"Global warming"?? We don't have no stinking global warming!.. We have Ice age coming

[ClosedCaption]

Here is Health at work to disprove scientists:

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here is Health at work to disprove scientists:

lol kind of funny

 

[healthmyths]

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

I don't have to be a scientist to say based on what I've been reading from the MSM.. generally risen???
So these "scientists" didn't get asked "Based on YOUR personal studies..........:

About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.

Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Again.. as a layman I'd answer of course it has.. simply because at 98.6 F. with now 7 billion people versus one billion for the first time in 1804 there is bound to be an increase!

About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.

So these "OPINIONS"
by The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts (Table 1). Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame. Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.
Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

with regards to your question #1 do you even understand the history of the themometer and when we started keeping day to day records?

The History of the Thermometer

The question: Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

"Global warming" started with temperature reading stations around from 1659.
Most, if not all, climate models use the Central England Temperature (CET) record to compare historical temperatures with model outcomes [hindcasting]. The CET is the longest instrument record of temperatures in the world, dating back to 1659.

Revisiting Temperature Reconstructions used in Climate Change Modeling | Watts Up With That?
Since then the international temperature reading stations have been tracking temperatures.

But

12.5% of the Earth's land mass is missing in the temperature readings which by omission has skewed the average temperature higher as only those stations in large population centers were used.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So if the average temperature has been rising since temperature readings started in 1659
BUT during that time most temperature reading stations were in urban areas where temperatures are artificially higher and land masses
with less urban areas also have lower temperatures.. isn't there a bias at play???

 

[Wyatt earp]

and what the hell did they use? the thermometer was invented till 1724? going to have to read your links latter after I get home from work.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

I don't have to be a scientist to say based on what I've been reading from the MSM.. generally risen???
So these "scientists" didn't get asked "Based on YOUR personal studies..........:

About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.

Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Again.. as a layman I'd answer of course it has.. simply because at 98.6 F. with now 7 billion people versus one billion for the first time in 1804 there is bound to be an increase!

About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.

So these "OPINIONS"
by The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts (Table 1). Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame. Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.
Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

with regards to your question #1 do you even understand the history of the themometer and when we started keeping day to day records?

The History of the Thermometer

The question: Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

"Global warming" started with temperature reading stations around from 1659.
Most, if not all, climate models use the Central England Temperature (CET) record to compare historical temperatures with model outcomes [hindcasting]. The CET is the longest instrument record of temperatures in the world, dating back to 1659.

Revisiting Temperature Reconstructions used in Climate Change Modeling | Watts Up With That?
Since then the international temperature reading stations have been tracking temperatures.

But

12.5% of the Earth's land mass is missing in the temperature readings which by omission has skewed the average temperature higher as only those stations in large population centers were used.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So if the average temperature has been rising since temperature readings started in 1659
BUT during that time most temperature reading stations were in urban areas where temperatures are artificially higher and land masses
with less urban areas also have lower temperatures.. isn't there a bias at play???

yup thats what I thought its in accurate. unreliable information untill the 1900's. But then they will try to post what about soiil and ice core samples? Well no shit thats why we know ice ages happened in the past. Then they will try to post but this is happening to fast! And then they ignore their own soil samples that said the huge sarah dessert went tropical to dry in only 200 years....

 

[westwall]

Cons are whistling past the graveyard...

James Hansen: The One Thing We Should Be Doing to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change

Notice how it morphed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

That's not science

And morphed again into "global climate disruption" which is the current meme they are pushing. Now we won't see warming, but more "extreme weater events". Ignoring the fact that this is the period with the lowest number and least violent storms in over a century.

 

[bripat9643]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

"Reviewed by peers" and "confirmed to be accurate" are two separate things.

"Reviewed by pals" is a more accurate description of what occurs.

Does that come from the Institute of Your Sphincter or do you have anything that resembles proof for that statement. I'm guessing no...

That whole "Climategate" thing just went right over your head, didn't it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Reviewed by peers" and "confirmed to be accurate" are two separate things.

"Reviewed by pals" is a more accurate description of what occurs.

Does that come from the Institute of Your Sphincter or do you have anything that resembles proof for that statement. I'm guessing no...

That whole "Climategate" thing just went right over your head, didn't it?

Yup this "man made climate change" is becoming a religion to them for some reason. they just ignore the science when it suits them. They then rely on personal diaries and ship loggs in the 1600's ~ the 1800's and yet say we are crazy to report Colorado or South Carolina had a cold year in 2013. because its "climate change". not local. WTF?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

"Reviewed by peers" and "confirmed to be accurate" are two separate things.

"Reviewed by pals" is a more accurate description of what occurs.

Does that come from the Institute of Your Sphincter or do you have anything that resembles proof for that statement. I'm guessing no...

When the IPCC peer review process is dictated by someone named Al Gore.. you know you have a giant problem.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So Bripatty has no proof to his statements and Templar chooses to go personal.

All legitimate arguments guys, good job

 

[bripat9643]

So Bripatty has no proof to his statements and Templar chooses to go personal.

All legitimate arguments guys, good job

The climategate mafioso admitted they controlled the peer review process, dipshit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cons are whistling past the graveyard...

James Hansen: The One Thing We Should Be Doing to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change

Climate Craziness of the Week: James Hansen?s human free vision of the future | Watts Up With That?

James Hansen...

funny.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

and how will they explain global warming when the sun starts to shrink and we get colder? and weren't most of us around when Hell Froze over in the Midwest during the 70's? (I forgot the year,but do recall when Chicago became the north pole one or two winters. It was so cold even the dead woke up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So Bripatty has no proof to his statements and Templar chooses to go personal.

All legitimate arguments guys, good job

Sure, where's your proof? And where did I get personal? I can if you want me to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So Bripatty has no proof to his statements and Templar chooses to go personal.

All legitimate arguments guys, good job

"The Lid": Peer Reviewed Scientific Study--Al Gore is a FRAUD

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Proof. Pack up and go.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and how will they explain global warming when the sun starts to shrink and we get colder? and weren't most of us around when Hell Froze over in the Midwest during the 70's? (I forgot the year,but do recall when Chicago became the north pole one or two winters. It was so cold even the dead woke up.

1968 and 1979 was just looking at my moms old pics of I as a 3 year old and a 14 year old last weekend.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

If Al Gore is so obsessed with Cold Weather, why does he go on holiday in warm places in the winter?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So Bripatty has no proof to his statements and Templar chooses to go personal.

All legitimate arguments guys, good job

Sure, where's your proof? And where did I get personal? I can if you want me to.

Where did you go personal?
Is. Al Gore. A. Person?

 

[westwall]

So Bripatty has no proof to his statements and Templar chooses to go personal.

All legitimate arguments guys, good job

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review | New Zealand Climate Change

Climategate: Is Peer-Review in Need of Change? | Commentaries Essays

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/29/mps_peer_review_unsatisfactory_and_complacent/

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

>> still waiting for "The Left" to explain the unusually cold March we had in Florida, a lot of us caught nasty colds! we were pissed!!!!