has claimed this prize.
Curious. No?
Because they don't have to. Burning fossil fuels isn't going away. IT ISN'T GOING AWAY! Even if we backed off 10% it would create anarchy. Big oil doesn't have to spend one thin dime disproving this because THEY CAN'T BE REPLACED. Unless all the greenies who killed off nuclear call off the dogs. Nuclear is the answer. If that isn't used, we couldn't even start to produce the # of solar panels or windmills necessary to replace even the 10% number I threw out up above. I think in order to produce the necessary energy to even give it a shot you'd have to cover ALL of Arizona and Nevada (good sun) with solar panels but even still, that electricity would never make it over to the East Coast (electricity travels poorly).
Even the most passionate of alarmists won't give up the opportunity to charge their cell phones, and that is the sad truth ...... but really, don't worry. It won't be much longer that all of this AGW just goes away, because it is so overblown.
SomeCoach wrote:
Eternal Optimist wrote:OK, probably foolish of me, I admit - but being the eternal optimist I would like you to consider one simple question:
Why is it that with mega-dollars beyond anyone's wildest imagination available to anybody who can put together the research results that would thoroughly discredit the basic picture of GW has this not been done?
Sure, there are plenty of industry shills and flat-earthers who spread ignorance. There are also a few serious scientists who have doubts and point them out. But just imagine the billions upon billions upon countless billions of dollars that it would be worth to Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Auto, Big Electric, Big Natural Gas to find convincing evidence that it is OK to burn as much fossil fuel as we feel like.
And yet, nobody has claimed this prize.
Curious. No?
Because they don't have to. Burning fossil fuels isn't going away. IT ISN'T GOING AWAY! Even if we backed off 10% it would create anarchy. Big oil doesn't have to spend one thin dime disproving this because THEY CAN'T BE REPLACED. Unless all the greenies who killed off nuclear call off the dogs. Nuclear is the answer. If that isn't used, we couldn't even start to produce the # of solar panels or windmills necessary to replace even the 10% number I threw out up above. I think in order to produce the necessary energy to even give it a shot you'd have to cover ALL of Arizona and Nevada (good sun) with solar panels but even still, that electricity would never make it over to the East Coast (electricity travels poorly).
Even the most passionate of alarmists won't give up the opportunity to charge their cell phones, and that is the sad truth ...... but really, don't worry. It won't be much longer that all of this AGW just goes away, because it is so overblown.
Ummm....riiiiight. So the big CO2 emitting industries aren't concerned. Riiiiiiigghttt.
Please don't post any more. Your ignorance quotient is just too painful to witness.
You'd be surprised, geographically, what a small percentage of the globe the US takes up.
You seem to have no grasp of basic English or of basic Science. We aren't going to be able to teach you those here.
If you're going to continue to be a fool, well, go ahead and look at today's satellite pictures just east of Hawaii. 2 hurricanes all lines up in a row, including a cat 3/4. That doesn't prove anything to anyone that has more than three brain cells, but the picture is there for you if you want.
My favorite part about this is that someone is trying to discredit global warming by citing the number of hurricanes.
That's like walking up to a runner who runs 100mpw and saying that they don't run 100mpw because they aren't fast.
The average global temp is indeed increasing, including the warmest spring ever recorded this year. That's what global warming means. Just because there aren't hurricanes in a particular part of the world, doesn't mean the temperature isn't increasing.
SomeCoach wrote:
Eternal Optimist wrote:OK, probably foolish of me, I admit - but being the eternal optimist I would like you to consider one simple question:
Why is it that with mega-dollars beyond anyone's wildest imagination available to anybody who can put together the research results that would thoroughly discredit the basic picture of GW has this not been done?
Sure, there are plenty of industry shills and flat-earthers who spread ignorance. There are also a few serious scientists who have doubts and point them out. But just imagine the billions upon billions upon countless billions of dollars that it would be worth to Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Auto, Big Electric, Big Natural Gas to find convincing evidence that it is OK to burn as much fossil fuel as we feel like.
And yet, nobody has claimed this prize.
Curious. No?
Because they don't have to. Burning fossil fuels isn't going away. IT ISN'T GOING AWAY! Even if we backed off 10% it would create anarchy. Big oil doesn't have to spend one thin dime disproving this because THEY CAN'T BE REPLACED. Unless all the greenies who killed off nuclear call off the dogs. Nuclear is the answer. If that isn't used, we couldn't even start to produce the # of solar panels or windmills necessary to replace even the 10% number I threw out up above. I think in order to produce the necessary energy to even give it a shot you'd have to cover ALL of Arizona and Nevada (good sun) with solar panels but even still, that electricity would never make it over to the East Coast (electricity travels poorly).
