Gullible Warming Hoaxers Pimp CNBC

[Tech_Esq]

That graph is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We have two people here looking at the exact same data and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. And the truth is, neither of them is wrong.

And layer on top of that the possiblility that the data itself may be less than reliable...

Mani -- you are a master of understatement. The data is absolute crap. It varies from recent data collected being suspect, to data over 50 years old being completely suspect, to data over 100 years old being a steaming pile of crap. Then we have estimates related to ice core samples which might be compared to sausage (you don't wanna see how it's made or what goes into it).

When the "scientists" themselves claim that a variance of as little as ten feet in elevation has statistically significant impact on measuring temperature and then you realize that these sensors have to be replaced, upgraded, relocated or modified over time (especially sensors in place for over 100 years). But, there is no agreement in the scientific community at what level we should be placing the sensors. So, sensors may vary in height when refreshed.

Then there is the canopy problem. There is no agreement on whether sensors should be placed over or under tree canopies. There are changes to the local environment over time where the sensors are located. A once rural sensor could now be above a supermarket parking lot now. How is all this change accounted for in the stats?

 

[nodoginnafight]

That graph is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We have two people here looking at the exact same data and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. And the truth is, neither of them is wrong.

And layer on top of that the possiblility that the data itself may be less than reliable...

Mani -- you are a master of understatement. The data is absolute crap. It varies from recent data collected being suspect, to data over 50 years old being completely suspect, to data over 100 years old being a steaming pile of crap. Then we have estimates related to ice core samples which might be compared to sausage (you don't wanna see how it's made or what goes into it).

When the "scientists" themselves claim that a variance of as little as ten feet in elevation has statistically significant impact on measuring temperature and then you realize that these sensors have to be replaced, upgraded, relocated or modified over time (especially sensors in place for over 100 years). But, there is no agreement in the scientific community at what level we should be placing the sensors. So, sensors may vary in height when refreshed.

Then there is the canopy problem. There is no agreement on whether sensors should be placed over or under tree canopies. There are changes to the local environment over time where the sensors are located. A once rural sensor could now be above a supermarket parking lot now. How is all this change accounted for in the stats?

yeah yeah - why not make up some more statistics to support your opinion.

Lemme see the peer-reviewed SCIENCE please ......

 

[Oddball]

yeah yeah - why not make up some more statistics to support your opinion.

Lemme see the peer-reviewed SCIENCE please ......

Yes, you are being obtuse on purpose.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, real science doesn't need peer review....All it needs is to be physically reproduced on demand for all to see.....A hurdle that anthropogenic gullible warming bunk can't come anywhere near clearing.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That graph is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We have two people here looking at the exact same data and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. And the truth is, neither of them is wrong.

And layer on top of that the possiblility that the data itself may be less than reliable...

Mani -- you are a master of understatement. The data is absolute crap. It varies from recent data collected being suspect, to data over 50 years old being completely suspect, to data over 100 years old being a steaming pile of crap. Then we have estimates related to ice core samples which might be compared to sausage (you don't wanna see how it's made or what goes into it).

When the "scientists" themselves claim that a variance of as little as ten feet in elevation has statistically significant impact on measuring temperature and then you realize that these sensors have to be replaced, upgraded, relocated or modified over time (especially sensors in place for over 100 years). But, there is no agreement in the scientific community at what level we should be placing the sensors. So, sensors may vary in height when refreshed.

Then there is the canopy problem. There is no agreement on whether sensors should be placed over or under tree canopies. There are changes to the local environment over time where the sensors are located. A once rural sensor could now be above a supermarket parking lot now. How is all this change accounted for in the stats?

yeah yeah - why not make up some more statistics to support your opinion.

Lemme see the peer-reviewed SCIENCE please ......

You subscribe to Nature right? You go look it up. It's all right there.

You could refer to the article published over the summer concerning a longitudinal study of ice cores indicating that CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming, not a leading indicator and it could trail by as much as 800 years. Just check your back issues of Nature, I'm not sure how you overlooked it since you are reading all these peer reviewed climate journals.

 

[manifold]

If climate change was really the sword of damocles that these kool-aid drinkers insist, then it would stand to reason that the ruling class would be doing something about it. It's not like these alleged catastrophic effects are going to discriminate against the middle-class and poor. Nope, it's far more likely that it's just another faux-issue exploited for political gain and winning votes. No different than abortion, gay-marriage, and the "wars" on terror, drugs and poverty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can the ice core samples tell how much water vapor was in the atmosphere at that time?

 

[Tech_Esq]

If climate change was really the sword of damocles that these kool-aid drinkers insist, then it would stand to reason that the ruling class would be doing something about it. It's not like these alleged catastrophic effects are going to discriminate against the middle-class and poor. Nope, it's far more likely that it's just another faux-issue exploited for political gain and winning votes. No different than abortion, gay-marriage, and the "wars" on terror, drugs and poverty.

Ah, but it is different. This is about control. The government will be able to exert control over your actions in your personal life and the way you live it when they start counting how large your carbon footprint is. Like right now in Britain with the Eco-police running around monitoring energy usage and imposing fines for excessive usage.

We only need to look at what is happening in the Kyoto entrapped developed countries to see what is waiting for us if we buy into this sky-is-falling bull shit.

