Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

Discussion in 'Environment' started by healthmyths, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,216
    Thanks Received:
    2,041
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,841
    First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

    All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

    10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
    But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
    All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

    So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

    How does this relate to global warming..

    The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
    "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 the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
  4. TheDecepticon
    Offline

    TheDecepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +11
    The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
    Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Shut the hell up about things you know NOTHING about.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
  6. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    Give me a grant and I'll tell you what you want to hear. :cuckoo:
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.
     
  8. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,146
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,177
    Who cares........the majority of the public views Al Gore as a joke for several years now.
     
  9. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,216
    Thanks Received:
    2,041
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,841
    So it is OK not to include 12.5% of the Earth's surface area over 50 years in temperature gathering?

    It is scientific to take more readings in urban areas and consider that valid?

    Again.. I'm not an expert on exaggeration, I'll leave that to Al-below-the-surface-millions-of-degrees- Gore!
    I'm just "sharing" what
    "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
     
  10. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,216
    Thanks Received:
    2,041
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,841
    Yea.. well go to Greenland!!!
     

Share This Page