JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,889
- 2,220
More retard bullshit. No fact, no reason, just emotional blather. For instance, no one is talking about nukes here, and yet you had to drag that into the discussion.
roflmao
LMAO....so much for "global warming"!!!!
- Thread starter skookerasbil
- Start date
- Status
More retard bullshit. No fact, no reason, just emotional blather. For instance, no one is talking about nukes here, and yet you had to drag that into the discussion.
roflmao
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,057
- 86,497
- 2,645
All you have is correlation of what you think are causes with what you think are their effects. The Earth has been much warmer than it is now. Not only did life survive but it also demonstrates that there are cycles in play that over-ride mere human pollution.
The Volstock ice cores show this record of climate cycles long before a modern human being ever lit a fire.
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years
Last 10,000 years
In order to show 'climate change' is continuing, AGW zealots have to fiddle with the temperature data, as they were caught doing here:
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.
Climategate The Smoking Code Watts Up With That
In short, your AGW bullshit con game is over, dude.[/QUOTE]
^ This needs its own thread.
The AGWCult is a total sham based on altered data and faked models
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #64
ROFLMAO that is because one of your wing nuts started in on Clinton being a liar...moron..
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #65
The bogus source that would be Drudge or is it "Anthony Watts"....
Settled: Carbon Dioxide Causes the Atmosphere to Trap Heat >
Settled: Anthony Watts Is A Fraud
Anthony Watts' fifteen minutes are up. Hispublicity stuntworked so well that after wasting thousands of hours of climate scientists' and U.S. Congress members' time, and sowing false doubt among millions of voters, he finally had to submit his false claims to scrutiny by a real scientist -- albeit not much of one -- lukewarmer/delayer/deniar Roger Pielke, Sr. Like Professor Muller of Berkeley, Pielke had to admit that the data show no evidence whatsoever of the bias they were seeking in the mean temperature trend, as detailed in the attachment below. Finding such bias was the entire purpose of the Surface Stations project.
Pielke does note the one anomaly he was able to find, that daily temperature extremes are not as great at "poor" sites. What this means is that temperature extremes have thus far been underestimated, and one of the side effects of global warming predicted by climate scientists is in fact worse than we had supposed. But that's nothing to do with Anthony Watts. His claim was that siting was causing a false warming trend to appear due to "urban heat island effects" and that is disproved, absolutely.
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so thatthe overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.
End of story
How about addressing the fact that you're using a bogus source, like I pointed out (with reference to a reputable source)....
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,889
- 2,220
Piling more horse shit on top of old horse shit still leaves you with nothing but horse shit, traitor.
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #68
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #71
what do you have wing nut ...anything...or just shooting off the mouth...post something idiot instead of blowing hard...
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #72
That article has an author Steven E Koonin
this guy
scientist Steven E. Koonin
Steven E. Koonin, undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy, reported receiving a host of lucrative corporate payouts and perks when he left his job as chief scientist at oil giant BP
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #73
The data (green) are NASA GISS monthly global surface temperature anomaly data from January 1970 through December 2014, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970–Oct 1977, Apr 1977–Dec 1986, Apr 1987–Oct 1996, Aug 1997–Dec 2002, Jan 2003–Jun 2012, and Jul 2012–Feb 2014 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
Perhaps you should apply the same type of assessment towards Obama's appointees who have a revolving door through Wall Street.
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #75
you are just trying to change the subject
Sometime in the mid 1990s, probably unnoticed by anyone, a region of the Pacific that is home to more than a dozen nations experienced something known as a “climate expulsion”.
That was the point in time when the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere pushed temperatures higher than anything that natural climate changes alone could have delivered.
The finding comes in a new study from scientists at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology and published in the International Journal of Climatology.
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #76
International Journal of Climatology uses a rigged system...
Peer Review And Pal Review In Climate Science
Publishing in the scientific literature is supposed to be tough. Submit a manuscript to a reputable journal and it will go through “peer review,” where your equals criticize your work, send their comments to a journal editor and then the editor will decide whether to accept your submission, reject it outright, or something in between.
In order to limit any bias caused by personal or philosophical animosity, the editor should remove your name from the paper and send it to other experts who have no apparent conflict of interest in reviewing your work. You and the reviewers should not know who each other are. This is called a “double blind” peer review.
Well, this is “the way it is supposed to be.” But in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of government research money support trillions of dollars of government policy, peer review has become anything but that.
That’s what the “Climategate” gang did with the International Journal of Climatologywhen University of Rochester’s David Douglass submitted a paper. His work showed that a large warming at high altitudes in the tropics–one of the major ways in which the enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to change the climate–isn’t happening. For the gory details, click here. The story on this one is still unfolding as the journal has declined to publish a sequel to the counter-manuscript.
Or you could simply ignore manuscripts sent to you that find problems with temperature histories.
Peer Review And Pal Review In Climate Science
Publishing in the scientific literature is supposed to be tough. Submit a manuscript to a reputable journal and it will go through “peer review,” where your equals criticize your work, send their comments to a journal editor and then the editor will decide whether to accept your submission, reject it outright, or something in between.
In order to limit any bias caused by personal or philosophical animosity, the editor should remove your name from the paper and send it to other experts who have no apparent conflict of interest in reviewing your work. You and the reviewers should not know who each other are. This is called a “double blind” peer review.
Well, this is “the way it is supposed to be.” But in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of government research money support trillions of dollars of government policy, peer review has become anything but that.
That’s what the “Climategate” gang did with the International Journal of Climatologywhen University of Rochester’s David Douglass submitted a paper. His work showed that a large warming at high altitudes in the tropics–one of the major ways in which the enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to change the climate–isn’t happening. For the gory details, click here. The story on this one is still unfolding as the journal has declined to publish a sequel to the counter-manuscript.
Or you could simply ignore manuscripts sent to you that find problems with temperature histories.
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #80
This is your author of an opinion piece not a Science paper
Patrick J. Michaels is Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute and author and editor of “Climate Coup: Global Warming’s Invasion of our Government and our Lives.”
Ben Santer debunks Pat Michaels | Climate Science Watch
At a recent House Science Committee hearing, climate scientist Ben Santer had the opportunity to address Pat Michaels' misinformation head on. Peter Sinclair, who hosts videos on the excellent site Climate Denial Crock of the Week, posted a video of their exchange
- Status
Similar threads