Even the most passionate of alarmists won't give up the opportunity to charge their cell phones, and that is the sad truth ...... but really, don't worry. It won't be much longer that all of this AGW just goes away, because it is so overblown.
If they put forth a similar challenge to discredit the idea that the Easter Bunny exists, the results would be identical. You can't prove something doesn't exist b
However, all the "climatologists" have tried their best to put their truther hypothesis to the test by making real works predictions, and they have failed miserably.
But every weak minded peer ass-kissing idiot still sucks it all in. Skuuuurrrrrrrp. Skuuuurrrrrrrp Skuuuurrrrrrrp. Don't it taste good.
No Way wrote:
My favorite part about this is that someone is trying to discredit global warming by citing the number of hurricanes.
That's like walking up to a runner who runs 100mpw and saying that they don't run 100mpw because they aren't fast.
The average global temp is indeed increasing, including the warmest spring ever recorded this year. That's what global warming means. Just because there aren't hurricanes in a particular part of the world, doesn't mean the temperature isn't increasing.
So all those "climatologists" who told us there was a direct correlation between the frequency of hurricanes and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere were fools. That's what even the stupidest among us now know. They blew their credibility years ago without all their irresponsible, inaccurate and costly bs predictions. They should be thrown into the eye of a hurricane.
No Way wrote:
My favorite part about this is that someone is trying to discredit global warming by citing the number of hurricanes.
That's like walking up to a runner who runs 100mpw and saying that they don't run 100mpw because they aren't fast.
The average global temp is indeed increasing, including the warmest spring ever recorded this year. That's what global warming means. Just because there aren't hurricanes in a particular part of the world, doesn't mean the temperature isn't increasing.
It's difficult to know which year has been the warmest because of this scandal, which is only going to get worse ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html.... but even if you don't buy into this incredibly unethical piece of science, this spring did not even come close to the spring of 1998.
See, as much as climatologists would like to have models replace data, there are few brave sole's who would like science to actually be based on real life measurements.
Correction: Soul's .... ah, a good mistake to have a running site I suppose.
Fortunately we have trustworthy and intelligent leaders who know precisely what's going to happen:
"the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013" - John Kerry 2009
Just like everyone who might say, "If you run 100 mpw you'll be fast."Just because the effect doesn't turn out the way you think doesn't mean the cause isn't there.This is basic logic.
He is too wrote:
No Way wrote:My favorite part about this is that someone is trying to discredit global warming by citing the number of hurricanes.
That's like walking up to a runner who runs 100mpw and saying that they don't run 100mpw because they aren't fast.
The average global temp is indeed increasing, including the warmest spring ever recorded this year. That's what global warming means. Just because there aren't hurricanes in a particular part of the world, doesn't mean the temperature isn't increasing.
So all those "climatologists" who told us there was a direct correlation between the frequency of hurricanes and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere were fools. That's what even the stupidest among us now know. They blew their credibility years ago without all their irresponsible, inaccurate and costly bs predictions. They should be thrown into the eye of a hurricane.
No. Actually, it was warmer.
SomeCoach wrote:
No Way wrote:My favorite part about this is that someone is trying to discredit global warming by citing the number of hurricanes.
That's like walking up to a runner who runs 100mpw and saying that they don't run 100mpw because they aren't fast.
The average global temp is indeed increasing, including the warmest spring ever recorded this year. That's what global warming means. Just because there aren't hurricanes in a particular part of the world, doesn't mean the temperature isn't increasing.
It's difficult to know which year has been the warmest because of this scandal, which is only going to get worse ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html.... but even if you don't buy into this incredibly unethical piece of science, this spring did not even come close to the spring of 1998.
See, as much as climatologists would like to have models replace data, there are few brave sole's who would like science to actually be based on real life measurements.
globalwarming scam wrote:
Third, the silent 2013 and 2014 hurricane season extends an amazing record regarding major hurricane strikes of Category 3 or higher. The United States is currently undergoing its longest period in history without a major strike.
0/10 - worst trolling in a long time
Now Hawaii is getting double hurricanes and they haven't had one in decades.
But this clearly more the fault of Obama than carbon emissions.
SomeCoach wrote:
It's difficult to know which year has been the warmest because of this scandal, which is only going to get worse ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html.... but even if you don't buy into this incredibly unethical piece of science, this spring did not even come close to the spring of 1998.
As discussed in the links provided up thread, the gist of "this incredibly unethical piece of science" was an algorithm rejecting data from one particular sensor in the network because it was inconsistent with other sensors in the region. The sensor, upon further investigation the sensor was in fact discovered to be malfunctioning.
Of course that could just be a cover story for the massive global conspiracy.