Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

I am proud.

Figures....most profoundly stupid people are.

I am also impressed by the lengths to which you have gone to show that there are no current extremes of weather.

Again, you miss the point entirely...there are always, and have always been what have been called extremes of weather. Normal on planet earth has a very wide range. There is nothing unprecedented about the climate anywhere on earth...in fact there is nothing happening on planet earth that even begins to approach the boundaries of natural variability. The claim that mankind is altering the climate should come with something that is new, since man has never altered the climate before. To claim that anthropogenic climate change looks just like natural climate change is idiotic in the extreme.

I'm also impressed by how you have once again conflated climate change and man's contribution to the same.

Mankind has made no contribution to the global climate....the claim that he has is just ignorant.

I'm also impressed by how you dismiss the world's scientific organizations simply by labeling them as dishonest.

Being that they claim that mankind is altering the climate with no empirical evidence to support the claim whatsoever....what would you call them?

But, I'm even more impressed by the scale of the deception. It would have to be a conspiracy involving literally thousands of the world's best scientists, some of whom have little use for the governments under which they operate, and some of whom are not supported by governments at all.

Once more, your lack of depth is startling. Tell me, do you think there was a worldwide conspiracy involved in the incorrect claim by the consensus that cholesterol was causing heart disease? Do you think a world wide conspiracy was involved in the incorrect claim by the consensus that salt causes high blood pressure? Do you think it was a worldwide conspiracy by the consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress? Do you think that it was a worldwide conspiracy by the consensus that plate tectonics was the stuff of fiction? No conspiracy is necessary for bad science to be accepted by the consensus....all that is required is for science to become lazy and forget what the scientific method is all about. The consensus has been wrong throughout history with no need for conspiracy.

And if you took time to look, you might find it quite difficult to find a scientist who is not on the AGW bandwagon who does not depend on government grants to buy his daily bread. I suppose you have never noticed that most of the pro AGW papers being published are financed in large part by government....or agencies who depend heavily on government. Typical liberal blindness.

 

[PLC1]

Figures....most profoundly stupid people are.



Again, you miss the point entirely...there are always, and have always been what have been called extremes of weather. Normal on planet earth has a very wide range. There is nothing unprecedented about the climate anywhere on earth...in fact there is nothing happening on planet earth that even begins to approach the boundaries of natural variability. The claim that mankind is altering the climate should come with something that is new, since man has never altered the climate before. To claim that anthropogenic climate change looks just like natural climate change is idiotic in the extreme.



Mankind has made no contribution to the global climate....the claim that he has is just ignorant.



Being that they claim that mankind is altering the climate with no empirical evidence to support the claim whatsoever....what would you call them?



Once more, your lack of depth is startling. Tell me, do you think there was a worldwide conspiracy involved in the incorrect claim by the consensus that cholesterol was causing heart disease? Do you think a world wide conspiracy was involved in the incorrect claim by the consensus that salt causes high blood pressure? Do you think it was a worldwide conspiracy by the consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress? Do you think that it was a worldwide conspiracy by the consensus that plate tectonics was the stuff of fiction? No conspiracy is necessary for bad science to be accepted by the consensus....all that is required is for science to become lazy and forget what the scientific method is all about. The consensus has been wrong throughout history with no need for conspiracy.

And if you took time to look, you might find it quite difficult to find a scientist who is not on the AGW bandwagon who does not depend on government grants to buy his daily bread. I suppose you have never noticed that most of the pro AGW papers being published are financed in large part by government....or agencies who depend heavily on government. Typical liberal blindness.

Wow.

Now, you want to challenge medical science as well as meteorology.

Cholesterol and heart disease is a well known combination:

How Does High Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease?
When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, it builds up in the walls of your arteries, causing a process called atherosclerosis, a form of heart disease. The arteries become narrowed and blood flow to the heart muscle is slowed down or blocked. The blood carries oxygen to the heart, and if enough blood and oxygen cannot reach your heart, you may suffer chest pain. If the blood supply to a portion of the heart is completely cut off by a blockage, the result is a heart attack.

Too much salt causes high blood pressure:

Salt's effects on your body

Salt works on your kidneys to make your body hold on to more water.

This extra stored water raises your blood pressure and puts strain on your kidneys, arteries, heart and brain.

To find out more about salt's effects on your body, please click on the links below:

If there ever was a conspiracy to make us believe that plate tectonics was the work of fiction, then is was disproved by facts and observations.

