That whole Global Warming Thing is such a joke...

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
No longer paying other countries to be nice to us may not cure the national debt, but I'd feel a little better knowing that whatever friends we do have don't have to be bought off. Also, a reduction in military cost because we would not be the world police.
Whatever reductions can be made that are reasonable should be made, otherwise, lets just keep spending like crazy.
 
N

nihoa

Guest
there is error associated with measurements and with the stats run on the data. it wasnt clear which you were referring to but it doesnt matter because my point stands. all that you can say, without having intimate knowledge of the data set, is that there is error and that it is your opinion that it that it may be high. from where you sit you cant make any conclusions about data youve never seen.
tree growth isnt the only method used to reconstruct past temperatures yet they all seem to correlate. the odds of all these independent researchers finding similar results in a multitude of fields is astronomical. unless you believe there is a super top secret leftist body overseeing research so they can implement a marxist agenda and ruin 'merica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/20#post_3455036
2 stat classes huh? bahaha, you should probably get your money back. Look it goes like this. You make assumptions on temps based off growth of trees. More heat, longer growing season, more growth. No actual temperature data, just assumptions on tree growth directly correlated to temperature, with no real factoring in of other factors related to tree growth. Then you go through those sames cherry pick the ones that fit your desired results and use those in the model. (this did actually happen)
Or you can take samples of actual measurements from "official" weather stations. Because every one of those weather stations use the exact same thermometer. And every thermometer was tested using the exact same stringent quality standards. None of those thermometers were ever moved not did we change the method of gathering the data in those 100 years. Lets face it, Joe blow could look at one of those thermometers and say 100 degrees and then Jim blow could look at it and say 101 degrees. I've seen and witnessed modern weather NOAA approved weather readings... There is only the hope that weatherman 1900 was meticulous in his recordings and measurements. But then we take that data they recorded, and say without a shadow of a doubt that oh no, the world has warmed 2 degrees, now we're going to enact policies that cost trillions of dollars, triple the cost of gas. yes, that makes perfect sense.
So to put it in a nut shell. There is no way that 2 degrees is within any sort of margin of error. No matter how you cook the data. Even if you can assume that it fits within a 95% probability curve or 90% or whatever. Because well, the data cannot be verified as good...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/80#post_3456156
there is error associated with measurements and with the stats run on the data. it wasnt clear which you were referring to but it doesnt matter because my point stands. all that you can say, without having intimate knowledge of the data set, is that there is error and that it is your opinion that it that it may be high. from where you sit you cant make any conclusions about data youve never seen.
tree growth isnt the only method used to reconstruct past temperatures yet they all seem to correlate. the odds of all these independent researchers finding similar results in a multitude of fields is astronomical. unless you believe there is a super top secret leftist body overseeing research so they can implement a marxist agenda and ruin 'merica.
And yet you sit there, and tell me, that projected data (not actual measurements) can somehow be so accurate that we can know, that we've seen a 1 degree increase in temperature change over the course of 100 years...
 
