Obama's global warming fraud is greeted with record cold temperatures.

[auditor0007]

News from The Associated Press

PT Barnum would be proud.

What part of last year being the hottest on record do you not understand? Are you truly that stupid? Never mind. I shouldn't have even asked. Yea, we know; you think NASA is just making it up because it benefits them? Dingbats galore in this forum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it's not fake,

I disagree. All of the denier cult's pseudoscience is obviously faked. It's kind of insulting, how lame their attempted scam is. But then, they're not trying to fool the intelligent people, they're just trying to keep the rubes in line.

it's sloppy science and the results are cooked. the theory is flawed. on top of that the motivation now seems to be stop asking questions. i'm afraid that simply won't do.

I agree there. All of your denier cult's pseudoscience is fraudulent, and we've had enough of your Stalinist attempts to criminalize any science that disagrees with the agenda of DerParteiRepublikkan.

But maybe you're different. Every denier I've encountered, without exception, wants climate scientists put in jail. Are you willing to buck the trend and condemn that policy?

I know plenty of people that think this climate change is BS, but none that ever wanted to imprison anybody that disagreed with them. WTF are you talking to anyway?

 

[TemplarKormac]

News from The Associated Press

PT Barnum would be proud.

What part of last year being the hottest on record do you not understand? Are you truly that stupid? Never mind. I shouldn't have even asked. Yea, we know; you think NASA is just making it up because it benefits them? Dingbats galore in this forum.

Lol. It's forecast to hit minus 32 where my dad lives in Maine. Global warming my ass.

 

[Rustic]

Man made climate change... I am not buying what you are selling.
Lol

 

[mamooth]

I suggest contacting your local adult education resources for some immediate remedial reading education.

I suggest you apologize to the board for lying. I know your cult gives you accolades for being an accomplished liar, but decent people find your "I'll tell any lie for the cult!" attitude disgusting.

Your first site does not confirm any of your claims

The first site, Cryosphere Today.

This first graph from the site demonstrates Arctic sea ice extent is well below normal. The second graph demonstrates Antarctic sea ice extent is below normal. Since you claim to be a supergenius, it's not possible you misunderstood, so the only explanation is that you deliberately lied. However, if you'd like to plead you were just a moron who can't read a simple graph, we're listening.

and the second site directly refutes it.

The second source, the NSIDC Sea ice blog.

The lead article is "January hits new record low in the Arctic", referring to sea ice extent. That is, it doesn't refute his point, it confirms it very plainly, and you're just openly lying again.

So much for being a liberal and still being able to read for comprehension. Maybe if you learn to read, you will no longer be a liberal.

Are you going to apologize for being a dishonest troll, or are you going to proudly keep up the act, to earn more of those cult brownie points?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

'm sorry, but the Earth is either getting warmer or colder and that has to be relative to some agreed-upon standard temperature, right?

Excellent. You appear to understand the concept of a baseline.

If not, how do we know that the ideal temperature for Earth is not warmer than it is now and Mother Nature is trying to get back to normal?

Oh, and then you fall on your face with that bit of utter stupidity.

Nature does not have intelligence, dummy. It doesn't "try" to do anything. It goes where it gets pushed. We're pushing it warmer.

I realize that this level of thought is giving all of you liberals a massive headache because it stresses parts of your brain never used before, but do it for Old Glory!

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. Therefore, I can do it. However, being that you're a pissguzzling retard and a whiny little *****, you shouldn't even try.

Unfortunately, you only have about 180 years of seriously flawed data to back that up!

As for your insults, you really should quit because you cannot back anything up.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I suggest contacting your local adult education resources for some immediate remedial reading education.

I suggest you apologize to the board for lying. I know your cult gives you accolades for being an accomplished liar, but decent people find your "I'll tell any lie for the cult!" attitude disgusting.

Your first site does not confirm any of your claims

The first site, Cryosphere Today.

This first graph from the site demonstrates Arctic sea ice extent is well below normal. The second graph demonstrates Antarctic sea ice extent is below normal. Since you claim to be a supergenius, it's not possible you misunderstood, so the only explanation is that you deliberately lied. However, if you'd like to plead you were just a moron who can't read a simple graph, we're listening.

and the second site directly refutes it.

