Climate Change Deniers Claim to Understand Science

[Freewill]

Sorry hairball, but as usual...you couldn't possibly be more wrong

I'm absolutely right. Almost all the scientists predicted warming. A survey of scientific literature proved that. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. You've been shown that proof, over and over, which means you're deliberately lying.

A CIA report does not change that, being a CIA report is not the science, and only a liar pretends that a CIA report is the science. The science would be the scientific literature, almost all of which predicted warming.

Sorry hairball, but again, you are quite wrong. The CIA report makes it clear that climate science was in its infancy and what agencies existed that were interested in climate science were onboard with the cooling. NOAA, NCAR, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences were all promoting the cooling as the paper clearly states.

The CIA report clearly describes the state of the science and the early formation of the climate science establishement that we know today as a result of the cooling scare. Lying and denial won't make it otherwise.

I repeat from the report:

n the summer of 1973, the Wisconsin Plan for Climate Research was presented to the National Security Council. NOAA and the National Science Foundation were requested to review this plan to suggest how it should be implemented. The Wisconsin plan stimulated activity in many agencies.

In the Fall of 1973, three agencies sin the government became active in the development of climatic research plans: NSF, NOAA and the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences established the Committee on Climatic Variation, chaired by Dr Larry Gates. The committed members completed tier recommendations for a National Climatic Research Plan in June of 1974. This plan is presently under assessment by the National Academy of Sciences. Its final approval is expected late this year. Early in 1974 NOAA began developing a plan which would include a Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment as suggested by preliminary recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences Committee

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources.

[/B]
Deny till your black little hearts content...but the facts are what they are. The agencies who were looking at climate were all in agreement that cooling was on its way. The foundation for the climate science establishment being laid is clearly described in the CIA paper. It doesn't claim to be doing science...it does however describe climate science as it existed at the time and the position it was taking...

Sorry hairball...your propaganda doesn't trump this...That paper describes the landscape as it existed at the time and the consensus was cooling. Hell, even the NAS was onboard...NOAA certainly was, and NCAR. Who else was there at the time?

Pretty amazing how folks will argue that we just didn't see or hear what we saw and heard.

 

[Freewill]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

Absolutely. Where a poster can't understand how US temperature records showing no warming don't apply to the rest of the world. Specific enough for you?

So explain it to me. Here is what I think might be happening but is hard to sort out. If I go to the NOAA site that I have provided several times I see a cooling in the US for at least 15 years. Using the same site I see a slight warming globally. So I am to believe that 1/5th of the Globes surface cools but when combined with the rest of the globe the globe warms. Which is just a case of statistics. Could be that say Africa is not warming at all but the arctic is offsetting the cooling in America. Could be that the whole 4/5 of the world is warming and the US is not, that does not make sense.

The other part I observe is that when I use the same site and go to the US it is average temperature that is being plotted. When I go to the global tab it is not average temperature but temperature anomaly that is being charted. Now, would that make a difference? Apparently yes. The chart then would then depend on what time frame the baseline was chosen. In other words, why not just use the average temperature so we are all playing on the same field? Whose to say that the date range they are suing for "normal" is the correct date range?

Now I realize there are a whole slew of smart people who look at the statistics and tell me what they mean. And I should trust those people, I guess. But I did trust them in the 70s and at least as published in what I read they were dead wrong on almost every one of their predictions and pronouncements. So I think that the information they feed us should be easy to understand, it really isn't complicated, and in a form where objective comparisons can be made.

Much like the convoluted explanation of how CO2 concentration lags temperature by 400 years but CO2 is the cause. It makes much more sense, to me, that as temperature rise and falls CO2 follows. Much like when you glass of carbonated liquid releases CO2 as it warms.

 

[Freewill]

You know what we know to an even GREATER degree of precision and reliability?

The area of the United States

and

The area of the World.

Why oh why do you waste our time so?

But then you tell us that a storm in Texas is evidence of global climate warming change?????

Actually I am starting to believe that flying the confederate battle flag has more of an effect.

 

[Freewill]

I think they should start and lead by example. off themselves to take some of the "humans" causing all their wails and concerns off Mother earth. give her a break you know.

Yet another denier who wants all her opponents dead.