And there is no conspiracy between the scientists who "depend on government for their daily bread" and the various governments that supply that bread. Governments have no need to support a belief system not supported by the facts, for one thing, and the scientific organizations, all of which support AGW theory, have no incentive to participate in such a grandiose conspiracy.

 

[palerider]

Wow.

Now, you want to challenge medical science as well as meteorology.

Cholesterol and heart disease is a well known combination:

Sure they are...but like CO2 and global warming, they are not true. People have spent most of history believing well known things that are simply not true. The fact is that the results of dozens of studies with tens of thousands of subjects find that there is no statistical difference between the numbers of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and those who have "normal" cholesterol. That is the fact.....The government has dropped its warmings regarding cholesterol laden foods...that is also the fact. Believe what you wish, but belief doesn't make it so.

Too much salt causes high blood pressure:

Guess that would be why governments are recommending more salt in people's diets now. Those idiotic recommendations that idiots have been living by for decades now just turn out to be more bad science and another instance where the consensus was wrong.

If there ever was a conspiracy to make us believe that plate tectonics was the work of fiction, then is was disproved by facts and observations.

Of course it was....just like cholesterol, salt, and climate science...only the true wackos...and those with something to gain maintain the beliefs.

And there is no conspiracy between the scientists who "depend on government for their daily bread" and the various governments that supply that bread. Governments have no need to support a belief system not supported by the facts, for one thing, and the scientific organizations, all of which support AGW theory, have no incentive to participate in such a grandiose conspiracy.

It is a well known fact that research funding doesn't come to those who propose research that is skeptical of the AGW meme. And of course government has a need to support a belief system not supported by facts...government will support anything that gives government more power. Growing the welfare state was never supported by the facts but they actively supported a belief system that required it and now all these decades later, look at the damage it has done...generational dependence and all the problems that go with it.

Actually, it i s not all of the scientific organizations who support the AGW hypothesis....it is the political heads who support the hypothesis...and why?...easy, follow the money. No scientific organization will actually allow the membership to have any say in their statements regarding the AGW hypothesis because the actual scientists don't support it and don't believe it...and know that the science supporting it is bad science.[/QUOTE]

 

[palerider]

From the Scientific American regarding salt:

[quoteThis week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease......

Worries escalated in the 1970s when Brookhaven National Laboratory's Lewis Dahl claimed that he had "unequivocal" evidence that salt causes hypertension: he induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.)

Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day.


tudies that have explored the direct relationship between salt and heart disease have not fared much better. Among them, a 2006 American Journal of Medicine study compared the reported daily sodium intakes of 78 million Americans to their risk of dying from heart disease over the course of 14 years. It found that the more sodium people ate, the less likely they were to die from heart disease. And a 2007 study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology followed 1,500 older people for five years and found no association between urinary sodium levels and the risk of coronary vascular disease or death


Then there's this:

Sodium has long been labeled the blood-pressure bogeyman. But are we giving salt a fair shake?

A new study published in the American Journal of Hypertension analyzed data from 8,670 French adults and found that salt consumption wasn’t associated with systolic blood pressure in either men or women after controlling for factors like age.

And this:

Should we reduce our salt intake to prevent hypertension (high blood pressure)? According to a European study that measured salt levels in people's urine over an eight-year period, there are more cardiovascular deaths among people with low salt, than high salt. The authors from the University of Leuven, Belgium, who published their findings in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), found absolutely no link between higher salt intake and hypertension risk or complications caused by cardiovascular disease.

And I could go on and on with actual science that contradicts your faith...but my bet is that you are the sort who isn't moved much by actual observation, empirical evidence, and fact. My bet is that you are much more comfortable operating on faith in what the consensus says rather than take on the responsibility of learning for yourself.....and trusting what you have learned.

Maybe you view yourself as stupid and not nearly qualified to question the consensus. Is that it?

 

[PLC1]

From the Scientific American regarding salt:

[quoteThis week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease......

Worries escalated in the 1970s when Brookhaven National Laboratory's Lewis Dahl claimed that he had "unequivocal" evidence that salt causes hypertension: he induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.)

Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day.


tudies that have explored the direct relationship between salt and heart disease have not fared much better. Among them, a 2006 American Journal of Medicine study compared the reported daily sodium intakes of 78 million Americans to their risk of dying from heart disease over the course of 14 years. It found that the more sodium people ate, the less likely they were to die from heart disease. And a 2007 study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology followed 1,500 older people for five years and found no association between urinary sodium levels and the risk of coronary vascular disease or death


Then there's this:

Sodium has long been labeled the blood-pressure bogeyman. But are we giving salt a fair shake?

