warmest January on record

[Oddball]

I knew they should have kept with the term climate change. Calling it global warming gives the kooks the excuse they need to carry on their denial....

Pfffft!...The climate cargo cultists can't even agree on what to friggin' call it!!

 

[elvis]

man made global warming

We think so highly of ourselves don't we

It has nothing to do with the sun, i swear.

Yeah and those Maritans are sure not the environmentalists that we thought they were either, because they are driving around in their SUV's , burning all that coal, cutting down their rain forests and destroying their planet at the same rate we are.

This is an emergency- has Al Gore been called about this. He needs to get on his private jet right now and fly to Mars to see what the hell is going on up there.

and yes, Maple is correct. Al Gore doesn't help his cause by flying around like an elitist fat fuck in his personal jet. When he starts riding his fucking bicycle to his events, I'll start taking his fat ass more seriously.

 

[Dr Grump]

I knew they should have kept with the term climate change. Calling it global warming gives the kooks the excuse they need to carry on their denial....

Pfffft!...The climate cargo cultists can't even agree on what to friggin' call it!!

It just confuses the truthers/teabaggers etc....

 

[edthecynic]

It might be interesting to READ this piece, too: What Does the Last Decade Tell Us about Global Warming? (Hint: the ‘skeptics' have the momentum) — MasterResource

For those of you who don’t know, the surface temperature of the globe, as a whole, has not warmed-up by anyone’s calculation since at least the turn of the century (January 2001)

What a load of crap!

Every year since 2001 has been warmer than 2001 except 2008.

 

[Oddball]

BREAKING!!

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri has been replaced as head of the IPCC by someone with vastly more credibility.....

Film at 11:00!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ZOMGGGG! We need to make CO2 Absorbing ShamWOW!!!

It's our only hope!!

 

[Screaming Eagle]

We're in the middle of a national snow crisis and you're on here spouting off how the earth is warming!

 

[Meister]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.

Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?

This one's for you Ed. Note there are no editing times in my original post that you started your lying about. You are a dishonest hack. You need to twist everything that is posted to get your point across, and then say that the other poster is always dishonest, backpeddling, or whatever.
You have to lie, or take things out of context, ed the goofball. fuck i pushed the edit, button and not the quote button

 

[edthecynic]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!

Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.

The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.

Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!

Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.

The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.

Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???

Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!

Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.

The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.

Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???

Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?

That is only what common sense tells us. We aren't supposed to use that.

 

[edthecynic]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.

Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?

Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.

And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.

 

[edthecynic]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!

Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.

The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.

Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???

Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?

Since you are desperately trying to change the subject from how anomalies make a fool out of anyone stupid enough to swallow the lies of your source, I will take that as you are conceding the fact that your "expert" source is dishonest.

Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!

Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.

The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.

Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???

Isn't suppressing opposing points of view, like the Warmers did, the ultimate denial?

That is only what common sense tells us. We aren't supposed to use that.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein

 

[Meister]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.

Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?

Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.

And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.

Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.

 

[Luissa]

I'm sure the global warming fearmongers missed your post, Olle. Let me bump it and highlight the key parts.

Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?

Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.

And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.

Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.

Nice sig!

 

[Meister]

Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING either your stupidity or dishonesty.

And no, the warming trend started to accelerate in the ocean around the middle 1970s and on land around 1980.

Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.

Nice sig!

Thank you kind lady. Thanks for the idea of supporting the Zags.
Did you watch the game last night?

 

[Luissa]

Eh...Ed, your being about as dishonest as one could get. Where did I ever say that the warming trend started in the 1990's? I stated," Didn't the hottest years start in the 1990's?" Please carry on, Ed.

Nice sig!

Thank you kind lady. Thanks for the idea of supporting the Zags.
Did you watch the game last night?

Yep! I am was nervous at the beginning, but after the first half I started to breath a little easier. I really hope they get to play in Spokane in the first round.

 

[Meister]

Nice sig!

Thank you kind lady. Thanks for the idea of supporting the Zags.
Did you watch the game last night?

Yep! I am was nervous at the beginning, but after the first half I started to breath a little easier. I really hope they get to play in Spokane in the first round.

Same here......I'm hoping for a top 4 seed in the pairing if they don't unravel from here on out.