I wish I could say that was unusual, but most deniers are that violent and fascist. It's just a matter of whether they'll openly admit it. None of them have ever criticized the bloodlust of their fellow deniers, that's for sure.

In contrast, nobody on the rational side ever calls for anyone's death. The two sides are very different in that regard. Deniers tend to be genocidal stalinists, while the reason-based people ... aren't.

I don't see where anyone using the word "denier" is rational or really even cares about open honest debate.

 

[Freewill]

OK, I found this concerning the temperature records.

From NOAA:

What is the average global temperature now UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NOW?

according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. That number made 2014 the warmest year on record in the NOAA database, which goes back to 1880.

WHY ARE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES EXPRESSED AS A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL, INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE?
One reason is that there are several different techniques for coming up with a global average, depending on how one accounts fortemperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions.

Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:

• NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• NOAA National Climatic Data Center
• UK Met Office Hadley Centre

The important point is that the trends that emerge from year to year and decade to decade are remarkably similar—more so than the averages themselves. This is why global warming is usually described in terms of anomalies (variations above and below the average for a baseline set of years) rather than in absolute temperature. A website from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies goes into more detail on the topic of The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.

 

[Freewill]

From NOAA:

Climate at a Glance National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

Which shows a whopping .21 deg temperature rise, above some average, in 30 years. They use average to create this chart yet they also say they can't use the average to create a chart. Interesting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

Absolutely. Where a poster can't understand how US temperature records showing no warming don't apply to the rest of the world. Specific enough for you?

Context you moron.. get some..

IF you had even a ounce of credibility you would understand that satellite data and the US-CRN are very close in negative slope, cooling. One is global and one is regional. Both are the essentially the same..

Do you share a sand box with crick and old crock?

 

[Billy_Bob]

From NOAA:

View attachment 43157

Climate at a Glance National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

Which shows a whopping .21 deg temperature rise, above some average, in 30 years. They use average to create this chart yet they also say they can't use the average to create a chart. Interesting.

Funny how they only slope the current warming cycle and refuse to slope the beginning of the graph showing the end of last cooling cycle.. But the foolish will learn fast enough as we have begun the next cooling cycle..

 

[Freewill]

OK, I found this concerning the temperature records.

From NOAA:

What is the average global temperature now UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NOW?

according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. That number made 2014 the warmest year on record in the NOAA database, which goes back to 1880.

WHY ARE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES EXPRESSED AS A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL, INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE?
One reason is that there are several different techniques for coming up with a global average, depending on how one accounts fortemperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions.

Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:

• NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• NOAA National Climatic Data Center
• UK Met Office Hadley Centre

The important point is that the trends that emerge from year to year and decade to decade are remarkably similar—more so than the averages themselves. This is why global warming is usually described in terms of anomalies (variations above and below the average for a baseline set of years) rather than in absolute temperature. A website from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies goes into more detail on the topic of The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.

Anyone notice that the answer to the question of what is the average global temperature was not a temperature but NOAA just saying 2014 was the warmest since records taken. Interesting, I wonder why they do that.

 

[mamooth]

So explain it to me. Here is what I think might be happening but is hard to sort out. If I go to the NOAA site that I have provided several times I see a cooling in the US for at least 15 years. Using the same site I see a slight warming globally. So I am to believe that 1/5th of the Globes surface cools but when combined with the rest of the globe the globe warms. Which is just a case of statistics. Could be that say Africa is not warming at all but the arctic is offsetting the cooling in America. Could be that the whole 4/5 of the world is warming and the US is not, that does not make sense.

The continental USA is 2% of the earth's surface, not 20%.

The other part I observe is that when I use the same site and go to the US it is average temperature that is being plotted. When I go to the global tab it is not average temperature but temperature anomaly that is being charted. Now, would that make a difference? Apparently yes. The chart then would then depend on what time frame the baseline was chosen. In other words, why not just use the average temperature so we are all playing on the same field? Whose to say that the date range they are suing for "normal" is the correct date range?

It doesn't matter whether average or anomaly is used. The temperature trend is the issue, and that's the same with either.

