FairyTales of Global Warming..

[Discombobulated]

Then you are so uninformed that you really have nothing to say here...even the most diehard warmer wacko knows what is meant by that term. You really should try to learn at least something before trying to comment here.

I'm sure we're all much better informed with your superficial anecdotes of science.

What do you have? Let's hear your side, because you seem to be trolling and skirting the discussion. I'm sure you have something that the righties can sink their teeth into...at least that's how you're coming across.

You've heard my side already. Lots of people have all kinds of opinions, very few of those opinions actually matter.

 

[mamooth]

All we have to do is point to the rising temps. Deniers can flail, piss, moan, and continue to lie about everything, but the temps still keep rising, so they keep looking dumber.

 

[Discombobulated]

Correct. OPINION. Opinion is neither fact, nor science. Thanks for making my point so eloquently.

But for some reason your opinions on climate science carry more weight and have more credibility than those of the overwhelming majority of scientists all around the world. We are indeed blessed to witness your amazing gifts of perception.

To bad you do understand anything beyond your programming!

Maybe you guys should show me the secret handshake. Or do you use decoder rings to communicate?

 

[flacaltenn]

All we have to do is point to the rising temps. Deniers can flail, piss, moan, and continue to lie about everything, but the temps still keep rising, so they keep looking dumber.

Give us the decadal rate of rise for the past decade (from satellite please)..
You are so far in denial -- you haven't seen a sun rise for years...

 

[Kosh]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.
In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

 

[Discombobulated]

All we have to do is point to the rising temps. Deniers can flail, piss, moan, and continue to lie about everything, but the temps still keep rising, so they keep looking dumber.

Give us the decadal rate of rise for the past decade (from satellite please)..
You are so far in denial -- you haven't seen a sun rise for years...

Some people just can't stop themselves from using facts out of context.

 

[Discombobulated]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.
In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

If anything the evidence for global climate change is more compelling than ever. The political motivations are all on the deniers side of this argument.

 

[mamooth]

Flac, why from satellite, given that satellites don't actually measure surface temp? And given that satellites require even more adjustment and fiddling than the surface temps?

Satellites measure TLT. That's the whole troposphere from 0-10km, with the peak contribution from around 3 km. If I want to know the temp at 3 km altitude, I would look at the satellites. If I want to know surface temps, it would be much more logical to use actual surface temps.

 

[Kosh]

Flac, why from satellite, given that satellites don't actually measure surface temp? And given that satellites require even more adjustment and fiddling than the surface temps?

Satellites measure TLT. That's the whole troposphere from 0-10km, with the peak contribution from around 3 km. If I want to know the temp at 3 km altitude, I would look at the satellites. If I want to know surface temps, it would be much more logical to use actual surface temps.

More AGW bunk from the religious nut.

How much of this actual science will sink into the heads of the AGW cult members.

When global ground measured temperatures are compared to satellite measured temperatures, the satellite measured temperatures show far less warming. Satellite measurements can measure temperature to 0.07oC. Numerous research studies have also shown that these satellite temperatures agree well with real-time radiosonde balloon measurements of the earth's atmosphere. (Radiosonde balloons are released several times a day at various places around the earth, which report back the temperature and other data as they rise through the atmosphere. Since most of the ground measured temperatures are contaminated with heat island error, a growing number of scientists are concerned the global ground temperatures are hopelessly corrupted.

 

[Kosh]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.
In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

If anything the evidence for global climate change is more compelling than ever. The political motivations are all on the deniers side of this argument.

Says the far left Obama drone AGW cult member.

 

[flacaltenn]

All we have to do is point to the rising temps. Deniers can flail, piss, moan, and continue to lie about everything, but the temps still keep rising, so they keep looking dumber.

Give us the decadal rate of rise for the past decade (from satellite please)..
You are so far in denial -- you haven't seen a sun rise for years...

Some people just can't stop themselves from using facts out of context.

What's IN context is Mamooth showing how much in denial he really is.. The rate of rise for Global surface temperature over the past 15 years is too small to deserve attention. But the EXCUSES for such a period of flat line temps are EPIC bro..

