Why is it?

[esthermoon]

Today Oct 11th 2016 the temperature outside was well below average at 41 degrees F. Now we all know from the global warming zelots that the Earth(Earf for inner city folks) has been warming up year after year because of the increase of CO2. So where did the cold temperature come from? Will this cold temperature be added to the year average, which the zelots were saying "the hottest summer ever recorded"?

Since I was bor I've heard "scientists" in tv saying "this is the hottest summer ever recorded"
In this country this is utterly ridiculous because we have summer almost all the year
today for example we have 26 degrees C (which means 79 F)

 

[SSDD]

In 1979..it was indisputable that the earth had been cooling since the 1940's.

By 1989 NOAA had extended the cooling trend back from 1921 to 1979 and said that most of the cooling happened before 1919...

A year later phil jones reversed NOAA's cooling trend and turned it into half a degree of warming between 1890 and 1990.

Now gavin schmidt has doubled phil jones's 1890 - 1990 trend and turned it into a full degree of warming.

The blatant fraud is unmistakable......and only the simplest sort of idiot believes anything that such a fraud prone branch of pseudoscience has to say.

 

[jc456]

wow another feeling of deja vu. When you feel like you've been through all of this one hundred times.

 

[JoeB131]

Climate change is not a problem Joe, it is an event that happens since the beginning of time. AND mankind who is a smidgen on this great planet, must ride along in great times and rough times. I have lived through 2 hurricanes back in the 1960's while living in Florida, yet only this year have we seen a hurricane in 10 years. Dumbasses like you are willing to give up your hard earned money(but still use tax loopholes so you don't pay your fair share) to some liberal smuck who is getting filthy rich and they cant do shit to stop climate change. Which is why Al Gore, who got 1/2 billions dollars, predicted the end of the earth in 2010, and 6 years later he is much wealthier than you Joe, but the climate is still changing. It will continue to change and the politicians will continue to get filthy rich as you continue to goosestep to the liberal Fuhrer. Seig Heil, right Joe?

Uh, you know you are coming off more andmore unhinged with every post.

It should be interesting to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis in your mind....if you bother to even try to answer the challenge...most warmers simply run away and pretend they never saw the challenge.

You mean that every scientific agency and government and scientist who has studied this problem say, "yup, the Earth is getting warmer and yes, humans are causing it."

The problem is, the only people who deny that it's a problem, other than the useful idiots who listen to Hate Radio, are the ones who make a killing off the status quo.

 

[JoeB131]

The blatant fraud is unmistakable......and only the simplest sort of idiot believes anything that such a fraud prone branch of pseudoscience has to say.

I'll take the word of real scientists over some clown on a message board, thanks.

Okay, so let's be honest about what has you guys upset. Not that the science hasn't been proven, but what to do about it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The blatant fraud is unmistakable......and only the simplest sort of idiot believes anything that such a fraud prone branch of pseudoscience has to say.

I'll take the word of real scientists over some clown on a message board, thanks.

Okay, so let's be honest about what has you guys upset. Not that the science hasn't been proven, but what to do about it.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

• Commentary

The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

You go right ahead and believe what ever you want, the problem is when you get in my face and say I am wrong. But you just proved once again that Global Warming is a religion and the fanatics will not ever deny it. They are worse than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They sell their souls in the belief they can save the world, at the cost of the rest of us to be miserable.

 

[jc456]

Climate change is not a problem Joe, it is an event that happens since the beginning of time. AND mankind who is a smidgen on this great planet, must ride along in great times and rough times. I have lived through 2 hurricanes back in the 1960's while living in Florida, yet only this year have we seen a hurricane in 10 years. Dumbasses like you are willing to give up your hard earned money(but still use tax loopholes so you don't pay your fair share) to some liberal smuck who is getting filthy rich and they cant do shit to stop climate change. Which is why Al Gore, who got 1/2 billions dollars, predicted the end of the earth in 2010, and 6 years later he is much wealthier than you Joe, but the climate is still changing. It will continue to change and the politicians will continue to get filthy rich as you continue to goosestep to the liberal Fuhrer. Seig Heil, right Joe?

