This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[BULLDOG]

LOL!!

IQ over 5 required to understand difference between data and fudge.

Data comes from instruments -

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling." = THE ACTUAL DATA FROM THE INSTRUMENTS

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.

CAN YOU SEE ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE?

ADMIT THE TRUTH THAT INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 HAS NOT WARMED ANYTHING, ADMIT YOU ARE 100% WRONG, YOU DESERVE NO MORE FUNDING

or

FUDGE THE DATA AND KEEP BILKING THE TAXPAYER


????

AI seems to disagree with you. Like climate scientists, AI is more credible than nutbags on the internet too.

The claim that weather balloons disprove atmospheric warming is rooted in a misunderstanding or selective interpretation of data. Here's a breakdown of why some people make this claim—and why it's misleading.

Why Weather Balloons Are Used

Weather balloons carry instruments (radiosondes) that measure:

• Temperature
• Humidity
• Atmospheric pressure
• Wind speed and direction

These measurements are taken at various altitudes, often up to the stratosphere, and are crucial for understanding atmospheric trends over time.

Why Some Say They Disprove Warming

Critics of climate science sometimes argue:

• Weather balloon data shows inconsistent warming: They claim that temperature records from radiosondes don't show the same warming trend as surface thermometers or satellite data.
• Mid-troposphere data appears flat: Some older balloon datasets showed little warming in the mid-troposphere (around 8–12 km altitude), which skeptics used to argue against global warming.
• Discrepancies with climate models: They suggest that if models predict warming at certain altitudes and balloons don’t confirm it, the models must be flawed.

Why This Argument Falls Apart


The scientific consensus remains firm for several reasons:

• Improved data calibration: Early balloon data had calibration issues. Modern corrections show warming trends that align with satellite and surface data.
• Global coverage matters: Balloon launches are geographically limited. Satellites provide broader, more consistent coverage.
• Short-term variability: Balloon data can be noisy due to weather events, volcanic eruptions, or El Niño/La Niña cycles. Long-term trends still show warming.
• Multiple lines of evidence: Surface thermometers, ocean heat content, glacier retreat, and satellite data all independently confirm global warming

 

[ding]

Far from blindly. I make efforts to determine most qualified sources. Experienced experts > anonymous internet nutbags

You are literally proving my point. Qualifications mean nothing if conclusions aren’t supported by evidence. The only thing that matters is what is true. And what is true is that we live in an ice age that began about 5 million years ago when the planet became bipolar glaciated for the first time due to the polar regions becoming thermally isolated from warm marine currents because of plate tectonics. Since that time the planet has cycled between long periods of cold temperatures interrupted by brief periods of warmth which is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation which is driven by whether heat is being circulated from the Atlantic to the arctic which is driven by differences in salinity, temperature and wind patterns which are driven by melting ice, uneven heating of the planet’s surface and the sun; orbital and intensity.

Everything I have written is supported by empirical evidence and is true. That’s all that matters.

 

[BULLDOG]

You are literally proving my point. Qualifications mean nothing if conclusions aren’t supported by evidence. The only thing that matters is what is true. And what is true is that we live in an ice age that began about 5 million years ago when the planet became bipolar glaciated for the first time due to the polar regions becoming thermally isolated from warm marine currents because of plate tectonics. Since that time the planet has cycled between long periods of cold temperatures interrupted by brief periods of warmth which is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation which is driven by whether heat is being circulated from the Atlantic to the arctic which is driven by differences in salinity, temperature and wind patterns which are driven by melting ice, uneven heating of the planet’s surface and the sun; orbital and intensity.

Everything I have written is supported by empirical evidence and is true. That’s all that matters.