 

[theHawk]

The Global Warming fanatics are now shifting their propaganda from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" and that should tell you everything about them and their credibility. Will they all suddenly start Fear Mongering about "Global Cooling" in the near future? These Global Warming fanatics really have trapped themselves at this point. More and more everyday they are being proven wrong by credible Scientists and now they are simply left scrambling to salvage some credibility. Thus the propaganda shift to "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming." Climate change is nothing new for our Planet and most common sense thinking people understand this. The Planet will continue to Warm and it will also continue to Cool. That's the way it has always been and will always be. No need for all the Fear Mongering and panic unless you have some kind of political agenda to advance. Just take a closer look at who the people are behind this massive Fear Mongering campaign and there you will find all your answers. Just think for yourself and you should be fine in the end.

Yup, and what's really hilarious about it is that climate is supposed to change. It never stays the same. The Earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling. You'll never hear the enviro-libs talk about how the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. You'll never hear them admit that millions of years ago the world was much warmer than it is today....and yet the world didn't "die".


I also agree there are some very real threats of pollution today that need to be addressed. There are real threats of sea levels rising as a result of natural changes on the planet, but its so idiotic to think that the nations of the world can do anything to reverse it or stop it. So instead of humans adapting and moving our houses off land that is only a few feet above sea level, we're supposed to blame the US instead of the people that chose to live in places like that.

 

[saveliberty]

That graph is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We have two people here looking at the exact same data and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. And the truth is, neither of them is wrong.

And layer on top of that the possiblility that the data itself may be less than reliable...

In regards to the thicker red line indicating temperature, the line has peaked and is headed down as well. It is a lagging line and could reverse itself. Likely causes of such a move would be an increase in sun spots apparently.

Oh, and I have a science degree, so consider the graph "peer reviewed".

 

[edthecynic]

That graph is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We have two people here looking at the exact same data and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. And the truth is, neither of them is wrong.

And layer on top of that the possiblility that the data itself may be less than reliable...

In regards to the thicker red line indicating temperature, the line has peaked and is headed down as well. It is a lagging line and could reverse itself. Likely causes of such a move would be an increase in sun spots apparently.

Oh, and I have a science degree, so consider the graph "peer reviewed".

Well, I have a science degree also, plus I'm not blind!!!

The thick temp line is NOT headed down, it has only leveled off and if anything the temp line LEADS sunspots from 1915 to 1990 before they finally completely diverge after 1990.

Consider your "peer review" peer reviewed.

 

[Oddball]

You really should look into having your handle changed, Ed.

Rather than being a cynic, you're more a lemming.

 

[saveliberty]

Hope your job doesn't involve graphs and science. 2009 data isn't going to be kind to your red line. NASA says so. NOA agrees with them. My furnace indicates cold too.

 

[edthecynic]

You really should look into having your handle changed, Ed.

Rather than being a cynic, you're more a lemming.

The same could be suggested for you, "Dupe."

 

[edthecynic]

Hope your job doesn't involve graphs and science. 2009 data isn't going to be kind to your red line. NASA says so. NOA agrees with them. My furnace indicates cold too.

YOU LIE!

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | September 2009
Year-to-date (January-September)

The January-September 2009 map of temperature anomalies shows the presence of warmer-than-average conditions across much of the globe's surface area, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of Canada, the northern contiguous United States, the southern oceans, and along the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date period ranked as the sixth warmest January-September period on record.

 

[Si modo]

Hope your job doesn't involve graphs and science. 2009 data isn't going to be kind to your red line. NASA says so. NOA agrees with them. My furnace indicates cold too.

YOU LIE!

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | September 2009
Year-to-date (January-September)

The January-September 2009 map of temperature anomalies shows the presence of warmer-than-average conditions across much of the globe's surface area, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of Canada, the northern contiguous United States, the southern oceans, and along the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date period ranked as the sixth warmest January-September period on record.

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

 

[edthecynic]

Hope your job doesn't involve graphs and science. 2009 data isn't going to be kind to your red line. NASA says so. NOA agrees with them. My furnace indicates cold too.

YOU LIE!

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | September 2009
Year-to-date (January-September)

The January-September 2009 map of temperature anomalies shows the presence of warmer-than-average conditions across much of the globe's surface area, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of Canada, the northern contiguous United States, the southern oceans, and along the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date period ranked as the sixth warmest January-September period on record.

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

 

[Si modo]

YOU LIE!

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | September 2009
Year-to-date (January-September)

The January-September 2009 map of temperature anomalies shows the presence of warmer-than-average conditions across much of the globe's surface area, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of Canada, the northern contiguous United States, the southern oceans, and along the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date period ranked as the sixth warmest January-September period on record.

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

Don't ask a question then answer it with your own insanity. It makes you look nuts.

 

[chanel]

 

[edthecynic]

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

Don't ask a question then answer it with your own insanity. It makes you look nuts.

That's because I knew you wouldn't answer, and I was Right!
CON$ are sooooooooo predictable!

 

[Si modo]

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

Don't ask a question then answer it with your own insanity. It makes you look nuts.

That's because I knew you wouldn't answer, and I was Right!
CON$ are sooooooooo predictable!

You provided the answer you wanted. What a joke you are.

You still have yet to answer my question. Don't dodge now.