Why are tax dollars being spent on efforts that have a 2/3rds chance of being wrong?

[rightwinger]

Statistical confidence is based on your sample size and measurement variables

Based on that you will have a mean temperature with plus and minus confidence

So, if 2014 has a 38 percent confidence it is the hottest on record
2002 has a 12 percent confidence it is the hottest on record
1993 has a 3 percent confidence it is the hottest on record

Guess which year gets reported as the hottest on record?

That's like saying if you buy two lottery tickets and everyone else buys one they should report you are the winner.

Ummmm.....no, it's nothing like that

Why don't you try again?

 

[healthmyths]

Any of you global warming evangelistas care to refute these 3 simple questions?
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased. Some one explain why we should now believe NOAA/NASA data/
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil depends on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. Explain where that warm weather came from before man?

 

[BULLDOG]

Scientist take that into account in establishing normal rates of change. We have an accelerated rate of change since 1900 and there must be some factor causing that acceleration
97% believe that factor to be human. That is an overwhelming concurrence in what the data indicates

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Oh, they believe.. well, there's your science.

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

My guess is that it's a little of both.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes it is

And your science comes from where? Talk radio?

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

 

[Sonny Clark]

My FACTS come from these realities and their sources:
1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals lived in cold Arctic then died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps,?

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

 

[BULLDOG]

You could be absolutely right for all I know. All you have to do is get the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with you, and I'm sure you will have all the support you want. As soon as all those experts agree with you, only a fool would doubt your opinion. However, a few people posting on a political discussion board really don't have the credibility that that huge majority of experts do. I gotta go with the experts on this for now, but I'm sure you will be able to bring them around to your way of thinking if your data is more convincing than what they have been relying on. I wish you luck in your efforts.

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

 

[Sonny Clark]

Hey remember Gruber's "stupidity of American Voter"???
Holds true with the 97% "scientists" of which how many are actually climate scientists by the way, get their direction from the MSM that also "believes" in GW.
With that said... please answer my 3 simple questions:
1) how can there be global warming if 12.5% of the earth's land mass was never included.
2) NOAA removed 600 weather stations because their reporting was biased.
3) If GW is man made please explain Arctic oil? Oil dependent on decayed plants that grew in warm climates. How come??

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

 

[BULLDOG]

Neither of us has the education required to speak with authority on this subject. I believe the vast majority of experts. Are you saying all those experts just don't know what they are talking about, or that they are all part of some world wide conspiracy to defraud the public?

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

 

[Sonny Clark]

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

I don't listen to the radio, and don't watch fox.

 

[BULLDOG]

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

I don't listen to the radio, and don't watch fox.

Sure you don't. I believe you, but I'm not sure anyone else in the world would.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

I don't listen to the radio, and don't watch fox.

Sure you don't. I believe you, but I'm not sure anyone else in the world would.

Not my problem my friend. Regardless of what ones says, there's always those that can't fully comprehend what's said.

 

[kaz]

Statistical confidence is based on your sample size and measurement variables

Based on that you will have a mean temperature with plus and minus confidence

So, if 2014 has a 38 percent confidence it is the hottest on record
2002 has a 12 percent confidence it is the hottest on record
1993 has a 3 percent confidence it is the hottest on record

Guess which year gets reported as the hottest on record?

That's like saying if you buy two lottery tickets and everyone else buys one they should report you are the winner.

Ummmm.....no, it's nothing like that

Why don't you try again?

Another liberal without a critical mind, another drop in the ocean.

 

[healthmyths]

My guess is that it's a little of both.

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

NO one has answered my 3 simple questions!
And again for some of you idiots that don't READ... here are the links for the statements!

1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
* Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory and that the Hadley Center had used data from only 25% of such stations in its reports so over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations. The data of stations located in areas not used in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News
Scientists Using Selective Temperature Data Skeptics Say Global Climate Scam

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals live in cold Arctic that died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps?