The second source, the NSIDC Sea ice blog.

The lead article is "January hits new record low in the Arctic", referring to sea ice extent. That is, it doesn't refute his point, it confirms it very plainly, and you're just openly lying again.

So much for being a liberal and still being able to read for comprehension. Maybe if you learn to read, you will no longer be a liberal.

Are you going to apologize for being a dishonest troll, or are you going to proudly keep up the act, to earn more of those cult brownie points?

You need to learn to read. What was claimed and what is shown in evidence is not true. The Antarctic ice coverage is just down from a record HIGH!

You are looking at a tiny bit of data and trying to blame global warming on records that started when I was already out sailing the seas with the Navy.

Try going back and read what was claimed and what can be proven from those web sites.

Why don't you just admit that you are totally outclassed by even the average poster who does not buy into your cult of gullible warming?

 

[mamooth]

I know plenty of people that think this climate change is BS, but none that ever wanted to imprison anybody that disagreed with them.

You haven't looked at the hardcore global warming deniers on this board, who aren't like normal people. Without exception, every single one of them wants mainstream climate scientists put in jail. I've asked many times, and literally not one of them is willing to condemn that policy. Some may disagree privately, but they're too intimidated by TheCult to say so openly.

And you missed Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, obviously a Republican, who tried bringing the heavy hand of the state down on climate scientists.

They claim the crime is "fraud". Just like the Stalinists, who also invented fake crimes to pin on scientists when they sent those scientists to a Gulag for doing science that was inconvenient to TheParty.

So, I'm just asking if certain people also support those tactics, being that the ones who do are same people who invent stories about being silenced, and the hypocrisy is rather galling. You clearly don't think that way, so good for you.

 

[depotoo]

You do realize typhoon record keeping in the pacific just started in 1948, right? You do realize we have not had satellite data, etc. for even a 100 years, right? You do realize we actually flew in to some of these storms at their peak, right? Which is an oddity, right? You do realize we have not reconned storms for even 75 years, right, in the atlantic, much less in the pacific, right? And, even though you believed the hype on Haiyan, it was only the 4th in recorded history, and how did they surmise that? By actually flying into it at its peak. Do you know how few have been flown into at their peak? Less than a handful. And-

It was also the fourth strongest cyclone ever recorded, according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center in Hawaii. Three others had higher sustained winds while out at sea, then weakened before hitting land: Typhoon Nancy in 961, with 215 mph winds; Typhoon Violet in 1961, with 205 mph winds; and Typhoon Ida, in 1958, with 200 mph winds. All three eventually hit Japan. The second strongest storm at the time of landfall was Hurricane Camille, which struck Mississippi bearing 190 mph winds.
..
and-
Was Typhoon Haiyan a Record Storm?

Breaking news can sometime include mistakes, and breaking news emerging from disaster areas can be fraught with errors. Journalists try to do follow-up stories to correct facts, and until then, other journalists reporting on the same event often resort to general language to cover the vagaries.


Was Typhoon Haiyan a Record Storm?

Record heat, after manipulation. Record forest fires? They are small compared to end of the 19th century.Record strength storms? You mean there have never been any stronger storms? Seriously, they got ya by all the sensational headlines, knowing you wouldn't research it yourself. Just what they were hoping for.

News from The Associated Press

PT Barnum would be proud.

I guess the record heat....four consecutive years, record forest fires, record strength storms etc. don't count for anything

Hurricanes have been exceptionally mild and infrequent. Fires are not a measure of anything except fires. Temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998.

Of course, if you really think that the Atlantic is the only ocean in the world, I suppose you have a point. However, in the bigger world, the Pacific has seen some record typhoons in the last few years.

 

[mamooth]

You need to learn to read. What was claimed and what is shown in evidence is not true. The Antarctic ice coverage is just down from a record HIGH!

That's nice. But Old Rocks spoke in present tense, not past tense, and Antarctic sea ice _is_ at below normal levels now, and his sources did back that up.

