Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

At the very worst it's no different than IPCC's case. But we know they have gone through far more than cherry picking data.

I wouldn't assume that these guys actually "know" anything. They exhibit a level of faith that only the most brain dead of cultists could muster... Can you imagine...thinking that one could achieve a measurement accurate to .4mm with a ruler that is off by amounts varying from zero to 7 feet 10 inches...or that any branch of science could actually be settled to the point that 97% of scientists in that field agree when there is far more we don't know about the basics of that science that what we do know...Can you imagine how in the dark one must be to believe that is science and not money and politics at work?

 

[Lagboltz]

You warmer wackos have faith in abundance

Contrary to what you think, I have never expressed believe that climate science is understood nor can be modeled to an accuracy that has any meaning. I have no idea nor belief what the temperature or sea level will be in 50 or 100 years. However if someone wants to take a stance one way or the other, there is one precept that should not be embraced: bad, or misunderstood science.

It is amazing that someone who is so anti-science keeps yakking about science as though he understood it. Again your arguments are just a simple sulky lashing out. Poor petulant pale believes more in gut feel than in science or math. That is called,

Truthiness, a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.​

You prefer your gut feeling over solid proven mathematics of statistics.
You prefer your gut feeling that the CMB was never discovered.
You prefer your gut feeling of fantasy over the successes of quantum mechanics.
You prefer your gut feeling over the second law of thermodynamics and come to a conclusion that there is a black streak between light bulbs because the radiation cancels out

As far as back-radiation from atmospheric CO2, two of the most well-known outspoken critics of AGW are Dr Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts. Even these critics of the same thing you are critical of have stated that they think your understanding of thermodynamics is flat wrong.

Dr Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

… the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.

In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave....​

Anthony Watts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/11/the-spencer-challenge-to-slayersprincipia/

Dr. Roy Spencer has made a challenge to the Slayers/Principia folks who keep insisting the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all. My view has always been that it exists. and has been effectively modeled as well as observed/measured (up to a point, so far I don’t know of a full scale measurement being done for the entire vertical column of the atmosphere), but likely isn’t the catastrophic issue portrayed by alarmists due to climate sensitivity likely being low.
​

You are the one who has given meaning to wacko.

 

[PLC1]

So are you saying that at present climate science can provide a complete, sequential, and accurate description of the movement through earth's system or are you saying that the issue has become so biased and political that 97% of climate scientists will say whatever is necessary to support the narrative. Those are the only two choices because if climate science can't describe, completely and accurately, how energy moves through the system and what causes negative feedbacks and what causes positive feedbacks then the very idea that 97% of the scientists in the field would be sure enough of anything is ludicrous.

OK, good. Let's by all means start with a false dichotomy.

Consensus is a statement of politics...not science and your belief in the 97% lie, again, only highlights your gullibility. I doubt that you could find a 97% consensus on exactly what mechanism drives something as fundamental as gravity.....to believe that 97% of climate scientists think that the science is settled and there is nothing left to learn regarding energy moving through the earth system and how that movement might affect the climate is to believe in fairy tales.

followed up by a mis statement of the position of 97% of scientists and 100% of all scientific organizations on Earth....

You warmer wackos have faith in abundance...I will hand you that...but faith has nothing to do with science which is skeptical by nature....


I knew that you were mostly in the dark regarding science from previous discussions but to be so in the dark that you can't see through the 97% BS....or see the ramifications of having a situation where 97% of scientists agree that climate science is settled when something as basic as the albedo of the earth remains a question is just plain stupid. Congratulations....you have lowered the bar to a whole new level.

You and lagboltz are really a couple of characters....you believe that climate science can be settled when there is far more that we don't know about how energy moves through the system than what we do know, and lagboltz believes that you can achieve, through statistics, an accuracy of .4mm PER YEAR out of a sensing device that has a margin of error of 2.4 meters...that's a margin of error of just over 7 feet 10 inches per measurement. You two have faith of biblical proportions (or you are just plain stupid)...you should wear sack cloth...grow beards, and live in the desert for 40 days at a time eating locusts and honey.

and then follow that with an ad hominem...


Good job.

Of course, you've taken an untenable position, so ad hominem, false dichotomy... that's about all you have to argue with.

