Why do so many people deny climate change

[edthecynic]

Temperatures are imputed from other data. Didn't you read what I posted?

What were the old and new imputed temperatures?

THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning. Sensors attached to elephant seals? Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.

ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.

 

[freedombecki]

You said, "the current status being warmer deep ocean temperatures"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...eople-deny-climate-change-53.html#post7867115

Were you lying?

Temperatures are imputed from other data. Didn't you read what I posted?

What were the old and new imputed temperatures?

You're correct, Toddsterpatriot. Not one temperature was stated in his link, and it too had a "link" which also had not one temperature stated.

Anyone can postulate. Good information is validated with the facts or it could be a misrepresentation, given the nature of those who signed on to agree to omit climatic data to procure foundation and government money demands made by those unworthy of telling the truth or obfuscating it.

You're right to request proof, and thank you for drawing that out in this discussion, although if you are heeded, of course your opponents will become better debaters. I just gave away the USMB secret for getting at the truth. *sigh* ~ my bad.

 

[bripat9643]

What were the old and new imputed temperatures?

THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning. Sensors attached to elephant seals? Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.

ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.

They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.

 

[edthecynic]

THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning. Sensors attached to elephant seals? Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.

ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.

They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.

Global temperature has not stopped increasing. You've been had!

 

[bripat9643]

ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.

They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.

Global temperature has not stopped increasing. You've been had!

Yes they have.

 

[PMZ]

THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning. Sensors attached to elephant seals? Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.

ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.

They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.

Only true for positions that have no science or scientific resources.

 

[PMZ]

Temperatures are imputed from other data. Didn't you read what I posted?

What were the old and new imputed temperatures?

You're correct, Toddsterpatriot. Not one temperature was stated in his link, and it too had a "link" which also had not one temperature stated.

Anyone can postulate. Good information is validated with the facts or it could be a misrepresentation, given the nature of those who signed on to agree to omit climatic data to procure foundation and government money demands made by those unworthy of telling the truth or obfuscating it.

You're right to request proof, and thank you for drawing that out in this discussion, although if you are heeded, of course your opponents will become better debaters. I just gave away the USMB secret for getting at the truth. *sigh* ~ my bad.

Clearly you're one of the dupped who believes that you are entitled to knowledge without the investment of education.

Something for nothing.

Scientists know so much more than you ever will because they earned it.

Invest nothing, get nothing.

It's hard to be free from the yoke of ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

It all boils down to this. Who knows more about climate and weather. Climate scientists or conservative politicians.

That’s pretty easy.

Who is more likely to create solution scenarios.

That’s pretty easy too.

Who's more likely to be objective. Those who are paid for their scientific work or those who are paid to maintain the status quo.

Pretty easy choice.

Appeal to authority. Either you have evidence, or you don't. Claiming that the AGW magicians have some kind of special knowledge that us mere mortals couldn't hope to comprehend is the work of a con man.

Either you have education to understand or you don't.

Your pitiful whining that you are entitled to know more than you've earned by education is like saying you could kick LeBron's ass in one on one.

To say that it lacks credibility is the world's biggest understatement

 

[PMZ]

Temperatures are imputed from other data. Didn't you read what I posted?

What were the old and new imputed temperatures?

THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning. Sensors attached to elephant seals? Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.

Show is your data.

 

[PMZ]

It all boils down to this. Who knows more about climate and weather. Climate scientists or conservative politicians.

That’s pretty easy.

Who is more likely to create solution scenarios.

That’s pretty easy too.

Who's more likely to be objective. Those who are paid for their scientific work or those who are paid to maintain the status quo.

Pretty easy choice.

Does this mean you were lying about imputed temperatures?

Frankly, I'm shocked. Someone with your science background spreading lies.
Are you Michael Mann? Don't sue me.
Love your Nobel Prize.

Show me your evidence of my lies. Your case is weaker than McIntyre's defense.

 

[PMZ]

What about it? None of those claims are proven.

Patrick's mechanic explains to him how cars work and what is wrong with his. He replies, "What about it? None of those claims are proven.

Trenberth doesn't know how the climate works, moron. Equating his knowledge of climate with a mechanics knowledge of the workings of a car is begging the question. neither you nor any other AGW nitwit has demonstrated that anything he says is true.

''Trenberth doesn't know how the climate works''

Another classic for the museum of conservative claptrap.