Again... please explain why reducing temperature reading stations improves temperature reading?
Please explain how come there is oil in a region not hospitable to plant growth?

 

[BULLDOG]

Is there any credible information you would like to share supporting either of those things, or is that just what Hannity told you to think?

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

NO one has answered my 3 simple questions!
And again for some of you idiots that don't READ... here are the links for the statements!

1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
* Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory and that the Hadley Center had used data from only 25% of such stations in its reports so over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations. The data of stations located in areas not used in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News
Scientists Using Selective Temperature Data Skeptics Say Global Climate Scam

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals live in cold Arctic that died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps?

Again... please explain why reducing temperature reading stations improves temperature reading?
Please explain how come there is oil in a region not hospitable to plant growth?

Nobody cares about your questions because you are just another right winger with no education relevant to the subject spouting what you have been told. Convince the experts, cause that is who sane people will believe.

 

[healthmyths]

I don't watch Hannity. What I think is that the Earth has been in constant change since there was an Earth, and it'll continue to change regardless of what man does, or the energy sources that we use, or the cars we drive, or the amount of air we breath. At one time, the Earth was way too hot to support life. Then, at one time, the Earth was in what is known as the Ice Age. The Earth has volcanos, earth quakes, floods, draughts, and other natural events that also determine weather patterns. We have El NINO, El NINA, and changing ocean currents. The Earth is never stagnant, it's ever changing. We may go through a period of what we consider to be abnormal or unusual weather, then the weather patterns may reverse themselves and go to the other extreme. Hell, we don't know right now what the weather will be on the last day of February, let alone ten years from now. It's all guess work and data induced forecasting, nothing more. How many so-called "climate experts" are willing to bet the farm that they're 110% correct? Would they lay their life on the line to prove that they are correct?

When you have the backing of the vast majority of experts, let me know. Your ideas sound reasonable to a layman, but that's because we don't know as much about it as the experts, and we are both just laymen in that particular field..

That kind of nonsense is not worth my time. That subject is way down on my priority list. You keep following it and let me know what hard, rock solid, concrete, undeniable, un disputed evidence that appears across the news. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

No problem, and if you come up with anything other than what you hear on right wing radio or fox, let me know.

NO one has answered my 3 simple questions!
And again for some of you idiots that don't READ... here are the links for the statements!

1) When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
* Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory and that the Hadley Center had used data from only 25% of such stations in its reports so over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations. The data of stations located in areas not used in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
So explain why 12.5% of the land mass was NOT included over the last 63 year in temperature data?

2) Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News
Scientists Using Selective Temperature Data Skeptics Say Global Climate Scam

3) There are 19 geological basins making up the Arctic region. Some of these basins have experienced oil and gas exploration, most notably the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. However, only half the basins - such as theBeaufort Sea and the West Barents Sea - have been explored.
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.
The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil

Prove to me how plants/animals live in cold Arctic that died and became the dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps?

Again... please explain why reducing temperature reading stations improves temperature reading?
Please explain how come there is oil in a region not hospitable to plant growth?

Nobody cares about your questions because you are just another right winger with no education relevant to the subject spouting what you have been told. Convince the experts, cause that is who sane people will believe.

And nobody cares about your comments because they are like all childish responses, i.e. you have NOTHING to refute the above statements!
It doesn't take a scientist to figure out if they don't have temperature recording devices on 12.5% of the Earth's mass AND the major premise of global warming
is BASED on these temperature readings...the readings are skewed!
That's why you can't believe these 97% because if they are so stupid NOT to question that they are NOT experts!
Also... someone should tell these 97% "scientists" that the Arctic circle was once WARM enough to grow plants that died and decayed into petroleum!

Those above comments don't require "scientific" bona fides! Common sense would tell you if you locate a thermometer near a heat source...geez it will read higher!
Please it shouldn't take a "expert" to tell you that that weather station will read higher! Duh!!!