climate skeptic changes tune

mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/20#post_3431652

That is based not on actual temperatures, even they admit it. It is based on computer models of what the "think" the temperature should be. That is a perfect example of their bias, not their objectivity. In one of the emails, it was pointed out that some of the calculated temperatures was rounded higher by almost a half degree celcius. The scientist in charge said to use the flawed #'s anyway because it would average out over the test period. Don't you get it? They are making these numbers up! They have been caught doing this kind of thing time and again-it's why the polar bear "expert" was suspended. The numbers on those charts are PROJECTIONS. They have no way, other than computer models, to verify them.
 
S

smartorl

Guest
Also, look at the date span, in the big scheme of our planet, this is nothing. In order to fully understand the trends, we need to look much further back then 120ish years.
 
N

nihoa

Guest

i have no idea what you are talking about. from nasas site it says quite clearly this graph is based on actual measurements.
Figure 1: (Left) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Error bars are estimated 2? (95% confidence) uncertainty.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
as for the rest of what you said you are trying to debunk something based on a few emails between a single group of researchers. there are tens of thousands of climatologists and the until-now skeptic who wrote the article i posted clearly says that the climategate issue was more one of poor public relations than it was representative of shoddy work. his findings support what they found.
you know your military is planning for and anticipating operating in a world impacted by climate change? your intelligence communities are also moving into a future where climate change is an accepted reality. esso, exxon and many of the big energy companies have also released statements acknowledging our role in global warming and these are the folks who have the most to lose from the green push.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431691
That is based not on actual temperatures, even they admit it. It is based on computer models of what the "think" the temperature should be. That is a perfect example of their bias, not their objectivity. In one of the emails, it was pointed out that some of the calculated temperatures was rounded higher by almost a half degree celcius. The scientist in charge said to use the flawed #'s anyway because it would average out over the test period. Don't you get it? They are making these numbers up! They have been caught doing this kind of thing time and again-it's why the polar bear "expert" was suspended. The numbers on those charts are PROJECTIONS. They have no way, other than computer models, to verify them.
 