Thank you for telling me all that. If I was the least bit interested in all those details I might even remember bits of what you said. In case I haven't mentioned it before, those details don't really mean that much to me. I don't have the training to accurately correlate glacial movement with plate tectonics in relation to circulating heat, and I doubt that I ill figure it all out any time soon. Let me explain it in other terms. I have a bad wheel bearing on my truck. First I need to know if you are a qualified mechanic. Next, I want to know price, and how long it will take. I don't care what kind of jack you will use or what size wrenches the job might take. As far as climate science goes, you haven't convinced me you are equivalent to a qualified mechanic. I'll go with those who have verifiable credentials.

 

[ding]

Thank you for telling me all that. If I was the least bit interested in all those details I might even remember bits of what you said. In case I haven't mentioned it before, those details don't really mean that much to me. I don't have the training to accurately correlate glacial movement with plate tectonics in relation to circulating heat, and I doubt that I ill figure it all out any time soon. Let me explain it in other terms. I have a bad wheel bearing on my truck. First I need to know if you are a qualified mechanic. Next, I want to know price, and how long it will take. I don't care what kind of jack you will use or what size wrenches the job might take. As far as climate science goes, you haven't convinced me you are equivalent to a qualified mechanic. I'll go with those who have verifiable credentials.

You should care about the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record. Especially since it’s all true.

 

[BULLDOG]

You are literally proving my point. Qualifications mean nothing if conclusions aren’t supported by evidence. The only thing that matters is what is true. And what is true is that we live in an ice age that began about 5 million years ago when the planet became bipolar glaciated for the first time due to the polar regions becoming thermally isolated from warm marine currents because of plate tectonics. Since that time the planet has cycled between long periods of cold temperatures interrupted by brief periods of warmth which is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation which is driven by whether heat is being circulated from the Atlantic to the arctic which is driven by differences in salinity, temperature and wind patterns which are driven by melting ice, uneven heating of the planet’s surface and the sun; orbital and intensity.

Everything I have written is supported by empirical evidence and is true. That’s all that matters.

when my kid was little, she was convinced we needed a pony in the back yard. I explained we didn't have the time or the resources to raise a pony. Not enough room, no barn, etc. She countered with lots of different reasons why I should agree with her. We weren't getting a pony and that's it. She asked for about the hundredth time why, and I finally told her "because I say so" I fear I have reached that point with you. Without verifiable credentials, you will never convince me that you know better than the experts "because I say so"

 

[ReinyDays]

Thank you for telling me all that. If I was the least bit interested in all those details I might even remember bits of what you said. In case I haven't mentioned it before, those details don't really mean that much to me. I don't have the training to accurately correlate glacial movement with plate tectonics in relation to circulating heat, and I doubt that I ill figure it all out any time soon. Let me explain it in other terms. I have a bad wheel bearing on my truck. First I need to know if you are a qualified mechanic. Next, I want to know price, and how long it will take. I don't care what kind of jack you will use or what size wrenches the job might take. As far as climate science goes, you haven't convinced me you are equivalent to a qualified mechanic. I'll go with those who have verifiable credentials.

If you can't figure out how to replace wheel bearings ... then you definitely shouldn't try to learn about Atmospheric Science ... wheel bearings are an Auto-Zone parking lot job ... climatology is college level science, heavy in physics ...

True story ... it took me 12 minutes to teach a 12-year-old little girl how to install $12 worth of brake pads ... she did the other side all by herself in 24 minutes ...

 

[BULLDOG]

If you can't figure out how to replace wheel bearings ... then you definitely shouldn't try to learn about Atmospheric Science ... wheel bearings are an Auto-Zone parking lot job ... climatology is college level science, heavy in physics ...

True story ... it took me 12 minutes to teach a 12-year-old little girl how to install $12 worth of brake pads ... she did the other side all by herself in 24 minutes ...

Good to see the point of the story didn't go over your head, dumbass.

 

[ReinyDays]

Good to see the point of the story didn't go over your head, dumbass.

You're anti-learning ... I get that ...