A new study published in the American Journal of Hypertension analyzed data from 8,670 French adults and found that salt consumption wasn’t associated with systolic blood pressure in either men or women after controlling for factors like age.

And this:

Should we reduce our salt intake to prevent hypertension (high blood pressure)? According to a European study that measured salt levels in people's urine over an eight-year period, there are more cardiovascular deaths among people with low salt, than high salt. The authors from the University of Leuven, Belgium, who published their findings in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), found absolutely no link between higher salt intake and hypertension risk or complications caused by cardiovascular disease.

And I could go on and on with actual science that contradicts your faith...but my bet is that you are the sort who isn't moved much by actual observation, empirical evidence, and fact. My bet is that you are much more comfortable operating on faith in what the consensus says rather than take on the responsibility of learning for yourself.....and trusting what you have learned.

Maybe you view yourself as stupid and not nearly qualified to question the consensus. Is that it?

OK, you've convinced me. Salt has been given a bad rap.

Now, back to climate change:

According to NASA:

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

 

[palerider]

OK, you've convinced me. Salt has been given a bad rap.

Now, back to climate change:

According to NASA:

RIght...Do you ever visit the coast? I do...Lots...and lots of coasts...all over. Funny thing. The landmarks I remember as a child are still there...the coastal features I remember as a child...still there. Distinct little houses built right on the beach in sleepy little towns...still there.

Here, take a look at some world class data manipulation performed for effect:

The black line represents NASA's 1982 sea level figures...the blue line represents the 2015 version of the sea level figures. I can't help but note that they have QUADRUPLED the 1955 - 1980 section of the chart. Can you provide a sound, scientifically rational reason for doing that? Do you think that between 1955 and 1980 people didn't know how to read tide gauges?....and look on back...give me a scientifically valid reason for raising the tide figures on back to 1870? Why do that unless you want to create the impression that sea level is rising faster than ever.

The fact is that this chart represents outright fraud by NASA....give me another plausible explanation...

Do you ever research anything?...or do you just accept whatever someone with your political view tells you because you believe you aren't smart enough to question .

And don't dodge the salt issue so quickly...medical science is a much more rigorous, and tightly controlled branch of research than climate science...and a hard science as opposed to the soft science of climate science...and once again, the consensus was wrong...very wrong when they have known for decades that the research was bad.....but the consensus refused to alter their view...in the face of clear evidence to the contrary..

Face it....the consensus is almost always wrong...And look for a whole new theory of flight to emerge in the next year or so....seems that the consensus in physics has been getting it wrong since the Wright Brothers. Fluid mechanics is going to topple the consensus yet again...and so it goes...we learn and the consensus changes once the eveidence becomes so overwhelming that they can no longer hold to the old idea and retain any credibility whatsoever.

There is a great deal of hard evidence of data tampering from all of the major climate agencies....an effort by the consensus to hold to their ideas. Believe if you like, but know that you have been duped and every time you comment and support the consensus...you are playing the part of "useful idiot".

 

[PLC1]

RIght...Do you ever visit the coast? I do...Lots...and lots of coasts...all over. Funny thing. The landmarks I remember as a child are still there...the coastal features I remember as a child...still there. Distinct little houses built right on the beach in sleepy little towns...still there.

Here, take a look at some world class data manipulation performed for effect:

The black line represents NASA's 1982 sea level figures...the blue line represents the 2015 version of the sea level figures. I can't help but note that they have QUADRUPLED the 1955 - 1980 section of the chart. Can you provide a sound, scientifically rational reason for doing that? Do you think that between 1955 and 1980 people didn't know how to read tide gauges?....and look on back...give me a scientifically valid reason for raising the tide figures on back to 1870? Why do that unless you want to create the impression that sea level is rising faster than ever.

The fact is that this chart represents outright fraud by NASA....give me another plausible explanation...

Do you ever research anything?...or do you just accept whatever someone with your political view tells you because you believe you aren't smart enough to question .

And don't dodge the salt issue so quickly...medical science is a much more rigorous, and tightly controlled branch of research than climate science...and a hard science as opposed to the soft science of climate science...and once again, the consensus was wrong...very wrong when they have known for decades that the research was bad.....but the consensus refused to alter their view...in the face of clear evidence to the contrary..

