Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory
There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.
It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.
What a terrible argument. You are arguing against something literally nobody has said, and against an idea that is not part of climate theory. Then you follow it up with authoritative claims invented by you, who has no education or experience in these fields whatsoever. In essence, you are calling the global scientifoc community incompetent amd liars. What a joke...your opinion is worth less than nothing...
lol...Back it up homey...We are no where near doubling it, yet we are damned near at 1 C right now.
Sure we are....
Rise in 175 years = 0.8 deg C..
OF that rise 96% can be totally attributed to Natural causes...
I'll let the alarmists try and do the math but its inside the MOE for the LOG.
Shameless lie.
Even the boys at the IPCC admit that 96% of all warming is due to other than man.
Billy Bob, you have no degree in any science related field. No science educated person could come up with nonscientific statements you so regularly make.
Even if you make them to camoflauge yourself, you would occasionally slip up and say something reasonable. But you never do.
I have no problem with you expressing your opinions. On non scientific issues I sometimes even agree with you. But quit trying to cloak them with a veneer of scientific authority. You have none.
Edit- you make it more difficult for the skeptics here to make their case when you spew Cliff Clavin bullshit.
Keep on with being the clueless drone...Silly Billy, the only field you can argue with authority is burger flipping.I debate this openly with others in my field of expertise. Dissent of the politically correct positions is no longer a taboo position to take and the dam is breaking wide open.. The real facts are not consistent with your religious belief. This is not a position of an informed scientist.This board is also for regiatering opinion.
And I think that identifying and ridiculing a bunch of insulting hacks who are claiming scientists are all incompetent and liars is a very important discussion indeed. The only reason you are actively complaining about it is because the shoe fits so well.
So maybe it is you who needs to find a safer space. If you are going to spend your time insulting, from a safe little space of an obscure forum, the global scientific community, you REALLY should grow some thicker skin.
Just maybe we are getting past the lies and politically driven deceptions.... maybe not...
What a fucked up liar you are. That is not at all how grants work. I suggest you learn something about how grants work before putting such drivel on this board.Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory
There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.
It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.
What a terrible argument. You are arguing against something literally nobody has said, and against an idea that is not part of climate theory. Then you follow it up with authoritative claims invented by you, who has no education or experience in these fields whatsoever. In essence, you are calling the global scientifoc community incompetent amd liars. What a joke...your opinion is worth less than nothing...
I suggest you do a little more research on this subject.
And no, but what I am saying that the funding by government grants is corrupting the way the research is done.
When any government grant is given for research it depends on the findings that agree with the ideology behind it.
If the findings on that research becomes opposite of a political ideology ,then that grant is no longer funded.
And the above opinion is because I was around the U of A research labs and know how they get those grants and watched them not funded for the next year if the research disagreed.
Did not matter if it was a climate, archeological or psychological research.
If the studies did not agree with the research then you lose your grant.
Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory
There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.
It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.
What a terrible argument. You are arguing against something literally nobody has said, and against an idea that is not part of climate theory. Then you follow it up with authoritative claims invented by you, who has no education or experience in these fields whatsoever. In essence, you are calling the global scientifoc community incompetent amd liars. What a joke...your opinion is worth less than nothing...
I suggest you do a little more research on this subject.
And no, but what I am saying that the funding by government grants is corrupting the way the research is done.
When any government grant is given for research it depends on the findings that agree with the ideology behind it.
If the findings on that research becomes opposite of a political ideology ,then that grant is no longer funded.
And the above opinion is because I was around the U of A research labs and know how they get those grants and watched them not funded for the next year if the research disagreed.
Did not matter if it was a climate, archeological or psychological research.
If the studies did not agree with the research then you lose your grant.
. Its what lures me back here whenever I get bored and lets face it, laughter is a great stress reliever. 
. Look how much fun I have when I post..........all laugh all the time..........because I'm winning now for nine years...........every day.
Well, Mr. Westwall, you might wish to retake third grade math. At that time the rise was 0.8 C. Rise at the rate of 0.15 C to 0.2 C. So that was seven years ago. In that seven years we have had the warmest 3 years since we have been keeping records. Yes, we are at 1 C right now, and nowhere near doubling the CO2. Arrhenius and the present day scientists are correct in their predictions for the rise in temperatures for a doubling of CO2, you flap yaps are completely wrong.The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Click on bullets above to step through the decades.)
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.
The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles
I think that NASA is a source I would trust before the frauds of WUWT and other politically driven sites.
That entire link is over seven years old. Might want to update your source material.
What a fucked up liar you are. That is not at all how grants work. I suggest you learn something about how grants work before putting such drivel on this board.Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory
There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.
It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.
What a terrible argument. You are arguing against something literally nobody has said, and against an idea that is not part of climate theory. Then you follow it up with authoritative claims invented by you, who has no education or experience in these fields whatsoever. In essence, you are calling the global scientifoc community incompetent amd liars. What a joke...your opinion is worth less than nothing...