 

[ding]

when my kid was little, she was convinced we needed a pony in the back yard. I explained we didn't have the time or the resources to raise a pony. Not enough room, no barn, etc. She countered with lots of different reasons why I should agree with her. We weren't getting a pony and that's it. She asked for about the hundredth time why, and I finally told her "because I say so" I fear I have reached that point with you. Without verifiable credentials, you will never convince me that you know better than the experts "because I say so"

The empirical climate evidence of the geologic record is verifiable evidence, dum dum.

 

[EMH]

The empirical climate evidence of the geologic record is verifiable

FUDGED FRAUD.... and you are a Zionist Faux Skeptic paid by the taxpayer to keep dumb Americans believing the planet is "warming" when it isn't...

 

[EMH]

that you know better than the experts

The "experts" you claim are "experts" are actually all a bunch of science rejects from other professions.

That's why they run and hide when asked basic climate questions...

They are INTELLECTUAL COWARDS.

 

[ding]

FUDGED FRAUD.... and you are a Zionist Faux Skeptic paid by the taxpayer to keep dumb Americans believing the planet is "warming" when it isn't...

The planet naturally warms during interglacial periods, dummy.

 

[BULLDOG]

The empirical climate evidence of the geologic record is verifiable evidence, dum dum.

No doubt it is. I don't have the knowledge required to evaluate that evidence, and you have given no reason to believe you do either, unless I decide to take the word of some anonymous nutbag on a discussion board as gospel.

 

[BULLDOG]

The "experts" you claim are "experts" are actually all a bunch of science rejects from other professions.

That's why they run and hide when asked basic climate questions...

They are INTELLECTUAL COWARDS.

Perhaps, but they are INTELLECTUAL COWARDS with credentials. I haven't even addressed your implication that thousands of scientists are all part of a giant conspiracy to defraud the world. That's too goofy to even consider.

 

[ding]

No doubt it is. I don't have the knowledge required to evaluate that evidence, and you have given no reason to believe you do either, unless I decide to take the word of some anonymous nutbag on a discussion board as gospel.

Actually you could have easily verified everything I told you. The planet did cool for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm. The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less CO2. So don’t act like you can’t verify what I wrote.

 

[EMH]

The planet naturally warms during interglacial periods, dummy.

Your "interglacial" BS is 100% completely REFUTED by ICE CORES....

yet you are paid by the taxpayer to endlessly post and obfuscate with BS that somehow during the "interglacial" 97% of Earth ice GREW as PROVEN BY THE ICE CORES....

 

[EMH]

but they are INTELLECTUAL COWARDS with credentials

What "credentials?"

That MSDNC cites them as "experts" and your beaked birdbrain parrots that??

LOL!!

Then maybe you can get your heroes at MSDNC to ask these "experts" 5 simple climate questions THEY REFUSE TO ANSWER...

Thread 'Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?'

Feb 12, 2024

Apparently not.

Not on Faux

Not on RAV or OANN


What questions will the media never ask?


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?



The Co2 Fraud is bilking America out of $200 billion per...

• EMH
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Media

• 
• 
• 

That's been up for almost a year and a half, and still nobody in the "media" will ask those questions, because their "experts" tell them not to...

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually you could have easily verified everything I told you. The planet did cool for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm. The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less CO2. So don’t act like you can’t verify what I wrote.

I doubt I could easily verify the conclusions you came to based on those numbers. The verified scientists seem to have formed different conclusions. Now we are back to where we started. Do I believe credentialed experts or you? As before, I have to go with the experts.

 

[ding]

Your "interglacial" BS is 100% completely REFUTED by ICE CORES....

yet you are paid by the taxpayer to endlessly post and obfuscate with BS that somehow during the "interglacial" 97% of Earth ice GREW as PROVEN BY THE ICE CORES....

Oxygen isotopes.

 

[ding]

I doubt I could easily verify the conclusions you came to based on those numbers. The verified scientists seem to have formed different conclusions. Now we are back to where we started. Do I believe credentialed experts or you? As before, I have to go with the experts.

You really are an idiot.