Face it....the consensus is almost always wrong...And look for a whole new theory of flight to emerge in the next year or so....seems that the consensus in physics has been getting it wrong since the Wright Brothers. Fluid mechanics is going to topple the consensus yet again...and so it goes...we learn and the consensus changes once the eveidence becomes so overwhelming that they can no longer hold to the old idea and retain any credibility whatsoever.

There is a great deal of hard evidence of data tampering from all of the major climate agencies....an effort by the consensus to hold to their ideas. Believe if you like, but know that you have been duped and every time you comment and support the consensus...you are playing the part of "useful idiot".

So, you would expect a sea level rise of a couple of centimeters to be noticeable just by going to the beach? Why?

I can't make heads or tails of the graph you say shows that NASA is putting us on.

So, now you think that bernoulli's principle is going to be overturned soon?

 

[palerider]

So, you would expect a sea level rise of a couple of centimeters to be noticeable just by going to the beach? Why?

You are without a doubt, one of the most dishonest people on this board....A couple of centimeters per year over the course of 60 years would most certainly be noticeable don't you think? The claimed couple of centimeters per year since I was old enough to actually notice buildings and landmarks would amount to about 120cm...or about 47 inches of sea level rise...are you going to tell me that 47 inches of sea level rise would not be noticeable?

I can't make heads or tails of the graph you say shows that NASA is putting us on.

Of course you can't....by your own admission, you aren't smart enough to look at actual data and make a determination as to what it means...so you simply accept what you have been told....

Here, let me separate the two graphs as I pointed out already, and perhaps you can begin to understand what you are seeing although if you actually do understand it, it is a sure bet that you will deny what you see.

The present 2015 version of sea level rise since 1870...

the 1982 version of sea level rise since 1880.

The two charts overlaid to demonstrate how much data manipulation has happened to create the 2015 version of the chart.

Here is another graph that you probably won't be able to make heads or tails of...it documents the rapidly falling published estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2....It is hard evidence of just how wrong the consensus has been...the estimates are rapidly approaching zero where they belong...the climate is not sensitive to CO2...unless perhaps a small negative sensitivity exists.

So, now you think that bernoulli's principle is going to be overturned soon?

I am saying that the present scientific explanation for how lift is generated is soon to be overturned.

 

[PLC1]

You are without a doubt, one of the most dishonest people on this board....A couple of centimeters per year over the course of 60 years would most certainly be noticeable don't you think? The claimed couple of centimeters per year since I was old enough to actually notice buildings and landmarks would amount to about 120cm...or about 47 inches of sea level rise...are you going to tell me that 47 inches of sea level rise would not be noticeable?

I'm beginning to wonder about your data. Who ever said anything about a rise of a couple of centimeters per year? Your graph shows a couple of centimeters since 1870, which is in line with what the actual experts are saying.

So, no, it's not dishonest to ask whether you actually think that a rise of a couple of centimeters would actually be noticeable.

Of course you can't....by your own admission, you aren't smart enough to look at actual data and make a determination as to what it means...so you simply accept what you have been told....

Here, let me separate the two graphs as I pointed out already, and perhaps you can begin to understand what you are seeing although if you actually do understand it, it is a sure bet that you will deny what you see.

The present 2015 version of sea level rise since 1870...

the 1982 version of sea level rise since 1880.

The two charts overlaid to demonstrate how much data manipulation has happened to create the 2015 version of the chart.

Here is another graph that you probably won't be able to make heads or tails of...it documents the rapidly falling published estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2....It is hard evidence of just how wrong the consensus has been...the estimates are rapidly approaching zero where they belong...the climate is not sensitive to CO2...unless perhaps a small negative sensitivity exists.

So, NASA has revised its figures based on new data, and that means they are a bunch of lying SOBs who are simply telling the government what it wants to hear, and I'm too stupid to understand their manipulation.

Since you're arguing a point that can't possibly be supported, I suppose ad hominem attacks are all you have.

I am saying that the present scientific explanation for how lift is generated is soon to be overturned.

That would be Bernoulli's principle.

What other basic physical principles do you think are about to be challenged? Will Newton's Third Law of motion be repealed? Will the young Earth creationists be proven correct? What other predictions are you making based on your revision of science?

 

[palerider]

So, NASA has revised its figures based on new data, and that means they are a bunch of lying SOBs who are simply telling the government what it wants to hear, and I'm too stupid to understand their manipulation.