Give us your "context" on that.. Remember that the period of significant Global Warming due to CO2 was from the 70s to 2000. Thirty years according to your theory. 15 or so with no resemblance to the theory..

Doesn't matter to me about a pause -- the numbers and the models predicting CATASTROPHE were always fucked anyway...

 

[Discombobulated]

Flac, why from satellite, given that satellites don't actually measure surface temp? And given that satellites require even more adjustment and fiddling than the surface temps?

Satellites measure TLT. That's the whole troposphere from 0-10km, with the peak contribution from around 3 km. If I want to know the temp at 3 km altitude, I would look at the satellites. If I want to know surface temps, it would be much more logical to use actual surface temps.

It probably doesn't make much sense to try and argue points that have no actual meaning for them. I'm still really curious about the details of how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works, they seem kind of vague on the details.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac, why from satellite, given that satellites don't actually measure surface temp? And given that satellites require even more adjustment and fiddling than the surface temps?

Satellites measure TLT. That's the whole troposphere from 0-10km, with the peak contribution from around 3 km. If I want to know the temp at 3 km altitude, I would look at the satellites. If I want to know surface temps, it would be much more logical to use actual surface temps.

Your theory says it's the Lower Trop that should be warming because of down IR. Don't much care 6 ft above the surface as a single point. (Or whatever the standard height of the pole is).
Wazzamatter -- you have doubts that air temps at few thousand feet won't show your powerful Earth busting danger?

And you got to be kidding me about fiddling with 14,000 thermometers and temporal and spatial coverage versus ONE SENSOR.. You should actually be on ignore i think..

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac, why from satellite, given that satellites don't actually measure surface temp? And given that satellites require even more adjustment and fiddling than the surface temps?

Satellites measure TLT. That's the whole troposphere from 0-10km, with the peak contribution from around 3 km. If I want to know the temp at 3 km altitude, I would look at the satellites. If I want to know surface temps, it would be much more logical to use actual surface temps.

It probably doesn't make much sense to try and argue points that have no actual meaning for them. I'm still really curious about the details of how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works, they seem kind of vague on the details.

Let's start with your rehabilitation with the TOPIC of this thread. Tell me why NBC is making up shit about Global Warming to fit a propaganda narrative.. Can ya do that for me? I'm gonna have you answer your own question that you posed above.

But explain to me how the temperature record of the GLOBE falling completely out of range of the HYSTERICAL GW predictions ---- "has no actual meaning".. In your world..
Let's try to dialogue here and not just soapbox like the demented stray cat that haunts this forum..

 

[Discombobulated]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.
In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

If anything the evidence for global climate change is more compelling than ever. The political motivations are all on the deniers side of this argument.

Says the far left Obama drone AGW cult member.

I wouldn't care to indulge in any gratuitous personal observations about you.

 

[westwall]

So what do you do if you are NBC News and the segment you shot on Global Warming tales of horror don't look good in the edit booth? You make shit up.. Because the propaganda must go on...

Vermont Maple Syrup Producer Complains: NBC Edited My Remarks to Support ?Global Warming? | NewsBusters

While hyping the alleged effects on climate change, NBC’s May 6 “Nightly News” tried to localize the impact by citing a different problem in each region. The broadcast played a clip of Burr Morse, a seventh-generation maple syrup producer from Montpelier, Vermont, stating that this season’s weather had been too warm. Contrary to this clip’s implications, Morse told the MRC’s Business and Media Institute that cold weather actually did more to harm this year’s maple syrup season.

Morse complained that NBC had selected a short sample of his full remarks to “support their point which was global warming.” Morse said he didn’t want “to be the cause of any hysteria,” emphasizing that he is confident in the future of the maple syrup industry and its ability to “circumvent the weather with technology.”

NBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander told “Nightly News” that “Short winters are already harming Vermont maple syrup famer Burr Morse.” Then, NBC played a clip of Morse saying “It didn’t quite get cold enough at night.”

Anybody who spent the 2013/14 winter on the East Coast should immediately have become suspicious as the winter remained cold through March, incidentally when the maple syrup harvest typically begins.