Uh, you know you are coming off more andmore unhinged with every post.

It should be interesting to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis in your mind....if you bother to even try to answer the challenge...most warmers simply run away and pretend they never saw the challenge.

You mean that every scientific agency and government and scientist who has studied this problem say, "yup, the Earth is getting warmer and yes, humans are causing it."

The problem is, the only people who deny that it's a problem, other than the useful idiots who listen to Hate Radio, are the ones who make a killing off the status quo.

boring, this is the same ole same ole. don't you have anything? just the same old parroted sentences? I wish I had a dollar for each time these two sentences have been posted. Amazing these warmers have the same talking points and reference them constantly even though it matters not.

 

[jc456]

The blatant fraud is unmistakable......and only the simplest sort of idiot believes anything that such a fraud prone branch of pseudoscience has to say.

I'll take the word of real scientists over some clown on a message board, thanks.

Okay, so let's be honest about what has you guys upset. Not that the science hasn't been proven, but what to do about it.

well find one and then let's talk. You don't think Judith Curry is real? hahahahahaahahahahaahaha

 

[LaDexter]

In 1979..it was indisputable that the earth had been cooling since the 1940's.

Assuming you equate Earth with "growing urban areas only"

 

[LaDexter]

I'll take the word of real scientists

Perhaps you can answer a few questions for us...

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9+ times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

If Co2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea ice growing?

During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze - what did CO2 have to do with either event?


Clearly, you are a brilliant scientific mind... unless you are simply a...

 

[mamooth]

...not so with climate pseudoscience because it is political in nature...

Dude, everyone already agrees that deniers are entirely politically motivated cult liars. You don't need to tell anyone that. Every bit of real data contradicts their cult pseudoscience. That's why they have to steadfastly ignore all the real data, and instead dishonestly post only their select cherrypicks.

By the way, how much are you getting paid for your dishonest political shilling? Your masters are not getting their money's worth.

I am sure that you believe that there was no global cooling scare because you have been told that it is all just hype fabricated by modern warmers..

No, I know because I was there. You can't snow me with your lies. I know with 100% certainty that you're lying.

And you probably weren't old enough to have been there...or remember if you were, but there was serious talk of spreading soot on the polar ice caps in an attempt to cause melting...

"Serious talk" being "an offhand comment in a non-technical journal." That's typical of your "data". We have peer-reviewed sceintific papers that all predicted warming. You have anecdotes.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Report 1974 (you think the CIA was in the business of sensationalizing?)

Well yes, the CIA is in that business. It's a report entirely based on the Wisconsin crank, Dr. Reid Bryson, who was a hardcore denier until his death. Only one scientist was regularly posting cooling predictions, and he was a denier. Deniers have been failing hard with their predictions for over 40 years now, which is why they have no credibility. In contrast, the good scientists have been getting it right since the 1970s, which is why they have such credibility.

According to Dr. Hubert Lamb–an outstanding British climatologist–22 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century.

That's what Lamb said in 1971. By 1977, he had switched to warming. Dishonest of you to leave that out, which is what we expect from you.

From NASA

“Between 1880 and 1940 a net [global] warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C. … t has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates. Therefore, global particulate loading is of foremost concern. … [A]n increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age. In order that we safeguard ourselves and future generations from a self-imposed ice-age it is necessary that we effectively monitor global concentrations of particulate matter.

That was a paper talking about what a four-fold increase in particulates would do. Since we had a vast particulate decrease, it's dishonest of you to pretend it was a paper predicting cooling.

[T]he 1976 surface temperature equated the global record for the lowest temperature set in 1964; but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5°C decrease during 1960–65

Yes, that was a temperature decline period. Remember the increasing particulates?

Now it is interesting to note that if you look at modern records...that decrease has been altered beyond recognition....why?

I see you're trying to pass of a conspiracy kook lie in the midst of your lying-by-cherrypicking. Too bad you got called out on it.

The nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) have been moving northward in the Great Plains region from the late 1800s to the 1950s but now seem to be retreating from their lately acquired northern range. The armadillos have a nontypical homoiothermic blood system which makes them fairly vulnerable to cold climates.

Cool, the great armadillo conspiracy.

The cooling from about 1950 to 1974 is ~0.3°C (Brinkmann, 1976). Moran (1975) suggests that the recent drought of peninsular Florida is largely due to decreased frequencies of tropical storms, associated with the general atmospheric and oceanic cooling since about 1940 (Wahl and Bryson, 1975).

Again, nobody denies there was a cooling trend at that time. Makes it more impressive that most of the scientists correctly predicted warming.

Concern about climatic change and its effects on man has been increasing. Climatic changes affect the production of food and the allocation of energy resources. … Even with the temperature corrections included, Indiana June, July and August mean temperatures showed a decrease of approximately 3°F [-1.7°C] from 1930 to 1976.

Again, nobody claimed there wasn't a cooling trend at that time. The point is that it's been warming like crazy since the 1970s.

And I could go on for quite some time...

And I'd rip apart every dishonest claim you made, just as I ripped apart all the dishonest claims you made here. Yes, I'm very proud of the epic spanking I just delivered to your pervy Stalinist ass.

Literally hundreds of papers were published between the 1960's and the 1980's voiced concern over the possibility of global cooling.

And yet you can't find any of them, except the Bryson and early Lamb pieces.

I suppose you will believe what your political leanings tell you to believe, but if anyone is interested in seeing more papers from the period..just ask.

I'm asking. After all, I never get tired of humiliating cult liars like you, of making you scream for mama. I'd love to point out again how you deliberately misrepresent everything in your next post, so please give me that opportunity.

Go on. Cry at me now, loser. Go get Bear to cry at me with you. You know you want to, and it's not like you can best me in any argument. I'm going to be spanking you cult losers for the rest of your time here, laughing hard at your loser tears, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[SSDD]

The blatant fraud is unmistakable......and only the simplest sort of idiot believes anything that such a fraud prone branch of pseudoscience has to say.

I'll take the word of real scientists over some clown on a message board, thanks.

Okay, so let's be honest about what has you guys upset. Not that the science hasn't been proven, but what to do about it.

Couldn't find any huh? Not surprising. I wouldn't have asked for it if I thought that there was a chance in hell that you could actually deliver....So in spite of the fact that there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...you will believe anyway....that makes you a tool....a badly used tool...not surprising...all you warmers are tools and useful idiots.

 

[SSDD]

boring, this is the same ole same ole. don't you have anything? just the same old parroted sentences? I wish I had a dollar for each time these two sentences have been posted. Amazing these warmers have the same talking points and reference them constantly even though it matters not.

You would think that with every scientific agency in the world on board, there would be a literal mountain of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man and his CO2 emission are altering the global climate...and yet, not the first shred to be found...makes you wonder seriously about the scientific agencies doesn't it?...and the poor tools who believe in them.

 

[SSDD]

No, I know because I was there. You can't snow me with your lies. I know with 100% certainty that you're lying.

It is already established that you are one of the 3 worst liars on the board hairball...and when you claim anything, we all know it is a lie.

"Serious talk" being "an offhand comment in a non-technical journal." That's typical of your "data". We have peer-reviewed sceintific papers that all predicted warming. You have anecdotes.[/quot]

F'ing idiot...I have literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers citing the concern over cooling...all of those I already provided except the CIA briefing were peer reviewed....see hairball...you can't write a single sentence without lying. The rest of your response is just the same old boilerplate bilge that you have been instructed to repeat for years....so no point in shooting it down again. Your need to repeat it is positively pavlovian.

 

[JoeB131]

You go right ahead and believe what ever you want, the problem is when you get in my face and say I am wrong. But you just proved once again that Global Warming is a religion and the fanatics will not ever deny it. They are worse than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They sell their souls in the belief they can save the world, at the cost of the rest of us to be miserable.

Uh, guy, you are wrong. You are also stupid.

Unlike religion, science is based on MEASURABLE facts - The temperatures are warmer, the icecaps are melting, etc. These aren't something someone made up to try to impose more government on you, these things are actually happening.

The problem is, you nuts have been brainwashed by hate radio, which is paid for by the oil industry.

