Global Warming Test

Onceler said:
"LMAO... really? Because this is the first thing I got.."

No, no....laugh MY ass off. Check my other link on this guy.

He is deep in the pocket of the industry. Sorry, SF - another embarassment of a thread for you.
Click to expand...

"Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.)"

From your site.... sourcewatch....

From Goddard..... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. "

Do note the chart.... it shows quite clearly that the average temperature went up in some years and down in others. imagine that.... weather and temperatures varying. Who would have thunk it.

But I know.... oil companies. Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
Whilst the fuckwit ideologues are masturbating over websites that purport to debunk global climate change the rest of us are quietly understanding it, doing what we can as individuals to mitigate it (including voting and pressuring the few recaclitrant fuckwits in our own political systems who still don't get it).

If you can't get out from your own cloying ideology then too bad. But don't post fucking jokes and pretend they're somehow to be taken seriously. Fucking lamebrained fuckwits. Troglodytes. Braindead twats.
 
Ya know what diet...

Diuretic said:
Whilst the fuckwit ideologues are masturbating over websites that purport to debunk global climate change the rest of us are quietly understanding it, doing what we can as individuals to mitigate it (including voting and pressuring the few recaclitrant fuckwits in our own political systems who still don't get it).

If you can't get out from your own cloying ideology then too bad. But don't post fucking jokes and pretend they're somehow to be taken seriously. Fucking lamebrained fuckwits. Troglodytes. Braindead twats.
Click to expand...



I like ya and all and would share a cold one and some shrimp on the Barbee...however being that ya are getting close to retirement and all...are you going def? Stanford is a well respected University, are you saying you being a LE officer are smarter?...Pa-Lease!
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."[3]

A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming [4][5].
Click to expand...

ahh yes the new meaning of political science.
 
Diuretic said:
Whilst the fuckwit ideologues are masturbating over websites that purport to debunk global climate change the rest of us are quietly understanding it, doing what we can as individuals to mitigate it (including voting and pressuring the few recaclitrant fuckwits in our own political systems who still don't get it).

If you can't get out from your own cloying ideology then too bad. But don't post fucking jokes and pretend they're somehow to be taken seriously. Fucking lamebrained fuckwits. Troglodytes. Braindead twats.
Click to expand...

I note you also do not have an answer.... global satellite data shows that temperatures are where they were ten years ago.... why is that?

Side note... I do believe in correcting our habits. Driving towards eliminating as much pollution and emissions as we can. Working towards this is beneficial for our health and our national security. What I do not like is when the consensus ideologues try to shut down every disagreement with their glorified chant of "its mans fault". Note they do not argue with the data.... they simply try to shout.... "the oil companies paid him" Ignoring the data itself.

Note as well.... the idiots like Gumby are more concerned with who is to blame than in finding solutions. If an individual does not chant "it is CO2" or "Consensus" then that individual is mocked as a global warming denier. But bottom line.... the reality is we recognize that man may be contributing, we just don't care how much and thus mock their precious consensus.

Final note.... are the 19000 American scientists that signed Oregons petition that disagree with the IPCC etc.... all under the pay of the oil companies?
 
Superfreak said:
I note you also do not have an answer.... global satellite data shows that temperatures are where they were ten years ago.... why is that?

snip?
Click to expand...

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.


source: NASA


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html
 
very good gumby... gold star for you....

Now note what else does the chart tell us?

That 2007 was the same as 1998.... thus the global tempertures on average have not increased in the past decade.... and that temps have declined from the 2005 peak. (according to Goddard, the peak was due to a weird el nino event)

edit.... so if man is indeed the primary cause.... are we doing that much better that we have negated our effect?
 
Last edited:
Does the chart tell us that all 9 planets have shown to be warming as well? Or was that left out of that chart?
 
Damocles said:
Does the chart tell us that all 9 planets have shown to be warming as well? Or was that left out of that chart?
Click to expand...

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

Not sure how accurate this is, so all you global consensus religious freaks just take a deep breath and try not to let the anger consume you.... Just posting for actual discussion for those who are not closed minded and/or kool aid drinkers.

Side note... this was another aspect of the "test" originally posted.... the one the kool aid drinkers just skipped over to get right into their "consensus" chanting.
 
"the one the kool aid drinkers just skipped over to get right into their "consensus" chanting."

I just went over the whole thread, and the only one who mentioned the word "consensus" was you.

Don't ever make me do that again.
 
Onceler said:
"the one the kool aid drinkers just skipped over to get right into their "consensus" chanting."

I just went over the whole thread, and the only one who mentioned the word "consensus" was you.

Don't ever make me do that again.
Click to expand...

Oh puhlease! You're entire belief in AGW rests on that consensus. You never ever talk about the science dude. You never link the studies that the IPCC cites. You just parrot consensus.
 
tinfoil said:
Oh puhlease! You're entire belief in AGW rests on that consensus. You never ever talk about the science dude. You never link the studies that the IPCC cites. You just parrot consensus.
Click to expand...

Superfreak implied that the thread devolved into a bunch of koolaid drinkers "chanting consensus."

Was he right, or wrong?

Try to give a simple one word answer on that.
 
Onceler said:
"the one the kool aid drinkers just skipped over to get right into their "consensus" chanting."

I just went over the whole thread, and the only one who mentioned the word "consensus" was you.

Don't ever make me do that again.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... ok... then try to discuss and inform.... look at the data... explain it to me. Because it is data like that which makes me skeptical of the consensus view that man is the primary cause.
 
Onceler said:
Superfreak implied that the thread devolved into a bunch of koolaid drinkers "chanting consensus."

Was he right, or wrong?

Try to give a simple one word answer on that.
Click to expand...

"I really on information about climate change from the US National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, the Joint National Science Academies of the G-8 countries, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Adminstration. "

Sorry, but comments like the above are pretty much saying "consensus" without actually saying the word. Just my opinion.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... ok... then try to discuss and inform.... look at the data... explain it to me. Because it is data like that which makes me skeptical of the consensus view that man is the primary cause.
Click to expand...

It's boneheaded & stupid to keep implying that "temperature hasn't changed in a decade" using only 2007 & 1998, as you have, and ignoring all of the years in between.

If you tried to make that argument at a meeting of climatoligists, they'd chuckle, and then move onto a more comprehensive look at the last decade. It's embarassing.

And you didn't weasel out of your paranoid, delusional contention that a bunch of koolaid drinkers were chanting "consensus" on this thread. That was a complete fabrication; again, very embarassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top