Global warming over the last 16 years

[RollingThunder]

Oh boy.....the retard brigade brings up the big guns.....still hoping to get me to laugh myself to death.....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......nice try......

 

[westwall]

I suggest you return skooks post to the way it was before you get banned again for being a total jackass. Again.

I must say I do find it amusing how you asshats ALL seem to be ethically challenged and will resort to all sorts of scurillous behavior in a pathetic attempt to get your point accross.

Now change it back asswipe!

 

[RollingThunder]

I suggest you return skooks post to the way it was before you get banned again for being a total jackass. Again.

I must say I do find it amusing how you asshats ALL seem to be ethically challenged and will resort to all sorts of scurillous behavior in a pathetic attempt to get your point accross.

Now change it back asswipe!

Eat shit and die, fucktard!

 

[Saigon]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

 

[chiragaegis]

Thanks you so much

 

[SSDD]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

Which altered record are they using? The reality is that they and when I say they, I mean all of the primary record keepers have been systematically lowering past temperatures to make the present appear warmer.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Of course it is possible to go on screaming that each and every report which analyses aspects of climate change are in some way faked - and then religously triumphing any reports which even hint at the opposite as if they were impeachable gospel; but it isn't a particularly credible position.

The idea that research conducted by literally hundreds of different research units, universities and private companies is all faked - and that only you and a handful of others know about it - is of no more credibility than claiming the Hoocaust was faked by the Jews.

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Of course it is possible to go on screaming that each and every report which analyses aspects of climate change are in some way faked - and then religously triumphing any reports which even hint at the opposite as if they were impeachable gospel; but it isn't a particularly credible position.

The idea that research conducted by literally hundreds of different research units, universities and private companies is all faked - and that only you and a handful of others know about it - is of no more credibility than claiming the Hoocaust was faked by the Jews.

warmers often call sceptics 'conspiracy theorists' because we state the the records have been changed, over and over again.

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

 

[SSDD]

warmers often call sceptics 'conspiracy theorists' because we state the the records have been changed, over and over again.

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Sorry, I already posted a graphic in another thread showing him some of the change that has been done.

 

[Saigon]

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Seriously?

I do respect you as one of the more intelligent sceptics here, Ian, which makes me wonder why you consider cherry-picking TWO years as being of any statistical value.

The fact that 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest year globaly, should be enough to give even the cherry-pickers grounds for serious thought.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Of course it is possible to go on screaming that each and every report which analyses aspects of climate change are in some way faked - and then religously triumphing any reports which even hint at the opposite as if they were impeachable gospel; but it isn't a particularly credible position.

The idea that research conducted by literally hundreds of different research units, universities and private companies is all faked - and that only you and a handful of others know about it - is of no more credibility than claiming the Hoocaust was faked by the Jews.

It isn't just a handfull siagon. The fact that the records have been signifigantly altered is widely known and a signifigant part of the reason that skepticism is growing in the face of ever more desperate warmings of catastrophe on the part of warmers. The evidence of fakery is blatant and abundant. What is somewhat surprising is that you genuinely seem to be unaware of it.

And the idea that a worldwide pool of money as large as that being wasted on climate science can't corrupt scientists anywhere is very naive on your part. Considering the amount of grant money at stake in the world today, asking climate science to speak on the dangers of CO2 is akin to asking tobacco industry execs to speak on the healthful benefits of their product....and make no mistake, the output of climate science has become a product that is bought and sold daily on the world market.

 

[SSDD]

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Seriously?

I do respect you as one of the more intelligent sceptics here, Ian, which makes me wonder why you consider cherry-picking TWO years as being of any statistical value.

The fact that 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest year globaly, should be enough to give even the cherry-pickers grounds for serious thought.

Which altered record do you base that claim on?

 

[Saigon]

Sorry, I already posted a graphic in another thread showing him some of the change that has been done.

No, you produced the usual conspiracy theories.

The fact remains - data from any of of a half dozen major and independent sources, none of which have ever been accused of wrong doing of tampering confirms what we all know, and yet you flat out ignore their findings.

Why not admit it?

You will ignore ALL research which confirms climate change. ALL of it.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry, I already posted a graphic in another thread showing him some of the change that has been done.

No, you produced the usual conspiracy theories.

The fact remains - data from any of of a half dozen major and independent sources, none of which have ever been accused of wrong doing of tampering confirms what we all know, and yet you flat out ignore their findings.

Why not admit it?

You will ignore ALL research which confirms climate change. ALL of it.

At this point, all you need to do is go to the sources and prove that any of the examples I provided to you is wrong. Of course, that will put you in a position of finding out that you have been lied to....are you ready to take such a chance?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Why do you assume that all of us rely on the sources you claim are fraudulent?

You aware that countries like Finland conduct our own research into climate, right?

So do Australia, South Africa, France, Argentina and close to a hundred other countries. Why ignore their findings?

Honestly.....you must see yourself that you don't have a leg to stand on with this gambit.

 

[IanC]

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Seriously?

I do respect you as one of the more intelligent sceptics here, Ian, which makes me wonder why you consider cherry-picking TWO years as being of any statistical value.

The fact that 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest year globaly, should be enough to give even the cherry-pickers grounds for serious thought.

I am not chery picking two years of data. I am asking you to compare the full contUS data set from 1999 to the full contUS data set from 2007, or 2012. the changes are staggering.

 

[SSDD]

You aware that countries like Finland conduct our own research into climate, right?

Where do you suppose Finland gets their data? Do you think Finland has a worldwide network or do they buy or recieve data from a source that does have a worldwide network?

So do Australia, South Africa, France, Argentina and close to a hundred other countries. Why ignore their findings?

Again, where does the data from outside of their borders come from?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Let me ask the question more directly:

Independent research conducted by Finnish and Australian research units has confirmed that climate change is influencing local conditions, and have concluded that man's role in that change is clear.

Why do you ignore this research?

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Let me ask the question more directly:

Independent research conducted by Finnish and Australian research units has confirmed that climate change is influencing local conditions, and have concluded that man's role in that change is clear.

Why do you ignore this research?

why are you trying to change the subject? Iceland and Reykjavic in particular has seen their temperature history significantly altered by the main temperature data centres in the last few months and years. their Met Office records no longer coincide with official world records and they dont know why and they arent getting any public answers.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I think it is great that scientists are willing to 'fess up to errors or inaccuracies in their work, and to make more accurate predictions based on improved methods of research.

Any field of scientific research is going to adapt and modify their methodology over years, based on trial and error and an improved understanding of the situation.

This is something I would imagine any rational person would be pleased to see - it is certainly better than backing research that is outdated or based on outdated methdologies.

And as I have said many times before - if you want to disregard one piece of research, or the work of one scientist here and one research unit there, go right ahead. Ignore Iceland by all means, rather than pretending the only research we have comes from Rejkavik. There is no shortage of research out there, and 99% of is of excellent quality.