So, essentially you're claiming your ability to comprehend English is lacking, and as result you went into a classic belligerent stupidity routine.

You are looking at a tiny bit of data and trying to blame global warming on records that started when I was already out sailing the seas with the Navy.

Try going back and read what was claimed and what can be proven from those web sites.

Nice attempt at a topic change after you got spanked, but you're still totally wrong on this new topic. If we take the records back 150 years, the trend is clearly going just one way, and that way would be "down".

Why don't you just admit that you are totally outclassed by even the average poster who does not buy into your cult of gullible warming?

Poor baby. You're completely clueless on this topic, you keep getting humiliated, everyone sees it, and now you're flailing. Did you really think you're the first brainwashed political cultist to show up here, knowing nothing except the fraudulent bullshit that his masters had spoonfed him? We almost feel sorry for you noobs, so bright eyed and bushy-tailed, then reality smacks you hard.

If you had any guts and brains, you'd take your masters to task and demand to know why they lied to you and left you twisting in the wind. But no, just like all the rest, you'll run back to them, lick their boots, and tell them how wonderful the shoe leather tastes.

 

[depotoo]

Do you ever take the time to look at others research into the actual data sets? And you do realize, even if the data had not been manipulated, it is only 180 years of records? You do realize the earth is many millenia older than 180 years,right?
Do you even know they have been eliminated some data stations and adding others? Do you know , they prefer to use data from stations that are traditionally warmer, due to concrete islands, rather than record in actually areas in which they are stating the temp is from? Such as recording rural area temps ,coming from the international airports 30 miles away, rather than the rural airports station they shut down, which would traditionally show a cooler temp of up to 4, even 5 degrees? The manipulation is by stations and upping the curves.

News from The Associated Press

PT Barnum would be proud.

What part of last year being the hottest on record do you not understand? Are you truly that stupid? Never mind. I shouldn't have even asked. Yea, we know; you think NASA is just making it up because it benefits them? Dingbats galore in this forum.

 

[Slyhunter]

Well that discounts you from the discussion as you have no clue of the difference between Weather and Climate?

Once we thought you slow, now we know you are...
Thanks for that..

They do this every winter.

That's because every winter is colder than the previous winter.

We have to go back to riding horses or we'll have a new ice age.

 

[Campbell]

Well that discounts you from the discussion as you have no clue of the difference between Weather and Climate?

Once we thought you slow, now we know you are...
Thanks for that..

They do this every winter.

That's because every winter is colder than the previous winter.

We have to go back to riding horses or we'll have a new ice age.

More Than 190 Countries Agree on Climate Change Pact

More Than 190 Countries Agree on Climate Change Pact
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
On December 12, 2015, more than 190 countries reached consensus on The Paris Agreement (the “Agreement” or “Pact”), a climate change pact that will serve as the framework for reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This consensus was reached at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris. The Agreement will be formally signed at a ceremony to be held at the United Nations in April 2016 and will take effect in 2020. Participating countries have until April 2017 to take whatever steps each jurisdiction must to ratify the accord.

The Agreement “aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.” Its objective is to hold the average global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. The Agreement also sets a more ambitious target of limiting temperature increases to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Advocates for climate change regulation have expressed disappointment over the magnitude of the GHG reduction targets in the Pact. However, many acknowledged that the Agreement is merely a starting point and forms the framework from which to advocate for more aggressive reductions in the future.

 

[bripat9643]

Well that discounts you from the discussion as you have no clue of the difference between Weather and Climate?

Once we thought you slow, now we know you are...
Thanks for that..

They do this every winter.

That's because every winter is colder than the previous winter.

We have to go back to riding horses or we'll have a new ice age.

But what about all that methane that horses produce?

 

[bripat9643]

Well that discounts you from the discussion as you have no clue of the difference between Weather and Climate?

Once we thought you slow, now we know you are...
Thanks for that..

They do this every winter.

That's because every winter is colder than the previous winter.

We have to go back to riding horses or we'll have a new ice age.