 

[PMZ]

Trenberth doesn't mention proxies, so your claim is bullshit on its face. the fact is he has no evidence to support his claim. It's pure moonshine.

If only you were right. Unfortunately, you're just plain wrong about most everything. Too bad.

Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to prove I am wrong. That is so typical for you. We are just supposed to believe the all-knowing mighty Trenberth knows because he's a "climate scientist."

Excuse my while a wretch.

The evidence in Trenberth's favor is extensive. The evidence in your favor is, well, nonexistent. It's what you wish was true.

Conservatives are defined by entitlement. ''We are owed credibility because we want it''.

Let's hear a big ''BULLSHIT'' for that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It all boils down to this. Who knows more about climate and weather. Climate scientists or conservative politicians.

That’s pretty easy.

Who is more likely to create solution scenarios.

That’s pretty easy too.

Who's more likely to be objective. Those who are paid for their scientific work or those who are paid to maintain the status quo.

Pretty easy choice.

Does this mean you were lying about imputed temperatures?

Frankly, I'm shocked. Someone with your science background spreading lies.
Are you Michael Mann? Don't sue me.
Love your Nobel Prize.

Show me your evidence of my lies. Your case is weaker than McIntyre's defense.

Use that education of yours and post the before and after "imputed temperatures" from deep below the ocean. Thanks!

Unless you're a big fat liar?

 

[bripat9643]

What were the old and new imputed temperatures?

THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning. Sensors attached to elephant seals? Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.

Show is your data.

There is no data, numskull. That's precisely the point. You and the con man Trenberth claim all this heat went into the deep ocean, but neither of you can cough up any numbers.

Do you know how to spell "hoax?"

 

[bripat9643]

If only you were right. Unfortunately, you're just plain wrong about most everything. Too bad.

Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to prove I am wrong. That is so typical for you. We are just supposed to believe the all-knowing mighty Trenberth knows because he's a "climate scientist."

Excuse my while a wretch.

The evidence in Trenberth's favor is extensive. The evidence in your favor is, well, nonexistent. It's what you wish was true.

Conservatives are defined by entitlement. ''We are owed credibility because we want it''.

Let's hear a big ''BULLSHIT'' for that.

What "evidence" is there in Trenberth's favor?

 

[bripat9643]

Patrick's mechanic explains to him how cars work and what is wrong with his. He replies, "What about it? None of those claims are proven.

Trenberth doesn't know how the climate works, moron. Equating his knowledge of climate with a mechanics knowledge of the workings of a car is begging the question. neither you nor any other AGW nitwit has demonstrated that anything he says is true.

''Trenberth doesn't know how the climate works''

Another classic for the museum of conservative claptrap.

I guess we can assume he knows how the climate works because of all his highly accurate predictions about the climate. . . . . .

WHOOPS!

All his predictions have been wrong!

No banana!

 

[bripat9643]

It all boils down to this. Who knows more about climate and weather. Climate scientists or conservative politicians.

That’s pretty easy.

Who is more likely to create solution scenarios.

That’s pretty easy too.

Who's more likely to be objective. Those who are paid for their scientific work or those who are paid to maintain the status quo.

Pretty easy choice.

Appeal to authority. Either you have evidence, or you don't. Claiming that the AGW magicians have some kind of special knowledge that us mere mortals couldn't hope to comprehend is the work of a con man.

Either you have education to understand or you don't.

Your pitiful whining that you are entitled to know more than you've earned by education is like saying you could kick LeBron's ass in one on one.

To say that it lacks credibility is the world's biggest understatement

That has got to be the weakest, most infantile argument ever posted in this forum.

"You're stupid" is not a valid argument. That's the kind of thing 2nd graders yell at each other on the playground.

 

[bripat9643]

ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.

They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.

Only true for positions that have no science or scientific resources.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If they have the data, then you should be able to produce it.

 

[PMZ]

They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.

Only true for positions that have no science or scientific resources.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If they have the data, then you should be able to produce it.

Trenberth's paper took existing data from many data bases from many sources and analyzed them, using climate science, to impute the increasing energy going into the deep ocean for the last decades.

You have no science, no data, no resources, no theories, no applicable education, no computing capability, no statistics, but claim that what you want to be true is more likely than what he calculated.

WTF????

 

[PMZ]

Here's Trenberth's analysis. If you have alternative scientific evidence that improves on his, be specific about what basis for his analysis you can improve on, and why you believe so.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?embe...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf