Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[Crick]

The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists. A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.

And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

 

[westwall]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.
?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

...

I'll note that you STILL haven't come up with a scientific article to defend your point.

Neither have you. EVERYTHING you post is from global warming alarmist sites. Come up with something from an unbiased source. M'kay...

Funny- I've posted from Science, PNAS, and the NASA and NOAA websites.

I guess they are biased....towards science.

Yes, and every one of those "studies" is almost entirely based on computer models that are beyond worthless, come from warmist supporters who generate all of their funding by supporting the fraud, and who's "peer review" consists of wives and fellow travelers.

I hate to break it to you, but your sources are shit, and have been for the last 20 years. It's sad too, prior to the "pause" Dr. Jones actually did produce some good work. But then he and all of his cronies began to believe their tall tales and what's even worse began to believe that computer models produced data.

Big mistake.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .

If you want it, look it up, troll.

I'd suggest you first tackle the other reference you asked for...although I think we both know you can't since it's a pretty decent prediction of what has happened from 1981.

You are in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever recorded. And the science told you that was going to happen, but you're too dense to understand.

Really you needed to science to tell you that an up pointing linear curve brings new records ALL THE TIME???
EVEN WHEN --- it levels out for 16 years??? Shucks.. I thought most folks could figure that out by themselves...

 

[flacaltenn]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

Did they get the comment from the Chief WithDoctor at NASA or didn't they?

I'm sure you'll find this page 28 retraction somewhere you approve of.. It happens -- all the time --- deal with it..

 

[flacaltenn]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

Newbie wants a "scientific reference" to the retraction of a propaganda statement..

Kid needs a bunch of bunch of work as the scientist he claims to be...

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

Well, if you don't like the statements by the leadership, you have the oppertunity to vote that leadership out.

And they MIGHT -- if they cared. They join for the prestige and discounts on conferences and Dental Insurance. Not for activist political reasons or scientific integrity..

How about every one of those endorsements YOU think are consensus come with a similar poll of the membership to that AMS poll? Or better yet -- they seek CONSENT of the membership to issue it?? THAT would make it mean something..

 

[threegoofs]

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[flacaltenn]

The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists. A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.

And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?

Well let's just say I agreed with your pile of BS there. What would be the value of a Global Warming endorsement from an institution that "are not scientists" and are specialists in lawn care..

Don't think you thought that quite through... Typical.. I KNOW AMS is in your list of "consensus" institutions.. Because I actually read your crap occasionally.. And I don't forget what I read..

But you failed to research the poll -- which qualified the education, experience, etc of folks being polled at AMS --- Again --- you show you are not following the program..

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

Newbie wants a "scientific reference" to the retraction of a propaganda statement..

Kid needs a bunch of bunch of work as the scientist he claims to be...

You seem to be slightly retarded. I don't know how to get this through to you, but there was no retraction. 2014 was the warmest year recorded. You just don't understand probability and stats.

Here's an analogy. You seem to be the stupidest person here, but there is a likelihood that some other denier is even stupider than you. The resolution of stupidity is good, but variable, so new information may reveal that you're abject lack of understanding may be edged out by someone else. But at this point, you have the crown.

 

[threegoofs]

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.
?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

...

I'll note that you STILL haven't come up with a scientific article to defend your point.

Neither have you. EVERYTHING you post is from global warming alarmist sites. Come up with something from an unbiased source. M'kay...

Funny- I've posted from Science, PNAS, and the NASA and NOAA websites.

I guess they are biased....towards science.

Yes, and every one of those "studies" is almost entirely based on computer models that are beyond worthless, come from warmist supporters who generate all of their funding by supporting the fraud, and who's "peer review" consists of wives and fellow travelers.

I hate to break it to you, but your sources are shit, and have been for the last 20 years. It's sad too, prior to the "pause" Dr. Jones actually did produce some good work. But then he and all of his cronies began to believe their tall tales and what's even worse began to believe that computer models produced data.

Big mistake.

....says the guy unable to come up with any references other than the Moonie Times.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

Newbie wants a "scientific reference" to the retraction of a propaganda statement..

Kid needs a bunch of bunch of work as the scientist he claims to be...

You seem to be slightly retarded. I don't know how to get this through to you, but there was no retraction. 2014 was the warmest year recorded. You just don't understand probability and stats.

Here's an analogy. You seem to be the stupidest person here, but there is a likelihood that some other denier is even stupider than you. The resolution of stupidity is good, but variable, so new information may reveal that you're abject lack of understanding may be edged out by someone else. But at this point, you have the crown.

Warmest year on record?

GTFO here child....

 

[Wyatt earp]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

Newbie wants a "scientific reference" to the retraction of a propaganda statement..

Kid needs a bunch of bunch of work as the scientist he claims to be...

You seem to be slightly retarded. I don't know how to get this through to you, but there was no retraction. 2014 was the warmest year recorded. You just don't understand probability and stats.

Here's an analogy. You seem to be the stupidest person here, but there is a likelihood that some other denier is even stupider than you. The resolution of stupidity is good, but variable, so new information may reveal that you're abject lack of understanding may be edged out by someone else. But at this point, you have the crown.

What fucking scientist that you claim to be ass hat a clown?

God Damn I hate talking to children

 

[flacaltenn]

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members.

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists. A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.

And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?

Tell me again about Al Gores degree.... Fucktard!

 

[flacaltenn]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting..

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..

Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.

Newbie wants a "scientific reference" to the retraction of a propaganda statement..

Kid needs a bunch of bunch of work as the scientist he claims to be...

You seem to be slightly retarded. I don't know how to get this through to you, but there was no retraction. 2014 was the warmest year recorded. You just don't understand probability and stats.

Here's an analogy. You seem to be the stupidest person here, but there is a likelihood that some other denier is even stupider than you. The resolution of stupidity is good, but variable, so new information may reveal that you're abject lack of understanding may be edged out by someone else. But at this point, you have the crown.

OK -- jig is up.. You are no scientist if I have to explain to you what a 38% confidence in a statistics statement means.

THAT -- right there ballofgoofs --- is a scientific retraction by the head Shaman at NASA GISS.. Done after the damage occurs to the scientific truth with his misleading public announcement of said fact that is not a fact.

We're pretty much done if you don't understand confidence in data analysis. Or can't tell a propaganda campaign from disciplined, principled science..

Your example might have been humorous if you understood what a retraction based on data confidence looks like -- but instead, I'm thinking you have a volcano project to get done for class on Tuesday..

 

[Billy_Bob]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...

Well, then I guess you can interpret this as well.

View attachment 49464

And this:

View attachment 49465

And as an example of consequences:

View attachment 49466

Every one of your references is from a model, from Pro-AGW sites.. How about you get some real Data and quit playing with broken models!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.

Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.

Wow.

I've seen some bad deniers on some boards, but these guys take the cake.

Paid shill poster! thanks for the admission.

Got that answer on the 1981 prediction yet?

Thought so.

You really are left wit retard! That 1981 prediction of Hansen's FAILED... but then you knew that and just wanted to prove your ignorance..

 

[depotoo]

As they have all other polls they have ever taken.

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members.

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .

If you want it, look it up, troll.

I'd suggest you first tackle the other reference you asked for...although I think we both know you can't since it's a pretty decent prediction of what has happened from 1981.

You are in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever recorded. And the science told you that was going to happen, but you're too dense to understand.

Really you needed to science to tell you that an up pointing linear curve brings new records ALL THE TIME???
EVEN WHEN --- it levels out for 16 years??? Shucks.. I thought most folks could figure that out by themselves...

Most real scientists recognize the top of sign wave curve. I see that these retards cant figure it out but want to spew lies and propaganda.. Yes the records will be set during those few years, but guess what follows... they wont fair well when the cooling of the next 30-75 years sets in..