More Than 190 Countries Agree on Climate Change Pact

More Than 190 Countries Agree on Climate Change Pact
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
On December 12, 2015, more than 190 countries reached consensus on The Paris Agreement (the “Agreement” or “Pact”), a climate change pact that will serve as the framework for reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This consensus was reached at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris. The Agreement will be formally signed at a ceremony to be held at the United Nations in April 2016 and will take effect in 2020. Participating countries have until April 2017 to take whatever steps each jurisdiction must to ratify the accord.

The Agreement “aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.” Its objective is to hold the average global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. The Agreement also sets a more ambitious target of limiting temperature increases to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Advocates for climate change regulation have expressed disappointment over the magnitude of the GHG reduction targets in the Pact. However, many acknowledged that the Agreement is merely a starting point and forms the framework from which to advocate for more aggressive reductions in the future.

What's your point, that you are a sucker who believes U.N. propaganda?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You need to learn to read. What was claimed and what is shown in evidence is not true. The Antarctic ice coverage is just down from a record HIGH!

That's nice. But Old Rocks spoke in present tense, not past tense, and Antarctic sea ice _is_ at below normal levels now, and his sources did back that up.

So, essentially you're claiming your ability to comprehend English is lacking, and as result you went into a classic belligerent stupidity routine.

You are looking at a tiny bit of data and trying to blame global warming on records that started when I was already out sailing the seas with the Navy.

Try going back and read what was claimed and what can be proven from those web sites.

Nice attempt at a topic change after you got spanked, but you're still totally wrong on this new topic. If we take the records back 150 years, the trend is clearly going just one way, and that way would be "down".

Why don't you just admit that you are totally outclassed by even the average poster who does not buy into your cult of gullible warming?

Poor baby. You're completely clueless on this topic, you keep getting humiliated, everyone sees it, and now you're flailing. Did you really think you're the first brainwashed political cultist to show up here, knowing nothing except the fraudulent bullshit that his masters had spoonfed him? We almost feel sorry for you noobs, so bright eyed and bushy-tailed, then reality smacks you hard.

If you had any guts and brains, you'd take your masters to task and demand to know why they lied to you and left you twisting in the wind. But no, just like all the rest, you'll run back to them, lick their boots, and tell them how wonderful the shoe leather tastes.

How do you get satellite data from 1870?

Talk about clueless!

 

[depotoo]

Come on mammoth, please, from noaa-
Arctic Sea ice extent is virtually impossible to accurately measure from the Earth's surface. The edges of the ice are ever changing and the sheer size of the ice mass (averaging two and half times the size of Canada) makes it difficult to measure directly on short time scales. To overcome the shortcomings of in situ observations, polar orbiting satellites began collecting data over the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) in the 1970s.

So, we have 46 years of satellite data, and yet they claim to be accurate on data before that time? And even after 1970, they have gotten so-called better equipment, so we can't even fully judge the full 46 years. Yet, we are to believe their accuracy from 1870, according to your graph. And even with that the earth is many millenia old. Not just 146 years.
Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

You need to learn to read. What was claimed and what is shown in evidence is not true. The Antarctic ice coverage is just down from a record HIGH!

That's nice. But Old Rocks spoke in present tense, not past tense, and Antarctic sea ice _is_ at below normal levels now, and his sources did back that up.

So, essentially you're claiming your ability to comprehend English is lacking, and as result you went into a classic belligerent stupidity routine.

You are looking at a tiny bit of data and trying to blame global warming on records that started when I was already out sailing the seas with the Navy.

Try going back and read what was claimed and what can be proven from those web sites.

Nice attempt at a topic change after you got spanked, but you're still totally wrong on this new topic. If we take the records back 150 years, the trend is clearly going just one way, and that way would be "down".

Why don't you just admit that you are totally outclassed by even the average poster who does not buy into your cult of gullible warming?

Poor baby. You're completely clueless on this topic, you keep getting humiliated, everyone sees it, and now you're flailing. Did you really think you're the first brainwashed political cultist to show up here, knowing nothing except the fraudulent bullshit that his masters had spoonfed him? We almost feel sorry for you noobs, so bright eyed and bushy-tailed, then reality smacks you hard.