I suggest you do a little more research on this subject.
And no, but what I am saying that the funding by government grants is corrupting the way the research is done.
When any government grant is given for research it depends on the findings that agree with the ideology behind it.
If the findings on that research becomes opposite of a political ideology ,then that grant is no longer funded.
And the above opinion is because I was around the U of A research labs and know how they get those grants and watched them not funded for the next year if the research disagreed.
Did not matter if it was a climate, archeological or psychological research.
If the studies did not agree with the research then you lose your grant.
Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory
There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.
It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.
What a terrible argument. You are arguing against something literally nobody has said, and against an idea that is not part of climate theory. Then you follow it up with authoritative claims invented by you, who has no education or experience in these fields whatsoever. In essence, you are calling the global scientifoc community incompetent amd liars. What a joke...your opinion is worth less than nothing...
I suggest you do a little more research on this subject.
And no, but what I am saying that the funding by government grants is corrupting the way the research is done.
When any government grant is given for research it depends on the findings that agree with the ideology behind it.
If the findings on that research becomes opposite of a political ideology ,then that grant is no longer funded.
And the above opinion is because I was around the U of A research labs and know how they get those grants and watched them not funded for the next year if the research disagreed.
Did not matter if it was a climate, archeological or psychological research.
If the studies did not agree with the research then you lose your grant.
Well, Mr. Westwall, you might wish to retake third grade math. At that time the rise was 0.8 C. Rise at the rate of 0.15 C to 0.2 C. So that was seven years ago. In that seven years we have had the warmest 3 years since we have been keeping records. Yes, we are at 1 C right now, and nowhere near doubling the CO2. Arrhenius and the present day scientists are correct in their predictions for the rise in temperatures for a doubling of CO2, you flap yaps are completely wrong.The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Click on bullets above to step through the decades.)
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.
The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles
I think that NASA is a source I would trust before the frauds of WUWT and other politically driven sites.
That entire link is over seven years old. Might want to update your source material.
No, that is a meme promulgated through the claim that the climatologists can make statements of accuracy to within .04 of a degree, when the thermocouples and thermometers they use are only capable of accuracy to within .1 of a degree C. In other words, their claims are preposterous.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
Climate science likes to believe they are more important than they are, and politicians are quite happy to use them to increase their power.
No, that is a meme promulgated through the claim that the climatologists can make statements of accuracy to within .04 of a degree, when the thermocouples and thermometers they use are only capable of accuracy to within .1 of a degree C. In other words, their claims are preposterous.
When President Pence loses the election in 2020, then the deniers and the other liars in the government agencies will be given their walking papers, and we will get back to real science.
) entity. But a quick look at the anemic growth of renewable energy and one realizes who's not winning. ). Shit like these retarded lottery visa programs scare the shit out of regular white Americans between New York and Colorado.......... yet loved by the DUMS who perpetually push such stoopid shit.( despite 7 years in a row of getting their clocks cleaned in elections, national, state and local ).
At the end of the day it means zero legislation on climate stuff = continued fossil fuel dominance.
No, that is a meme promulgated through the claim that the climatologists can make statements of accuracy to within .04 of a degree, when the thermocouples and thermometers they use are only capable of accuracy to within .1 of a degree C. In other words, their claims are preposterous.
Standard error - Wikipedia
---
SEM is usually estimated by the sample estimate of the population standard deviation (sample standard deviation) divided by the square root of the sample size (assuming statistical independence of the values in the sample):
where
s is the sample standard deviation (i.e., the sample-based estimate of the standard deviation of the population), and
n is the size (number of observations) of the sample.
---
Westwall would fail Statistics 101. All the deniers here would fail it. I've tried to educate them on this topic. It's not possible. The topic isn't that difficult, but it's like trying to teach poo-flinging monkeys.
That's the heart of the issue. The deniers here believe they're brilliant, but they're actually not very smart. And they're not smart enough to understand that they're not smart. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.
Since they can't understand they're not smart, they assume that they are smart, and that their stupid denier claims aren't really stupid, and that people who disagree with their stupid denier claims must all be engaged in a conspiracy.
Nope, no conspiracy. Deniers are just dumb.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
Scientists get paid the same no matter what they predict, so their salary doesn't depend on AGW theory being correct.
Denier lobbyists are the opposite. They only get a salary if they oppose AGW theory.
Hence, we observe that all of the corruption is on the denier side.
Climate science likes to believe they are more important than they are, and politicians are quite happy to use them to increase their power.
You understand you've just described yourself and the Republicans/Libertarians, right? Probably not.
Alarmist in 1981;
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
Complete paper at that link.
Now the predictions in that paper, made for the end of the 21st century have already come true. Yet it was greeted by the cries of alarmist in 1981.
