Global Warming

[Irish_Convert 1]

I've held off but I think AGW is a crock. There's a reason they stopped calling it global warming and switched to climate change, because they can't use warming to justify some of the extreme winters that have happened all over the world in recent years. The US, Europe, China and some places in the middle east have all had bad winters.

 

Calling it climate change gives the left a one stop shop that explains heat waves and cold waves, blizzards or hurricanes, droughts or severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. When there is a blizzard that dumps 18" of snow someplace they'll say weather isn't climate. When a tornado, heat wave or hurricane occurs, they all come out screaming climate change. Well no s***, the climate does change and has done so throughout the existence of our planet.

 

We know far too little about climate, despite advances in the study of it. Proxy data such as tree rings or ice core samples are not 100% accurate and even a small margin of error can negate any evidence.

 

If nothing else, it's shortsighted to only assume that there will be nothing but warming in the near future. A scenario which could include the possibility of the planet cooling should be given consideration as well because such an event would be more devastating than continuous warming.

[ND3 0]

I've held off but I think AGW is a crock. There's a reason they stopped calling it global warming and switched to climate change, because they can't use warming to justify some of the extreme winters that have happened all over the world in recent years. The US, Europe, China and some places in the middle east have all had bad winters.

 

Calling it climate change gives the left a one stop shop that explains heat waves and cold waves, blizzards or hurricanes, droughts or severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. When there is a blizzard that dumps 18" of snow someplace they'll say weather isn't climate. When a tornado, heat wave or hurricane occurs, they all come out screaming climate change. Well no s***, the climate does change and has done so throughout the existence of our planet.

 

We know far too little about climate, despite advances in the study of it. Proxy data such as tree rings or ice core samples are not 100% accurate and even a small margin of error can negate any evidence.

 

If nothing else, it's shortsighted to only assume that there will be nothing but warming in the near future. A scenario which could include the possibility of the planet cooling should be given consideration as well because such an event would be more devastating than continuous warming.

 

To the people that have done their research, it has always been about "more extreme weather". I did a research paper in 2007 about this, and it was made abundantly clear to me that, while the Earth on average would be warming, many places would experience harsher winters, stronger storms, etc.

 

For example, the southern US experienced a very warm winter, in fact:

 

 

Look, at the most basic of levels, isn't it the job of the government to protect us? When there is a possibility of a global catastrophe, I would prefer that the government use their resources to research and make an informed decision.

 

I'm much more upset about the impending military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address than climate change research and action.

[Scotty88 0]

The United Nations called an emergency meeting for....was for the Russian troops massing against the Ukraine??? No it was frikin climate change. Big bucks in that climate change garbage. Chem trails are known to cause blizzards and drought.

 

so not only can chemtrails cause a sane, rational man to raise his fist at the sky...they also create extreme moisture (blizzards) or an extreme lack of moisture (drought)?

[IrishGuy 178]

Anyone else feel like this thread is a summary of every episode of "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura"?

 

....of all days to leave my aluminum foil hat at home.

[1qa 0]

To the people that have done their research, it has always been about "more extreme weather". I did a research paper in 2007 about this....

 

I'm much more upset about the impending military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address than climate change research and action.

 

ND3 ... valiant effort. But the force is strong amongst the chemtrail, tin-hat crowd.

[piratey 6]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

[1qa 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

You love introducing "news journalism" as scientific rigor ... it's not.

 

Plus this Steven Goddard's analysis, on which the article is based is a well-known AGW Denier and card-carrying member of the Heartland (Koch) Institute. His inadequate and flawed logic has been disproven time and again.

 

http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110309123406AA1ne91

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

 

http://deepclimate.org/tag/steven-goddard/

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/01/13-dumbest-things-media-said-about-climate-chan/197331

[piratey 6]

You love introducing "news journalism" as scientific rigor ... it's not.

 

Plus this Steven Goddard's analysis, on which the article is based is a well-known AGW Denier and card-carrying member of the Heartland (Koch) Institute. His inadequate and flawed logic has been disproven time and again.

 

http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110309123406AA1ne91

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

 

http://deepclimate.org/tag/steven-goddard/

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/01/13-dumbest-things-media-said-about-climate-chan/197331

 

And then you post a link from mediamatters, which George Soros pumped millions of dollars into. lol

 

Face it bro. "Climate change" is big business and I feel very comfortable that over time I will be proven correct. Just like I was back when the craze started with Al Gore and almost all of his doomsday claims proving false.

 

The fact they fudged the numbers with the hockey stick graph and are now going back and fudging historical number to fit their narrative only fits

Edited June 24, 2014 by piratey

[jbrown_9999 1,023]

Anyone else feel like this thread is a summary of every episode of "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura"?

 

....of all days to leave my aluminum foil hat at home.

 

Haven't you heard? "They" have figured out a way around aluminum, you have to fabricate a steel hat to be safe these days...

[1qa 0]

Piratey ... free money for you.

 

http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20142606-25756.html

 

"A physics professor is offering $10,000 to the first person to present scientific evidence that proves man-made climate change isn't real.

 

Christopher Keating is a professor at the University of South Dakota who has been teaching for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

 

He has been an advocate for climate change science for 30 years and recently published a book accusing climate change skeptics of using the same tactics as the tobacco industry.

 

As reported by io9, Keating writes:

 

"Compare the claims of deniers of today to the people that denied a link between tobacco and lung disease and see how similar they are. The tobacco people funded certain scientists to undermine valid research. At the same time, they called into question the ability of scientist receiving government funding to remain unbiased. They claimed lung disease was just a natural event. Climate change deniers today are making the same arguments about global warming."

 

“There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public."

