Easily understood graphs

[Old Rocks]

Temperature Gallery - Global Warming Art

 

[Old Rocks]

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

 

[Old Rocks]

NCDC: Global Warming

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0807/S00018.htm

 

[Mad Scientist]

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Not too bad. Much misinformation, but at least they admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The comparison of CO2 and water vapor was the same old misinformation, but, given that is all they have, what would one expect. Mentioning the time that water vapor spends in the atmosphere, under 10 days, would not have bolstered their arguement.


The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a think tank. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations Funding
Foundations gave the following amounts to the National Center for Policy Analysis think tank in 2005: [3]

Sarah Scaife Foundation - $125,000
Earhart Foundation - $40,000
Armstrong Foundation - $45,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. - $195,000
Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation - $25,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation - $25,000
The NCPA web site states that in 2006 it receives 62% of its funding from foundations, 21% from corporations, and 17% from individuals. [4] Between 1985 and 2005, the Center received $8,499,850 in 161 separate grants.

Previous years:

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment
Procter & Gamble Fund

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, one might be more impressed were this from a scientific society, or a National Academy of Science. Or if were even from a major university. A political organization, for that is what a conservative thing tank is, is hardly something that I would quote in a scientific debate.

 

[manu1959]

Not too bad. Much misinformation, but at least they admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

war is good...it kills humans....the source of all "bad" co2.....hey wait vegitarians only eat plants which like co2....and the don't eat meat which use to be animals that breath out c02.......kill all vegitarians......

 

[Mad Scientist]

Of course, one might be more impressed were this from a scientific society, or a National Academy of Science. Or if were even from a major university. A political organization, for that is what a conservative thing tank is, is hardly something that I would quote in a scientific debate.

Right.
So we are to only accept info from people who believe in Global Warming is that what your saying?
I post my info, you post yours, we all make a decision based on all the info.
And we don't listen to Politicians and Scientists who say "Global Warming is fact. The debate is over. Give us your money".

Right?

 

[Red Dawn]

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

What is it with you flat earthers providing links to obscure rightwing think tanks? Can't you cite a single, solitary bonafide and respected national or international scientific body?

I went to the "experts" link on your think tanks webpage. There's not a single climate scientist there, and there doesn't appear to be anyone with a PhD in the physical sciences. They all have degrees in economics, finance, and tax policy. I'd like you to find and post one single piece of original scientific research they've done in climate science and had published in a bonafide peer reviewed scientific journal.

 

[xsited1]

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, one might be more impressed were this from a scientific society, or a National Academy of Science. Or if were even from a major university. A political organization, for that is what a conservative thing tank is, is hardly something that I would quote in a scientific debate.

Right.
So we are to only accept info from people who believe in Global Warming is that what your saying?
I post my info, you post yours, we all make a decision based on all the info.
And we don't listen to Politicians and Scientists who say "Global Warming is fact. The debate is over. Give us your money".

Right?

Fellow, right wing nut, or left wing nut, political organizations are not scientific organizations. No, you do not post scientific info, you post political opinion, with little scientific backing. Come on, surely you can find one scientific organization to back your point of view. Can't you?

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 6745

Other than being wrong on slope and other factors, that graph at least is a solid prediction. Exactly opposite GISS's predictions. Nice thing, less than 3 years should tell us who is the fool. Thank you, at least you have the guts to hang it all out on what you believe.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What is it with you flat earthers providing links to obscure rightwing think tanks? Can't you cite a single, solitary bonafide and respected national or international scientific body?

As I have said previously, whenever a Liberal can't refute the facts they resort to name calling. In this case I'm a "Flat Earther".

I went to the "experts" link on your think tanks webpage. There's not a single climate scientist there, and there doesn't appear to be anyone with a PhD in the physical sciences. They all have degrees in economics, finance, and tax policy. I'd like you to find and post one single piece of original scientific research they've done in climate science and had published in a bonafide peer reviewed scientific journal.

Ask, and you shall receive.Scientist Fudges Climate Numbers:
American Thinker Blog: Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig's Ear

[FONT=times new roman,times]

It seems that NASA's James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is at it again. He just can't let the data speak for itself. In yet another egregious display of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) arrogance, he changed the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend. (Y-axis = Annual Mean Temperatures in centigrade; X-axis = Year)

[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Said Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]"Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover.... To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence." [/FONT]​

[FONT=times new roman,times]

Hey, why would scientists fudge the numbers and lie to us? Oh yeah, money. In this case budgets. Global Warming is too big an industry and employs too many people to just let fail. Maybe there's something in it for them in the Democrats "Porkulus" spending bill huh?

[/FONT]
​

 

[xsited1]

 

[Modbert]

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Interesting link, but I wouldn't pick links from places where a good portion of it's money comes from places like oil companies that wouldn't want Global Warming to exist whether it did or not.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Interesting link, but I wouldn't pick links from places where a good portion of it's money comes from places like oil companies that wouldn't want Global Warming to exist whether it did or not.

And I wouldn't want to post links from people who benefit monetarily from the idea of Global Warming either, like Al Gore. Hey like I already stated, you have to look at all the evidence, then make an informed decision. Libs don't seem to want to do that.
Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” « Watts Up With That?

YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”. [1]
Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

When are you Libs gonna' stop crying over Obamas' skin color and wake up? "Global Warming" is just like the "Stimulus Bill" other wise known as the "Porkulus Bill".

It's all a giant ruse designed to separate you and I from our money.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 6747

Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Old Rocks]

J. Scott Armstrong says;

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.

Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.

Hmmm...... Svante Arnnhenius made definate predictions concerning global warming, and has not been that far off. The predicitons were made in 1896. Perhaps Professor Armstrong needs to review history.