If you had any guts and brains, you'd take your masters to task and demand to know why they lied to you and left you twisting in the wind. But no, just like all the rest, you'll run back to them, lick their boots, and tell them how wonderful the shoe leather tastes.

 

[bripat9643]

Come on mammoth, please, from noaa-
Arctic Sea ice extent is virtually impossible to accurately measure from the Earth's surface. The edges of the ice are ever changing and the sheer size of the ice mass (averaging two and half times the size of Canada) makes it difficult to measure directly on short time scales. To overcome the shortcomings of in situ observations, polar orbiting satellites began collecting data over the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) in the 1970s.

So, we have 46 years of satellite data, and yet they claim to be accurate on data before that time? And even after ,1970, they have gotten so-called better equipment, so we can't even fully judge the full 46 years. Yet, we are to believe mtheir accuracy from 1880, according to your graph. And even then the earth is many millenia old. Not just 126 years.

You need to learn to read. What was claimed and what is shown in evidence is not true. The Antarctic ice coverage is just down from a record HIGH!

That's nice. But Old Rocks spoke in present tense, not past tense, and Antarctic sea ice _is_ at below normal levels now, and his sources did back that up.

So, essentially you're claiming your ability to comprehend English is lacking, and as result you went into a classic belligerent stupidity routine.

You are looking at a tiny bit of data and trying to blame global warming on records that started when I was already out sailing the seas with the Navy.

Try going back and read what was claimed and what can be proven from those web sites.

Nice attempt at a topic change after you got spanked, but you're still totally wrong on this new topic. If we take the records back 150 years, the trend is clearly going just one way, and that way would be "down".

Why don't you just admit that you are totally outclassed by even the average poster who does not buy into your cult of gullible warming?

Poor baby. You're completely clueless on this topic, you keep getting humiliated, everyone sees it, and now you're flailing. Did you really think you're the first brainwashed political cultist to show up here, knowing nothing except the fraudulent bullshit that his masters had spoonfed him? We almost feel sorry for you noobs, so bright eyed and bushy-tailed, then reality smacks you hard.

If you had any guts and brains, you'd take your masters to task and demand to know why they lied to you and left you twisting in the wind. But no, just like all the rest, you'll run back to them, lick their boots, and tell them how wonderful the shoe leather tastes.

True. Everything in blue is science fiction, just like Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Chart.

 

[depotoo]

 

[Old Rocks]

it's not fake,

I disagree. All of the denier cult's pseudoscience is obviously faked. It's kind of insulting, how lame their attempted scam is. But then, they're not trying to fool the intelligent people, they're just trying to keep the rubes in line.

it's sloppy science and the results are cooked. the theory is flawed. on top of that the motivation now seems to be stop asking questions. i'm afraid that simply won't do.

I agree there. All of your denier cult's pseudoscience is fraudulent, and we've had enough of your Stalinist attempts to criminalize any science that disagrees with the agenda of DerParteiRepublikkan.

But maybe you're different. Every denier I've encountered, without exception, wants climate scientists put in jail. Are you willing to buck the trend and condemn that policy?

I know plenty of people that think this climate change is BS, but none that ever wanted to imprison anybody that disagreed with them. WTF are you talking to anyway?

Really?

Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation was a "Civil Investigative Demand" initiated in April 2010 by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for a wide range of records held by the University of Virginia related to five grant applications for research work by a leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann, who was an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. The demand was issued under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act in connection with claims by Cuccinnelli that Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws in relation to five research grants, by allegedly manipulating data. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented to support the claim. Mann's earlier work had been targeted by climate change skeptics in the hockey stick controversy, and allegations against him were renewed in late 2009 in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy but found to be groundless in a series of investigations.[1][2]

Widespread concerns were raised by University of Virginia's faculty and numerous scientists and science organizations that Cuccinelli's actions posed a threat to academic freedom, and would have a chilling effect on research in the state. The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[3] Cuccinelli tried to re-open his case by issuing a revised subpoena,[4] and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court. The case was defended by the university, and the court ruled that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[5][6]