 

Keating has two prizes on offer: one offering $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to disprove anthropogenic climate change and one that offers $1,000 to the first person to provide scientific evidence of any kind that climate change is not real.

 

With the overwhelming majority of scientists on his side, Keating feels his money is pretty safe. "

[jessemoore97 1,295]

Piratey ... free money for you.

 

http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20142606-25756.html

 

"A physics professor is offering $10,000 to the first person to present scientific evidence that proves man-made climate change isn't real.

 

Christopher Keating is a professor at the University of South Dakota who has been teaching for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

 

He has been an advocate for climate change science for 30 years and recently published a book accusing climate change skeptics of using the same tactics as the tobacco industry.

 

As reported by io9, Keating writes:

 

"Compare the claims of deniers of today to the people that denied a link between tobacco and lung disease and see how similar they are. The tobacco people funded certain scientists to undermine valid research. At the same time, they called into question the ability of scientist receiving government funding to remain unbiased. They claimed lung disease was just a natural event. Climate change deniers today are making the same arguments about global warming."

 

“There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public."

 

Keating has two prizes on offer: one offering $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to disprove anthropogenic climate change and one that offers $1,000 to the first person to provide scientific evidence of any kind that climate change is not real.

 

With the overwhelming majority of scientists on his side, Keating feels his money is pretty safe. "

 

Shouldn't he just give the money to the climate changers or whoever who divulged that faulty and fraudulent data from a few years ago?

[1qa 0]

Shouldn't he just give the money to the climate changers or whoever who divulged that faulty and fraudulent data from a few years ago?

 

You're asserting the data is faulty and fradulent... that conclusion is disputed.

 

I would really like a open, transparent, honest debate among the pre-eminent "changers" and "deniers" ... where they layout in common language what is accepted fact, and what is not.. then an honest analysis (from both sides) can lead us to a reasoned conclusion, based on available evidence.

 

That's obviously not going to be done on an ND message board.

[corysold 0]

You're asserting the data is faulty and fradulent... that conclusion is disputed.

 

I would really like a open, transparent, honest debate among the pre-eminent "changers" and "deniers" ... where they layout in common language what is accepted fact, and what is not.. then an honest analysis (from both sides) can lead us to a reasoned conclusion, based on available evidence.

 

That's obviously not going to be done on an ND message board.

 

How can you prove or disprove a moving target?

 

In the 70s, it was the coming Ice Age.

 

In the 90s, it was global warming.

 

Now it is climate change and more extreme weather.. How do you prove whether or not it is man made, when man can't even decide which direction it is going?

[nickman54 0]

How can you prove or disprove a moving target?

 

In the 70s, it was the coming Ice Age.

 

In the 90s, it was global warming.

 

Now it is climate change and more extreme weather.. How do you prove whether or not it is man made, when man can't even decide which direction it is going?

 

That's the beauty of the whole sham... We sit around and argue about the data and collection, meanwhile the money train is still being loaded up.

[jessemoore97 1,295]

You're asserting the data is faulty and fradulent... that conclusion is disputed.

 

I would really like a open, transparent, honest debate among the pre-eminent "changers" and "deniers" ... where they layout in common language what is accepted fact, and what is not.. then an honest analysis (from both sides) can lead us to a reasoned conclusion, based on available evidence.

 

That's obviously not going to be done on an ND message board.

 

I wasn't asserting a thing. The scientists themselves admitted to fudging the numbers. How can you have a reasoned discussion when you don't even believe your own scientists admission of wrongdoing?

[1qa 0]

I wasn't asserting a thing. The scientists themselves admitted to fudging the numbers. How can you have a reasoned discussion when you don't even believe your own scientists admission of wrongdoing?

 

If you're referring to "climategate" .. there was a full UK parliamentary investigation.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climate-emails-question-answer

 

If you don't trust that conclusion / analysis... then we are at an impasse.

 

If you're referring to some other confession of climate change scammer, I'd need to see your sources.

[piratey 6]

I wasn't asserting a thing. The scientists themselves admitted to fudging the numbers. How can you have a reasoned discussion when you don't even believe your own scientists admission of wrongdoing?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

 

Oops!

 

 

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.

 

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

 

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

 

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

 

“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”

 

So essentially, the NOAA gets to make waves by claiming July 2012 was the hottest month on record and 2 years later silently retract it.

 

"Trust me, I'm a scientist, I'm the one profession that is infallible."

[piratey 6]

That's the beauty of the whole sham... We sit around and argue about the data and collection, meanwhile the money train is still being loaded up.

 

Did you see nasa had to cancel their launch of Global Warming satellite today? Of note it's $468 million project. The president has made no secret that NASA is no longer about space exploration and is now being dedicated to "Global Climate Change." His funding of NASA has decreased every year in office and it is the lowest percent(.43%) of the federal budget, it has been since 1959. The only thing keeping the agency afloat is idea of Global Warming. They are getting billions in global warming research dollars....

[nickman54 0]

Did you see nasa had to cancel their launch of Global Warming satellite today? Of note it's $468 million project. The president has made no secret that NASA is no longer about space exploration and is now being dedicated to "Global Climate Change." His funding of NASA has decreased every year in office and it is the lowest percent(.43%) of the federal budget, it has been since 1959. The only thing keeping the agency afloat is idea of Global Warming. They are getting billions in global warming research dollars....

 

I didn't see that.. Just so you know global warming isn't the only thing keepin them afloat. They are also doing standout work on the outreach to the Muslim world....... Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[nickman54 0]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

 

Oops!

 

 

 

 

So essentially, the NOAA gets to make waves by claiming July 2012 was the hottest month on record and 2 years later silently retract it.

 

"Trust me, I'm a scientist, I'm the one profession that is infallible."[/QUOTE]

 

The bolded statement is untrue and should include "community organizer".