FairyTales of Global Warming..

[Meister]

Well then if the standard is measured by who's opinion we should value more you seem to be out voted, looks like there's more opinion on the other side of the argument.

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.

You drank the Kool-Aid with your regurgitation of the number of scientists.

 

[westwall]

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.

You are speaking of climatologists, and ONLY climatologists aren't you? Because the majority of real scientists think that you are full of shit.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

You are speaking of climatologists, and ONLY climatologists aren't you? Because the majority of real scientists think that you are full of shit.

No doubt the source of much discussion among your colleagues in nearly relevant fields of science.

 

[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.

You drank the Kool-Aid with your regurgitation of the number of scientists.

Thank you for your valuable insights, you can be sure I will give them all the consideration they deserve.

 

[Meister]

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.

You drank the Kool-Aid with your regurgitation of the number of scientists.

Thank you for your valuable insights, you can be sure I will give them all the consideration they deserve.

You have shown nothing other than being a troll.
They're dime a dozen on this board, welcome to the board and all it has to offer.

 

[Discombobulated]

You drank the Kool-Aid with your regurgitation of the number of scientists.

Thank you for your valuable insights, you can be sure I will give them all the consideration they deserve.

You have shown nothing other than being a troll.
They're dime a dozen on this board, welcome to the board and all it has to offer.

You've shown nothing other than nothing....you're the troll on this thread.

 

[westwall]

Thank you for your valuable insights, you can be sure I will give them all the consideration they deserve.

You have shown nothing other than being a troll.
They're dime a dozen on this board, welcome to the board and all it has to offer.

You've shown nothing other than nothing....you're the troll on this thread.

Spoken like a true 8 year old! Until your discussion style grows beyond the "I know you are but what am I" level you will be nothing but a troll.

Hello troll!

 

[Discombobulated]

You have shown nothing other than being a troll.
They're dime a dozen on this board, welcome to the board and all it has to offer.

You've shown nothing other than nothing....you're the troll on this thread.

Spoken like a true 8 year old! Until your discussion style grows beyond the "I know you are but what am I" level you will be nothing but a troll.

Hello troll!

What else can you say....not having made your alleged argument.

 

[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.

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..

Well we have to use 1979 as the starting point, there were no satellites that I know of in the 1940's.

Even the AGW cult scientists will tell you that the most accurate and valid temperature data has only happened in the last 30 years.

So all this over cherry picked data that is valid up to 30 years ago.

 

[Kosh]

You have shown nothing other than being a troll.
They're dime a dozen on this board, welcome to the board and all it has to offer.

You've shown nothing other than nothing....you're the troll on this thread.

Spoken like a true 8 year old! Until your discussion style grows beyond the "I know you are but what am I" level you will be nothing but a troll.

Hello troll!

A good portion of the far left Obama drone AGW cult members are this. It is nothing new as they would much rat5her watch the world burn than admit they are wrong.

 

[Kosh]

You've shown nothing other than nothing....you're the troll on this thread.

Spoken like a true 8 year old! Until your discussion style grows beyond the "I know you are but what am I" level you will be nothing but a troll.

Hello troll!

What else can you say....not having made your alleged argument.

The irony of those comments..

 

[Discombobulated]

Spoken like a true 8 year old! Until your discussion style grows beyond the "I know you are but what am I" level you will be nothing but a troll.

Hello troll!

What else can you say....not having made your alleged argument.

The irony of those comments..

Thank you, your contributions to this discussion has been invaluable. I can't begin to tell you how much I treasure this opportunity of having a little window into your stream of consciousness.

 

[SSDD]

They seem to think that uninformed opinions about science are somehow relevant.

You like facts? You think you have facts? Lets see some factual evidence, supported by observation and repeatable experiment that proves that an increase of atmospheric CO2 in the amount of X will result in an increase of the global temperature by Y. You might also provide a factual quantification of the so called greenhouse effect. While you are at it, how about telling us what the earth's albedo is. If you have facts, backed by observed data, that proves that CO2 drives the climate, lets see it. Your warmer brethren rely entirely on the output of failed climate models....what do you have?

You've evidently failed to grasp my point here.....so I'll put it in plain language for you.
Since there are obviously no scientists on this thread, opinions don't matter. Because they are just that, opinions. Uniformed opinions of science are completely irrelevant, they are nothing more than superficial anecdotes without context.

I didn't miss anything...including that you are unable, because climate science is unable to answer even the most fundamental questions about the nature of energy flow on this planet. Admitting that, is an admission that climate science itself is voicing uninformed opinion.

 

[SSDD]

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

The contentions involved are not difficult. Perhaps you could handle them.. It's all about a 0.5degC increase in average annual Global Surface Temperature. Did the Prez lie? Did NBC lie to you as per the topic of this thread? If so -- WHY are they doing that?

Suit up and stop playing the clueless victim.. If they are lying to you about THIS? What else are you willing to defer to the "experts".. BTW --- some of us do have credentials in science, math, and engineering and have invested a LOT of time and effort to understand the arguments..

Time wasted....as you are clearly unqualified to put the information into an actual context.

Spoken just like abraham. Got any other unconscious verbal "tics" to display?

 

[SSDD]

Time wasted....as you are clearly unqualified to put the information into an actual context.

Your responses have descended to the level of "I know you are but what am I?" I suggest you start taking a meaningful part in the discussion or you will be placed on the pile of discarded sock puppets.

Your responses constitute no more than SPAM and that is not tolerated.

You still don't get it, you are not a climate scientist. Therefore your best guesses on this subject amount to nothing more than opinions and superficial anecdotes.

And because climate science can't provide answers for the very basic questions regarding energy movement here on earth, they are providing nothing more than largely uninformed opinion as well. Rather than admit that they really don't have any sort of handle on the climate at this point and engage in actual foundational research, they are promoting crisis for fun and profit.

 

[SSDD]

You still don't get it, you are not a climate scientist. Therefore your best guesses on this subject amount to nothing more than opinions and superficial anecdotes.

Are you a climate scientist that your best guesses on this subject amount to anything more than opinions? If you're not a climate scientist, then you have to take someone else's word on faith and compare it to what you observe. Observation does not support the hysteria.

I didn't offer an opinion. Perhaps you guys just failed to notice because of your constantly jerking knees. They must be very distracting for you.

So far you haven't offered anything but nonsense in a sentence structure that is uncannily similar to another gibbering warmer idiot on this board.

 

[SSDD]

Well then if the standard is measured by who's opinion we should value more you seem to be out voted, looks like there's more opinion on the other side of the argument.

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.

If those opinions aren't supported by fact...or observation...or repeatable experiment, then they are of no value at all and are merely pesudoscience masquerading as science and are therefore more dangerous than useful.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Got anything to back up your opinions? Got any thing that follows the guidelines of the scientific method that would support your claim that the opinion of climate pseudoscience is of any value at all? The skeptics are demanding that the scientific method be adhered to and followed but the alarmist side can't deliver. Any opinion on that?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Which altered record are you pointing to?

 

[SSDD]

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.

There is no overwhelming majority of scientists who believe in CAGW.