N

nihoa

Guest
yes of course it can but i am not arguing whether it is or isn't accurate because i am not familiar with the numbers and it is the most pointless conversation to have arguing over data neither of us have seen. my point is that if you have concern over the error associated with the conclusions go to the literature and see what error they reported. you cant just make up conclusions based on suspicions. arguments against data require a base, otherwise they are just opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/80#post_3456163
And yet you sit there, and tell me, that projected data (not actual measurements) can somehow be so accurate that we can know, that we've seen a 1 degree increase in temperature change over the course of 100 years...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/80#post_3456423
yes of course it can but i am not arguing whether it is or isn't accurate because i am not familiar with the numbers and it is the most pointless conversation to have arguing over data neither of us have seen. my point is that if you have concern over the error associated with the conclusions go to the literature and see what error they reported. you cant just make up conclusions based on suspicions. arguments against data require a base, otherwise they are just opinions.
I have, I've posted examples... But don't let that stop you...
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
When this years satellite data comes in it should be clear. If the data has been fudged for the past 20 years then we will see a sharp decrease in global temperatures. The decrease should be large enough to erase the anomalies of the past two decades. We'll know in 11 months.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/80#post_3456424
golden irony coming from the guy who has never posted far from the pulpit.
Religious faith works for finding meaning in life. Religious faith really sucks for believing false science. But when one chooses to ignore years of lies(admitted in their own emails) and falsified data posted on their own websites(NASA and NOAA) and falsified ice data and polar bear population(caught by the 2 universities sponsoring the hoaxers work and suspended), it is nothing more than blind religious faith to keep believing against all evidence.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/80#post_3456429
When this years satellite data comes in it should be clear. If the data has been fudged for the past 20 years then we will see a sharp decrease in global temperatures. The decrease should be large enough to erase the anomalies of the past two decades. We'll know in 11 months.
We won't see it. Just like you don't see all the studies that claim that we've been cooling since 97...
But if you want me to put my tin foil hat on for a minute. You know, they've been trying to put a temperature measurement satellite for a while. And they keep "mysteriously" crashing... It has happened twice...
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
It probably won't matter when the satellite data gets published. There will be a variety of reasons that will come up from the anti-warming zealots as to why it's not believable.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Another funny story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122
"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows. The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
Then they spend the rest of the article running around saying their projections are still correct, and all is lost. Unless we buy a Prius And continue funding their research (ok I added the last part)
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Interesting. So you believe that as long as there's a mountain range somewhere in the world where glaciers are not retreating all of the other shrinking glaciers in the world become irrelevant.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Yeah, trying to interpret what a high altitude glaciers are going to do based on the behavior of lower level glaciers doesn't seem like the most intelligent model to me. We can agree on that.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/390237/that-whole-global-warming-thing-is-such-a-joke/80#post_3456956
Interesting. So you believe that as long as there's a mountain range somewhere in the world where glaciers are not retreating all of the other shrinking glaciers in the world become irrelevant.
No, I don't necessarily pull that from the article. Nor do I really believe their "findings" one way or the other. But this is the point.
We're making major policy decisions that will directly cost us money. Whether it be at the pump. Or electric bill wise. The left is on the record as saying we want to shut down the coal industry. They're action show they want to shut down the oil industry too... Then we're giving billions of dollars to "green" companies, see Solindra, or that luxury electric car that they were going to build in Finland. All on the assumption that the earth is heating up, ice is melting (remember the polar bears). I appx pay 300 dollars more a month for energy than I did 10 years ago. And 10 years ago, I was driving a 3/4 ton chevy. And driving probably 30% more than I do now. I had to stop my reef tank, because I couldn't justify 300 dollar electric bill in an apartment. These are things that directly effect each and every one of us.
Now, to this article. Here you have someone (obviously a tree hugger) goes and measures snow packs in the Himalayas. Remember, melting ice packs, and receding glaciers are championed as proof positive that global warming is happening. And we're all going to die. (unless we go buy a volt). He goes and looks at and estimates and low and behold. Instead of melting ice, on the world's largest mountain range, there is more enough to offset losses at lower altitudes in the same flow.
This flies in the face of all these projected models, that would indicate that they should be melting too. (a point of discredit to those models in general)
If we're using the same burden of proof, this should be VERY VERY relevant... (I have issue with the burden of proof...)
But this is what really gets under my skin. Instead of saying something along the lines of, well we need to review this information, and incorporate these finding into our climate models, and examine why our model projections did not predict this outcome. They go out and say "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way." So basically we have the research spokesman coming out and demonstrating they have an expected/desired result before they even start the study... And they aren't even giving lip service to gathering data and reaching a conclusion... Instead they are working backwards...
On a side note, this article does point this study is a more inclusive study, that instead of monitoring a sample of glaciers. It measure the ice pack as a whole....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top