Pfffft!...The climate cargo cultists can't even agree on what to friggin' call it!!I knew they should have kept with the term climate change. Calling it global warming gives the kooks the excuse they need to carry on their denial....
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.
Pfffft!...The climate cargo cultists can't even agree on what to friggin' call it!!I knew they should have kept with the term climate change. Calling it global warming gives the kooks the excuse they need to carry on their denial....
man made global warming
We think so highly of ourselves don't we
It has nothing to do with the sun, i swear.
Yeah and those Maritans are sure not the environmentalists that we thought they were either, because they are driving around in their SUV's , burning all that coal, cutting down their rain forests and destroying their planet at the same rate we are.
This is an emergency- has Al Gore been called about this. He needs to get on his private jet right now and fly to Mars to see what the hell is going on up there.
Pfffft!...The climate cargo cultists can't even agree on what to friggin' call it!!I knew they should have kept with the term climate change. Calling it global warming gives the kooks the excuse they need to carry on their denial....
What a load of crap!It might be interesting to READ this piece, too: What Does the Last Decade Tell Us about Global Warming? (Hint: the ‘skeptics' have the momentum) — MasterResource
For those of you who dont know, the surface temperature of the globe, as a whole, has not warmed-up by anyones calculation since at least the turn of the century (January 2001)
Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.
The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.
Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???
All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.
The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.
Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???
Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?
Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.
Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?
Since you are desperately trying to change the subject from how anomalies make a fool out of anyone stupid enough to swallow the lies of your source, I will take that as you are conceding the fact that your "expert" source is dishonest.All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.
The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.
Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???
Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!
Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.
The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.
Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???
Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?
That is only what common sense tells us. We aren't supposed to use that.
Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.
Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?
And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.
Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.
Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?
And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.
Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.
Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.
And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.
Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.
Nice sig!
Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.
Nice sig!
Thank you kind lady. Thanks for the idea of supporting the Zags.
Did you watch the game last night?
Nice sig!
Thank you kind lady. Thanks for the idea of supporting the Zags.
Did you watch the game last night?
Yep! I am was nervous at the beginning, but after the first half I started to breath a little easier. I really hope they get to play in Spokane in the first round.