Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correct. There are NUMEROUS problems with AGW Theory. I have grouped them into three main groupings. [1] is Logic. [2] is Science. [3] is Mathematics. Those are the three things which AGW cultists outright reject in order to adhere to their religious dogma. I believe I have gone through all three of them in detail on this forum before, but I can do so again if anyone is interested.Excellent post, bear513, but you mention only one of the numerous problems Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists have with their theory. I believe outright deceit underlies many of their contentions such as denying the importance of variations in solar output.
To a FRACTION of a degree, even... It's quite humorous...
Now you got it.These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”
See its not really the plan ...Wealth REdistribution will just be the natural consequence of stopping the use of fossil fuels
Now you got it.These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”
See its not really the plan ...Wealth REdistribution will just be the natural consequence of stopping the use of fossil fuels
Yeah yeah. The USA as global. Fake data!Notice that cnm, completely ignored this part from post one?
A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.
Nothing could be more boring.I believe I have gone through all three of them in detail on this forum before, but I can do so again if anyone is interested.
Now you got it.These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”
See its not really the plan ...Wealth REdistribution will just be the natural consequence of stopping the use of fossil fuels
Now you got it.These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”
See its not really the plan ...Wealth REdistribution will just be the natural consequence of stopping the use of fossil fuels
What we're talking about is global government, global socialism, and a global tyranny.
You have all but admitted it. What. . . really, is there left to discuss? This is the USA, we have a Constitution, and we will not give up our liberty.
In the final analysis, it would be better if all the scientists who predict the end of the world are right, than we turn to that, right?
As always, no response, and these people wish to discuss science????????Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.
That part is pure BULLSHIT.Notice that cnm, completely ignored this part from post one?
A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.
No to deal with the problem they use ANOMALIES!!!!
Aweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... Did I cwush yo widdle weewidgun...Nothing could be more boring.I believe I have gone through all three of them in detail on this forum before, but I can do so again if anyone is interested.
Correct.Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.
They SAY they wish to discuss science, but as I have pointed out, science flips the bird at their nonsensical AGW theory... In reality, they don't wish to discuss science at all. They wish to violently shove their religion down your throat. That's what religious fundamentalism does to people...As always, no response, and these people wish to discuss science????????Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.
It is 2% or whatever of the planet. Whoopee.Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.
Dude. You can bore for your country. Without paragraphs.Correct.Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.
Why don't they address these issues?? Because their religious fundamentalism blinds them. Because they hate anyone who dare speak a word against their religious dogma. They have their blinders on and are "full steam ahead"... Well, not steam... They'd throw a hissy fit over that... But you get the point...
Yes, they fail to address those issues with the US stations. They also fail to address the logic issue of using circular definitions. They have yet to even properly define "climate change" and "global warming". This is a logic error right from the get-go. One can't base an argument on a meaningless buzzword... It renders that argument void. They also fail to address the science issues of rejecting currently standing theories of science such as the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan-boltzmann law. They make all sorts of crazy attempts to get around Science, depending upon which argument they are making at any given time. Some of those attempts include attempting to create energy out of nothing, reducing entropy in an isolated system, and simultaneously reducing radiance while increasing temperature. They also fail to address the mathematical issues that are raised when they attempt to support their claims with pretty looking charts and graphs, and supposed "data". They ignore the fact that RAW data must be used in any statistical analysis. They ignore the fact that the margin of error must be calculated, they ignore the fact that the variance must be declared, they ignore the fact that thermometers must be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer to remove location and time biases.
In short, they ignore logic, science, and mathematics in order to cling onto their Church of Global Warming religion...
Now that's funny, I'll give you that.They ignore the fact that RAW data must be used in any statistical analysis.
Global warming has been in effect since the Crest of the glacial maximum 20000 years ago. Nothing is new about thisWow people are getting my main argument more and more..
New Research Suggests Some Climate Data May Be Tainted
Al Gore likes to say that the science of climate change is “settled.” But of course, science, almost by definition, is never settled.
And climate science has always suffered from the problem of shaky and missing data. Seventy percent of the globe is covered by ocean, where data is hard to collect. Reliable weather records only go back to about 1850 and, in many parts of the world, are far more recent. Modern recording weather stations date only to the early 20th century.
And many of those stations have a big problem. While they haven’t changed appreciably over the years, the land around them has changed, often profoundly, with the great growth in urban and suburban areas. The weather station that was put, say, in the middle of a Nassau County, Long Island, potato field in 1923 is still in the same spot. But the potatoes are long gone, and now it’s behind a strip mall, twenty feet from the kitchen exhaust fan of a Chinese take-out joint.
A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.