In fact, Morse claimed that winter “hung on a month longer than it usually does.” Because of this lingering cold, Morse started tapping his maple trees in April instead of March. By April, however, the nights were slightly too warm for the ideal 20 degree temperature, hence the actual context for NBC’s excerpt.

Rather than suffering from the heat, Morse described this season’s primary hardship as cold, saying a “big part of the season was that it was too cold.”

For being a valuable team player in the Fraud of Global Warming Hype and Fiction -- NBC takes a richochet to the head..

You probably believe in god too I bet. Video: God and Global Warming . NOW | PBS

Did you know that the Catholic Church has fully embraced CAGW? So when you want to go with the religious nutters side you only need stay where you are! Scientists, and those who believe in science, will merely smile and chuckle at you....

 

[Discombobulated]

So what do you do if you are NBC News and the segment you shot on Global Warming tales of horror don't look good in the edit booth? You make shit up.. Because the propaganda must go on...



For being a valuable team player in the Fraud of Global Warming Hype and Fiction -- NBC takes a richochet to the head..

You probably believe in god too I bet. Video: God and Global Warming . NOW | PBS

Did you know that the Catholic Church has fully embraced CAGW? So when you want to go with the religious nutters side you only need stay where you are! Scientists, and those who believe in science, will merely smile and chuckle at you....

You're only about a century behind the times, the Catholic Church has embraced actual science for many years. But of course someone with your credentials probably doesn't need to be told that because you are already aware of all the valuable research done at the Vatican Observatory. The Catholic Church simply doesn't subscribe to junk science the way climate change deniers do.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac, why from satellite, given that satellites don't actually measure surface temp? And given that satellites require even more adjustment and fiddling than the surface temps?

Satellites measure TLT. That's the whole troposphere from 0-10km, with the peak contribution from around 3 km. If I want to know the temp at 3 km altitude, I would look at the satellites. If I want to know surface temps, it would be much more logical to use actual surface temps.

More AGW bunk from the religious nut.

How much of this actual science will sink into the heads of the AGW cult members.

When global ground measured temperatures are compared to satellite measured temperatures, the satellite measured temperatures show far less warming. Satellite measurements can measure temperature to 0.07oC. Numerous research studies have also shown that these satellite temperatures agree well with real-time radiosonde balloon measurements of the earth's atmosphere. (Radiosonde balloons are released several times a day at various places around the earth, which report back the temperature and other data as they rise through the atmosphere. Since most of the ground measured temperatures are contaminated with heat island error, a growing number of scientists are concerned the global ground temperatures are hopelessly corrupted.

Not so sure about that chart chief.. That's a different BASELINE -- almost same measurements. Satellites use 1979 as a starting baseline whereas surface studies USED to use 30 year averages and now use 20th century baselines.. All the baselines do is subtract an average from the data. Whoever prepared that chart kinda misinterpreted..

 

[westwall]

You probably believe in god too I bet. Video: God and Global Warming . NOW | PBS

Did you know that the Catholic Church has fully embraced CAGW? So when you want to go with the religious nutters side you only need stay where you are! Scientists, and those who believe in science, will merely smile and chuckle at you....

You're only about a century behind the times, the Catholic Church has embraced actual science for many years. But of course someone with your credentials probably doesn't need to be told that because you are already aware of all the valuable research done at the Vatican Observatory. The Catholic Church simply doesn't subscribe to junk science the way climate change deniers do.

Oh, it was actually longer ago than that. My point remains though, CAGW is a faith based religion and nothing more.

 

[Discombobulated]

Did you know that the Catholic Church has fully embraced CAGW? So when you want to go with the religious nutters side you only need stay where you are! Scientists, and those who believe in science, will merely smile and chuckle at you....

You're only about a century behind the times, the Catholic Church has embraced actual science for many years. But of course someone with your credentials probably doesn't need to be told that because you are already aware of all the valuable research done at the Vatican Observatory. The Catholic Church simply doesn't subscribe to junk science the way climate change deniers do.

Oh, it was actually longer ago than that. My point remains though, CAGW is a faith based religion and nothing more.

I see, so then the overwhelming majority scientists are deluded with faith. But by contrast your conclusions are based on only the most scrupulous observation of scientific method and completely unbiased interpretation of the available data. Thanks for clearing that up.