N

nihoa

Guest
i posted this cus darth was asking specifically about the period we see the 1 deg change in. there are temp records going back 500,000 years from ice core data you can find easy enough. or i could google it for you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartorl http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431696
Also, look at the date span, in the big scheme of our planet, this is nothing. In order to fully understand the trends, we need to look much further back then 120ish years.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431702
i have no idea what you are talking about. from nasas site it says quite clearly this graph is based on actual measurements.
Figure 1: (Left) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Error bars are estimated 2? (95% confidence) uncertainty.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
as for the rest of what you said you are trying to debunk something based on a few emails between a single group of researchers. there are tens of thousands of climatologists and the until-now skeptic who wrote the article i posted clearly says that the climategate issue was more one of poor public relations than it was representative of shoddy work. his findings support what they found.
you know your military is planning for and anticipating operating in a world impacted by climate change? your intelligence communities are also moving into a future where climate change is an accepted reality. esso, exxon and many of the big energy companies have also released statements acknowledging our role in global warming and these are the folks who have the most to lose from the green push.
We also have a department of Extra Terrestrial relations......... Just sayin
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
p
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431691
Do you, Bang Guy, never once ask yourself, "Why do they keep changing their gospel(er theory) to justify what is occurring that is completely different than what they predicted?" I mean, really, do you not just once think, "What if they're wrong? Why is so much of what they've claimed would happen, not happening?"
This thread isn't about projections. It's not about theory. It's about some temperature measurements that indicate an actual increase in the average surface temperature of this planet over the past 100 years. Cherry picking data, falsifying data, error rates, etc. brought up by other people are valid arguments worthy of debate but saying the theory is wrong makes no sense because there is no theory nor are there projections of anything.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/20#post_3431609
To claim global warming when other parts of the world are consistently having record cold is puzzling to me. Warming means temperature is increasing. If it is colder in some places and warmer in others, that is not global warming. It is regional warming and proof that there is no "global" to the warming. We were told by the global warming hoaxsters that Katrina was a first of many storms to come and that hurricane seasons would all get worse and worse due to the ocean warming. We have had a massive drop in the number and severity of hurricanes reaching the shore. That is proof they are wrong, but no. To maintain their tenuous claims, they say, oh no, the warm ocean is drawing cold further south, tempering the hurricanes. Do you, Bang Guy, never once ask yourself, "Why do they keep changing their gospel(er theory) to justify what is occurring that is completely different than what they predicted?" I mean, really, do you not just once think, "What if they're wrong? Why is so much of what they've claimed would happen, not happening?"
Global warming dissenters key on that word "warming" when discussing the Earth's climate changes. I could care less what you call it. All I know is in the last 5-10 years, the world has experienced dramatic climate changes during all four seasons. In the US, we've had Springs with severe droughts, Summers with multiple 100+ days of heat, Fall's where areas are already getting hit with large amounts of snow, Winters with massive snowstorms that shut cities down for weeks and unusually low temps with even more snow in areas of the country that normally see those types of weather conditions once every 15 years. Thailand is undewater, Japan has had several major earthquakes. We even had a 4.6 here south of San Antonio. If you want to go with the theory of, "It's just a normal climate cycle", then go with that. But what if it isn't? What if it's also due to excesive carbon emissions or the destruction of our natural resources? Even with the ridiculous Federal regulations they try pushing to support Global Warming, it may cost the average American an extra couple hundred bucks a year to enforce those changes or pay a little extra for light bulbs, solar power, wind power, or whatever just in case the Global Warming proponents are right.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431750
p
This thread isn't about projections. It's not about theory. It's about some temperature measurements that indicate an actual increase in the average surface temperature of this planet over the past 100 years. Cherry picking data, falsifying data, error rates, etc. brought up by other people are valid arguments worthy of debate but saying the theory is wrong makes no sense because there is no theory nor are there projections of anything.
Isn't that convenient, there is no theory, so when trying to combat these policies and infringements on our daily lives, coming out of the non-existent theory, you can't. Brilliant...
Realistically those minimized email drove "green" policy for the U.N. and the United States for the past 10-15 years. Now that it is proven false, those policies haven't been scaled back, They've been doubled down on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431761
Even with the ridiculous Federal regulations they try pushing to support Global Warming, it may cost the average American an extra couple hundred bucks a year to enforce those changes or pay a little extra for light bulbs, solar power, wind power, or whatever just in case the Global Warming proponents are right.
A couple hundred dollars a month you mean. That is what it costs me just in gas, and I drive a honda...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431702
esso, exxon and many of the big energy companies have also released statements acknowledging our role in global warming and these are the folks who have the most to lose from the green push.
lol, you really think this? I guess you believe public apologies too. Realistically these guys are energy companies. They don't care where the power comes from, as long as it's profitable... I'd bet you a dollar to a donut, that when another viable energy source to petroleum/coal/nuclear power come down the pipe, it will come out of those of these guy's labs...
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431766
Isn't that convenient, there is no theory, so when trying to combat these policies and infringements on our daily lives, coming out of the non-existent theory, you can't. Brilliant...
Realistically those minimized email drove "green" policy for the U.N. and the United States for the past 10-15 years. Now that it is proven false, those policies haven't been scaled back, They've been doubled down on.
A couple hundred dollars a month you mean. That is what it costs me just in gas, and I drive a honda...
This database was not proven false. There's no theory involved with this chart because it's a simple finite set of temperature reading.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431766
Isn't that convenient, there is no theory, so when trying to combat these policies and infringements on our daily lives, coming out of the non-existent theory, you can't. Brilliant...
Realistically those minimized email drove "green" policy for the U.N. and the United States for the past 10-15 years. Now that it is proven false, those policies haven't been scaled back, They've been doubled down on.
A couple hundred dollars a month you mean. That is what it costs me just in gas, and I drive a honda...
Rising gas prices has nothing to do with global warming. That's the Middle East raising the price of a barrel of oil just because the wind blows in a different direction. Do you disagree with how appliance manafuctuers had to comply with Federal regulations on how they have to build "green energy" systems? They cost a few dollars more, but you also save on your electric bill to where it pays for itself over time. People lambast these energy efficient flourescent light bulbs due to their high cost over tradition bulbs. Yet, I've had one of those bulbs last longer than 3 conventional light bulbs, so in effect, it has saved me money over the long run. The neysayers simply look at the initial costs of "green" products, and don't look at the long-term benefits those devices afford.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431750
p
This thread isn't about projections. It's not about theory. It's about some temperature measurements that indicate an actual increase in the average surface temperature of this planet over the past 100 years. Cherry picking data, falsifying data, error rates, etc. brought up by other people are valid arguments worthy of debate but saying the theory is wrong makes no sense because there is no theory nor are there projections of anything.
So there is no sweaty, near-frantic calls for change because the poles are going to melt and NY is going to be under water and the hurricanes are going to get worse. And yes, those charts are pure speculation previous to the 1930's and questionable up til now because of the malfeasance of the pseudo-scientists-look it up. That is what changed my mind on all this. I quit listening to the cover lies and started looking at their data and it is almost all projections based off of computer models. I'm done, true believers will ignore all evidence to believe at all costs. I gave you a perfect example with the hurricanes-how they used "the weather on their front porch" to make crazy claims of how hurricanes would get worse and worse and when it didn't happen, they came up with a crazier claim it was not happening because the hot ocean was "drawing cold air south and cooling the clouds". You sidestepped and ignored that "Inconvenient Truth" so your faith wouldn't be challenged. Bang Guy, you are a true believer. Nothing, no data or facts(or lies by the pseudo-scientists) can change your mind because you and folks like you have chosen to believe. Could it be warming around the globe? Not a chance as long as anywhere is normal or colder than normal, that's a fact-we all share the same atmosphere and it would be warming everywhere because that blanket of atmosphere doesn't just cover part of the Earth. The pseudo-scientists you have given your heart and mind to have been caught lying and doctoring data and you ignore that because your faith refuses to be challenged. I am sorry for the true believers and I am more sorry for our country-the damage to our way of life and possibly our very freedom will be incalculable if the true believers have their way.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
I hope LED takes off as a better alternative than CF bulbs. It really is a significant amount of mercury in the CF bulbs and I'm doubtful that they will all be disposed of properly when they do eventually burn out.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Figure 1: (Left) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Error bars are estimated 2? (95% confidence) uncertainty.
Nihoa can you not understand this simple fact? The sea temperature fluctuates throughout the year-hell, depending on how much clouds and rain versus sunlight, by the day. The graphs even say "temperature anomaly". THAT IS THEIR GUESS AT HOW DIFFERENT THE TEMPERATURES ARE FROM A COMPUTER GENERATED MODEL OF WHAT IS NORMAL!!!!! God have mercy on my soul. And I thought some of the people I went to church with were true believers. Now I'm done for real. This is starting to remind me of a bad experience with Moonies at LAX.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431821
I'm glad you finally admit to ignoring the evidence.
Yup, they were wrong about hurricanes and Algore was wrong about raisng 15° by 2010 and all the lies and doctored data and you not even taking one second to see how they come up with their numbers which they themselves call "projection". Yup, I'm the true believer for not believing their lies. Moonie Central here anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top