 

[JoeB131]

Clearly, you are a brilliant scientific mind... unless you are simply a...

No, I'm non a scientist.

People who ARE scientists, who study this shit for a living, on the other hand, do have answers...

Again, the problem with deniers is that they can't be swayed, because the thought of changing their lifestyles is too awful for them.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Clearly, you are a brilliant scientific mind... unless you are simply a...

No, I'm non a scientist.

People who ARE scientists, who study this shit for a living, on the other hand, do have answers...

Again, the problem with deniers is that they can't be swayed, because the thought of changing their lifestyles is too awful for them.

Is federal funding biasing climate research?

Is federal funding biasing climate research?

All you have to do is follow the money. When the liberal government wants to reward Solar panel elites then the researchers will do what ever the government tells them or have their funding cut off. So the RICH get RICHER and the most in poverty ever under 8 years of Obama. Yet Joe, just cant pull his head out of Uranus.

 

[JoeB131]

All you have to do is follow the money. When the liberal government wants to reward Solar panel elites then the researchers will do what ever the government tells them or have their funding cut off. So the RICH get RICHER and the most in poverty ever under 8 years of Obama. Yet Joe, just cant pull his head out of Uranus.

Guy, if it was about the Money, the Koch Brothers are throwing plenty of it around.

If you weren't such a tool, you'd realize this.

But, hey, fuck the planet, you might get rich some day, if the mean old government didn't make you pay your fair share.

 

[SSDD]

Uh, guy, you are wrong. You are also stupid.

So you say...but it isn't me who believes without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence.

Unlike religion, science is based on MEASURABLE facts - The temperatures are warmer, the icecaps are melting, etc. These aren't something someone made up to try to impose more government on you, these things are actually happening.

Temperatures are warmer by a fraction of a degree over the past 100 years....nothing unusual there...we are, after all, still exiting the little ice age....ice caps have been melting for 14,000 years....nothing unusual or frightening there...and the etc., etc., that you gloss over are entirely within the bounds of natural variability...in fact, nothing whatsoever that is happening within the climate is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....

So you have evidence that the climate has changed a bit in the past hundred and 50 years....is anyone disputing the fact that the climate changes?...if so, I haven't seen it. the disagreement here, is whether or not mankind is responsible for the change....and there is where you run into a problem. You believe that we are causing the change...and you believe science when they tell you that we are causing the change...and you believe that 97% of the scientist agree that we are causing the change...but the thing is...that there is not the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is causing any change in the global climate.

So you have science which you claim is based on "MEASURABLE" facts, claiming that man is responsible for global climate change....but they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim...the disconnect between the claims and the evidence to support the claims is staggering...and frankly, I am surprised at the number of people lacking the critical thinking skills required to see so obvious a problem.

The problem is, you nuts have been brainwashed by hate radio, which is paid for by the oil industry.

I am afraid that it is you who have been brainwashed...and it is made evident, and brought into high relief by your inability to provide the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse emissions. I am not asking for proof...I am just asking for some real evidence to support the claim. Your mention of warming temperatures, melting glaciers, etc certainly supports the claim of a changing climate, but doesn't support the claim that man is causing it in the least.

So if that is what passes for actual evidence in support of AGW in your mind, then it is clear that you don't have the first inkling of what constitutes evidence....and it is little wonder that you have been duped so thoroughly.

 

[SSDD]

Clearly, you are a brilliant scientific mind... unless you are simply a...

No, I'm non a scientist.

People who ARE scientists, who study this shit for a living, on the other hand, do have answers...

Again, the problem with deniers is that they can't be swayed, because the thought of changing their lifestyles is too awful for them.

Being an empirical sort of person...I can easily be swayed...I am asking for some actual evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...and have been asking now for decades...not the first bit has been forthcoming....there is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...but that has never been in question. Climate science is claiming that man is causing the change...which suggests that this change would look somehow different from natural change...so where is the evidence that the change is not simply natural variability? It has certainly been warmer than the present...and atmospheric CO2 levels have most definitely been higher...and all one need do is look back through newspaper archives to see that the weather has been more crazy in the past than it is now....so where is the evidence that man is responsible?