What "new data" would require altering the sea level record back to 1870? Was there a whole secret record that has just been discovered? I asked for a rational scientifically valid reason to alter sea level records back to the 1800's...clearly you can't provide one....unsurprising since NASA can't either.. The data has just been altered to create the illusion of more sea level rise than has actually happened. It is called fraud.

That would be Bernoulli's principle.

Wait and watch...the principles of flight will be yet another topic on which the consensus has been wrong. Again, the consensus is almost always wrong....

 

[PLC1]

What "new data" would require altering the sea level record back to 1870? Was there a whole secret record that has just been discovered? I asked for a rational scientifically valid reason to alter sea level records back to the 1800's...clearly you can't provide one....unsurprising since NASA can't either.. The data has just been altered to create the illusion of more sea level rise than has actually happened. It is called fraud.



Wait and watch...the principles of flight will be yet another topic on which the consensus has been wrong. Again, the consensus is almost always wrong....

OK, when Bernoulli's principle is found to be faulty, I'll begin to think you really have a case.
When Newton's third law is repealed, then I'll know that you must be right.

Either that, or I've fallen into an alternate universe.

 

[palerider]

OK, when Bernoulli's principle is found to be faulty, I'll begin to think you really have a case.
When Newton's third law is repealed, then I'll know that you must be right.

Either that, or I've fallen into an alternate universe.

Dodge much? What new data would require altering sea levels up back to 1870?

And it is the Kutta-Zhukovsky circulation theory which supposedly explains the theory of flight....it is not an accurate representation of either Bernoulli's principle or Newton's third law. It is the Kutta-Zhukovsky circulation theory which is presented in areronautical engineering textbooks to describe how and why a wing creates lift......and it is incorrect. Modern fluid dynamics make this demonstrably so,. Sorry guy...consensus is wrong again...as always.

 

[PLC1]

Dodge much? What new data would require altering sea levels up back to 1870?

And it is the Kutta-Zhukovsky circulation theory which supposedly explains the theory of flight....it is not an accurate representation of either Bernoulli's principle or Newton's third law. It is the Kutta-Zhukovsky circulation theory which is presented in areronautical engineering textbooks to describe how and why a wing creates lift......and it is incorrect. Modern fluid dynamics make this demonstrably so,. Sorry guy...consensus is wrong again...as always.

and when the planet begins to cool off and planes fall out of the sky, you will be proven correct.

 

[palerider]

and when the planet begins to cool off and planes fall out of the sky, you will be proven correct.

You made the claim that new data resulted in the modification of the sea level record...again, what new data would require that the sea level record be altered up all the way back to 1870? What's the matter? Can't bring yourself to admit that there is no such data which would require a wholesale change of the sea level record and you simply can't bring yourself to admit that your religious leaders are cooking the books to create the appearance of imminent disaster because the actual world is not cooperating?

What new data would require that sea level measurements taken all the way back to 1870 be altered?

 

[PLC1]

You made the claim that new data resulted in the modification of the sea level record...again, what new data would require that the sea level record be altered up all the way back to 1870? What's the matter? Can't bring yourself to admit that there is no such data which would require a wholesale change of the sea level record and you simply can't bring yourself to admit that your religious leaders are cooking the books to create the appearance of imminent disaster because the actual world is not cooperating?

What new data would require that sea level measurements taken all the way back to 1870 be altered?

First, science is wrong about the physics of heavier than air flight, and now scientists are "religious leaders."

Being, like yourself, a non scientist, I'm not sure what led to the revision of past sea levels. You seem to think it's a part of the great conspiracy between every modern nation and every scientific organization to delude us into thinking that global warming is really happening.

I suppose when the Maldives discover that sea levels really aren't rising after all, then the great conspiracy hoax will be revealed for what it is:

Since the 1950s, sea level in and around the Maldives has been rising at a rate of 0.03–0.06 inches (0.8–1.6 millimeters) per year.7,8,9 Because of the Maldivian topography, small changes in sea level translate into extensive land inundation.

Rising seas pose a looming threat to homes and industries near the coast. Even small increases in sea level are likely to worsen existing environmental challenges on the islands, such as persistent flooding from waves often generated by storms far away. More than 90 of the inhabited Maldives islands experience annual floods.5 In 2007, a series of swells forced the evacuation of more than 1,600 people from their homes and damaged more than 500 housing units.10