Most places use anomalies exclusively. NOAA likes to use average temps as well. I guess NOAA thinks people can relate more to average temps than anomalies. NOAA really should use anomalies all the time, just to be consistent with everyone else.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball, but again, you are quite wrong. The CIA report

An honest person would look at the actual science. We did that.

A cult liar would ignore all the actual science and focus on an irrelevant CIA report. Pissguzzler, you do that.

And that's why the whole world considers you to be a pathological liar. Enjoy being thought of as a totally irrelevant bedwetting kook. You earned that status through your many years of dedicated bad behavior, and now all you can do is weep on message boards.

(And pissguzzler, cut the namecalling, or I'll keep using your proper name here.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

With no offense intended but I am not sure how old your rocks are but the science in the 70s certainly was saying we were going into another ice age.

No offense intended, but that's completely false. The science of the 1970s was overwhelmingly predicting warming.

Your problem is you constantly confusing couple media articles with actual science. The actual science has been spot on correct.

Sorry hairball, but as usual...you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The global cooling scare laid the foundation for the growth of the climate science establishment as it exists today. The fact is that anyone who was anyone in the early to mid 1970's was convinced that long term cooling was not only on the way, but had already begun.

The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era.


Since the 1960's, a number of foreboding climatic predictions has appeared in various climatic, meteorological, and geological periodicals, consistently following one of two themes.

• A global climatic change was underway
• This climatic change would create worldwide agriculture failures in the 1970's.

By the fall of 1973 the Office of Research and Development (ORD) had obtained sufficient evidence to alert the Agency analysts that forecasts of an ongoing global climate change were reasonable and worthy of attention. ORD also determined that it was feasible to begin the development of forecasting techniques and impact assessment. However, Agency analysts remained skeptical, noting that the mix of approaches (Wisconsin, Scripps, RAND, NCAR) and the scientific personalities pursuing them prevented a clear explanation of what the recongnized authorities were agreeing on.

To resolve these issues, the principal investigators representing the various research approaches convened in San Diego in April 1974 to discuss these three specific topics:

• The state of climatological forecasting: identification of elements of the methodology wherein there is some consensus, current trends in development and new approaches
• Prospects for developing near term applications of climatology for Agency interests
• Recommendations for high and low risk approaches for long range climatological models development.

For two days they argued, discussed and defended their approaches to climatic forecasting and the impact of climate change. by the second day a consensus was reached on the following fundamental issues.

• A global climatic change is taking place.
• We will not soon return to the climate patterns of the recent past.
• For the future, there is a high probability of increased variability in an number of features of climate that are importance to crop growth.
• The most promising long range (1-5years) approach to climate forecasting appears to be the statistical synoptic approach. the consensus expressed caution in using these projections without an attempt to develop some physical understanding of the underlying weather forecasting mechanisms.

The conference participants unanimously recommended that the clear need for a long range perdiction dictated the establishment of an Operational Diagnostic Center charged with developing global forecasting techniques and for servicing the Government's needs for one to five year forecasts.

National Climate Plan

In the summer of 1973, the Wisconsin Plan for Climate Research was presented to the National Security Council. NOAA and the National Science Foundation were requested to review this plan to suggest how it should be implemented. The Wisconsin plan stimulated activity in many agencies.


In the Fall of 1973, three agencies sin the government became active in the development of climatic research plans: NSF, NOAA and the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences established the Committee on Climatic Variation, chaired by Dr Larry Gates. The committed members completed tier recommendations for a National Climatic Research Plan in June of 1974. This plan is presently under assessment by the National Academy of Sciences. Its final approval is expected late this year. Early in 1974 NOAA began developing a plan which would include a Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment as suggested by preliminary recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences Committee. This plan would allow NOAA to respond rapidly to the needs of government agencies that are concerned with impact of climatic factors on both a national and global scale.

In the spring of 1974, the Director of Polar Studies Division of NSF developed a plan to establish a center for Climatic Research as well was to provide funding to appropriate academic centers.

Both of these plans have been incorporated into what is now called the National Climate Plan. NOAA would be responsible for developing methods for practical climate forecasting as well as developing techniques applicable for the assessment of national and international food production. NSF would provide support to responsible academic centers and establish a Center for Climatic Research. This center would operate in a similar manner as the present National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at Boulder, Colorado. The national Climatic Plan is presently under review by NOAA and the NSF. They expect to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget in the fall of 1974 for FY 1976 program funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climatic change on major nations will, in the future occupy a major portion of the Intelligence Community's assets.

So you see hairball, the global cooling scare is what laid the foundation for climate science as we know it today. The consensus was that the earth was not only heading for a long term cooling trend, the cooling had already begun. Anyone who was anyone in climate science was on board with the cooling prediction...and the reaction to the threat of cooling spurred funding for the climate science community we see to day.

Face it, there was a cooling scare in the 70's and the entire climate science community as it existed back then was on board. Deny if you like...in fact, your denial is quite entertaining..but denial of the facts doesn't alter the facts. The cooling scare was real.

The cult deals with the cooling prediction problem the same way they deal with the lack of warming - they simply lie. Rewriting historical data is a HUGE part of the entire AGW methodology, shaving 10 degrees from temperatures in the 60's and 70's to support the fiction of "hottest year EVAH, Gaea be praised" is well known and documented, so lying about predictions in the same time frame is no big deal to the church.

 

[Freewill]

So explain it to me. Here is what I think might be happening but is hard to sort out. If I go to the NOAA site that I have provided several times I see a cooling in the US for at least 15 years. Using the same site I see a slight warming globally. So I am to believe that 1/5th of the Globes surface cools but when combined with the rest of the globe the globe warms. Which is just a case of statistics. Could be that say Africa is not warming at all but the arctic is offsetting the cooling in America. Could be that the whole 4/5 of the world is warming and the US is not, that does not make sense.

The continental USA is 2% of the earth's surface, not 20%.

The other part I observe is that when I use the same site and go to the US it is average temperature that is being plotted. When I go to the global tab it is not average temperature but temperature anomaly that is being charted. Now, would that make a difference? Apparently yes. The chart then would then depend on what time frame the baseline was chosen. In other words, why not just use the average temperature so we are all playing on the same field? Whose to say that the date range they are suing for "normal" is the correct date range?

It doesn't matter whether average or anomaly is used. The temperature trend is the issue, and that's the same with either.

Most places use anomalies exclusively. NOAA likes to use average temps as well. I guess NOAA thinks people can relate more to average temps than anomalies. NOAA really should use anomalies all the time, just to be consistent with everyone else.

Yes, it does matter or they wouldn't do it.

 

[SSDD]

An honest person would look at the actual science. We did that.

Like you would know the first thing about what an honest person would do. It is to laugh hairball.

A cult liar would ignore all the actual science and focus on an irrelevant CIA report. Pissguzzler, you do that.

As chronicled by the CIA...NOAA was onboard with the cooling prediction....NCAR was onboard with the cooling prediction....the National Academy of Science was onboard with the prediction of cooling....the National Science Foundation was onboard with the prediction of cooling, CRU at East Anglia was onboard with the predicted cooling, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton was onboard with the predicted cooling...

Who else was actively involved in climate research at the time? Did you bother to look at the lengthy bibliograpy provided at the end of the CIA paper...clearly you didn't. The facts are what they are hairball...and they are undeniable unless, of course, you are a mind numb, kool aid drinker who will only believe what the high priests of the AGW cult tell you to believe. The paper goes on to talk about the establishment of the grants that funded the growth of the climate science establishment as it exists today....at the time, the players mentioned were virtually all that there were....who might have been more important than CRU, NCAR, NOAA, NSF, and NAS in climate science? Those players were certainly on board with the cooling...who else was there?

 

[Uncensored2008]

An honest person would look at the actual science. We did that.

Actual science isn't based on fraud and falsified data - you did that.

A cult liar would ignore all the actual science and focus on an irrelevant CIA report. Pissguzzler, you do that.

A cult liar would alter temperature data to show warming that isn't real.

{
In his latest article, Sterling wrote that Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.” For example, the cities of Sion and Zurich saw “a doubling of the temperature trend” after such adjustments were made.

But even with the data tampering, Sterling noted that “there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering.”}

More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data Global Climate Scam

Cult boi - that's you.

And that's why the whole world considers you to be a pathological liar. Enjoy being thought of as a totally irrelevant bedwetting kook. You earned that status through your many years of dedicated bad behavior, and now all you can do is weep on message boards.

(And pissguzzler, cut the namecalling, or I'll keep using your proper name here.)

We know who the pathological liars are, cult boi.

{ Faced with criticism of a widely quoted piece of analysis from its 2007 climate assessment that warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to admit to relying on dubious scientific sources, apologized and retracted its earlier estimate. That estimate of the rate of Himalayan glacier loss because of warming, which appeared in the same assessment that earned the global body a share of the Nobel Peace Prize, was "poorly substantiated," the IPCC said.}

Himalaya Glacier Claim an Error Says U.N. s IPCC - TIME

Your church is a group of fucking liars - as you know.

What did your church do, cult boi?

HOTTEST YEAR EVAH...

Fucking lying scum.

I get it though - billions of dollars are on the line - you HAVE to lie - because you have no scientific basis for your volcano god cult.

 

[mamooth]

The cult deals with the cooling prediction problem the same way they deal with the lack of warming - they simply lie

When the whole planet says you're wrong, the response of a sane person is to admit being wrong. The response of of cultist is to invoke a global conspiracy theory. You would be that cultist.

You are a conspiracy cultist, exactly the same as birthers, 9/11 truthers, flat earthers and antivaxxers. That would account for the entire planet laughing in your face.

And it's not going to get any better for you. Even FOX and the GOP are abandoning you. Will you bitterly cling to your cult until the end?

 

[mamooth]

Like you would know the first thing about what an honest person would do. It is to laugh hairball.

How's that cult piss taste, pissguzzler? Go on, drink more down. You know you love it.

As chronicled by the CIA

The CIA says whatever the hell it wants to get its way. Just like you. Nobody cares about the CIA except cult liars who are frustrated by being contradicted by all the actual science. That would be you, pissguzzler.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

You obviously missed just how stupid this claim I posted earlier from the most listened to climate skeptic on Earth because YOU lack the scientific knowledge needed. So I will explain it to you, there is not one single molecule of CO2 in the entire universe that ever came from water vapor (H2O).

May 29, 2012
RUSH: People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

August 12, 2014
RUSH: Low-information people tend to overestimate their level of information. They fail to recognize how other people know much more than they do. They fail to recognize just how little they know, even when they're confronted with it.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

Yeah well -- you can travel down that alley with blinders on. The only statement I disagree with above is the water vapor comment. of course. But if you talked for 3 hours a day on your most studied topic and there were legions of folks waiting for you to slip up --- bet you'd occasionally fail too. And NO -- I don't want to discuss to Limbaugh. I want to discuss actual statements from actual scientists. Don't even have to be climate scientists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

You obviously missed just how stupid this claim I posted earlier from the most listened to climate skeptic on Earth because YOU lack the scientific knowledge needed. So I will explain it to you, there is not one single molecule of CO2 in the entire universe that ever came from water vapor (H2O).

May 29, 2012
RUSH: People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

August 12, 2014
RUSH: Low-information people tend to overestimate their level of information. They fail to recognize how other people know much more than they do. They fail to recognize just how little they know, even when they're confronted with it.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

Yeah well -- you can travel down that alley with blinders on. The only statement I disagree with above is the water vapor comment. of course. But if you talked for 3 hours a day on your most studied topic and there were legions of folks waiting for you to slip up --- bet you'd occasionally fail too. And NO -- I don't want to discuss to Limbaugh. I want to discuss actual statements from actual scientists. Don't even have to be climate scientists.

It is however interesting that the IPCC can outright misrepresent the accumulated solar increase since 1850 by redefining total solar irradiance --- but you are hung up on Rush Limbaugh.

 

[cnm]

The US has in place the most advanced temperature monitoring network in the world....triple redundant and so pristinely placed, no adjustments are required. This network shows a 10 year cooling trend in the US...the standard network which requires adjustment shows the same warming trend in the US as in the rest of the world. What makes you think that if the pristine network were extended across the world and no adjustment were necessary, the same cooling trend would not be evident everywhere?

First you complain of data manipulation, (which has famously taken place in US temperature records) then you boast of it. I guess you'll keep repeating that pattern indefinitely.

That you imagine for a second that local conditions will reflect global conditions shows you don't have a basic understanding of the science.