The original statement was that only 3% of scientific papers counter basic AGW theory, and that the 3% have been found to be riddled with errors, much as your arguments are riddled with errors.

Here is a source you can use for future arguments.

 

[PLC1]

 

[palerider]

Not that I think you warmers will be interested in seeing actual evidence of the level of fraud happening within mainstream climate science, but let me show an example for the benefit of those who aren't taking their kook-aid intravenously. This particular example is of the blatant altering of past sea level data in an effort to reinforce the imminent climate disaster narrative.

Luckily, old data is still hanging around to be found to bring the fraud of the climate science modern climate science community into high relief. This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA. The graph shows an increase of just over 3 inches of sea level increase between 1880 and 1980....NOTE the sharp decrease in the rate of increase after 1950.

You can't really scare people with a 3 inch sea level increase over a 100 year period so the frauds in climate science increased the figure to 6 inches per century with nothing more than adjustments.... NOTE the completely FAKE acceleration after 1950.

Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale. One is scientific in nature...showing actual observed sea level increases...the other is a piece of alarmist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with supporting a fraudulent narrative.

Then in 2004, the University of Colorado showed 2.8 mm per year rate of sea level increase.

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...Graph look familiar lagboltz? You presented as "credible". What a laugh.

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

So some numbers got a massage and a picture was painted to give the appearance of imminent disaster. Shit happens...right? But when the "spokes agency" for modern climate science repeats the fraud as truth....we have real evidence of deliberate data corruption with the intent to deceive regarding climate change. In 1990 the IPCC said:

Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990.

The 2013 IPCC report (AR5) concluded, “there is high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries, and it is likely that GMSL (Global Mean Sea Level) has accelerated since the early 1900’s

And then there is the obvious fraud happening with the reporting regarding Arctic ice....claims of the demise of polar bears are enough to bring on tears...while in reality, arctic ice has increased 37% since 2012 with no sign that the trend is slowing with this summer being the shortest melt season on record and this past September's ice growth breaking all records with the winter just beginning.

And then there is the developing fraud from those who are working on the OCO2 project. OCO2 is a satellite put into orbit to observe and report on atmospheric CO2 concentrations and distributions around the world. Not much coming out of there so far for all the hype the satellite got leading up to its launch. An early graph got out showing the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere worldwide in October November 2014... It doesn't paint the picture that climate science was expecting. Not much for alarmists to use. It is interesting to note that apparently CO2 is not the "well mixed" gas within the atmosphere that climate science, and the models they produce assumed.

The data is available but is the HDF format not useable by any currently available commercial software. Luckily there are those who have the requisite skill set to write software and look at, and make public the raw data. Here is e public the raw data. Here is the same raw data processed by the software non NASA software.

Very much the same without the alarmist color scheme for effect. He then processed the ongoing adjustments that NASA is making to the data. The picture is changing radically. Here is NASA's "adjusted" data from April to May 2015.

Expect to see this soon with accompanying headlines simply stating OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!

Anyone...and I mean anyone who accepts as fact....or even credible science, anything coming from the mainstream climate science community regarding surface temperature trends...sea level increases...polar ice, .or even atmospheric CO2 distribution and concentration is either operating entirely from a position of misguided faith, a deliberate shill for the mainstream science community pushing misinformation for political purposes, or ................................. just plain stupid.

 

[palerider]

Its so easy to demonstrate the incredible level of fraud happening within climate science now that it is scary. Here is a fine example of blatant and deliberate scientific fraud by NASA.

In 2005 GISS/NASA told us that .75C of warming happened between 1890 and 2002.

Apparently .75 C of warming from 1890 to 2002 wasn't scary enough to support the imminent disaster narrative that modern climate science is promoting...so the 2015 version of the same time period now shows 1.2C of warming.

Here is an overlay of the 2002 graph and the 2015 graph. The fraud is obvious.

And that incredible bit of fraud is over and above the data tampering that took place before 2002. I ask again..is there anyone out there who actually believes ANYTHING that climate science has to say these days? Is anyone out there really that stupid?

 

[dogtowner]

Funny how the focus is shifting away from disaster to morals. In other words just give us the money.

 

[palerider]

Funny how the focus is shifting away from disaster to morals. In other words just give us the money.

It's always been about money...the focus is shifting away from the science because they are trying to keep everyone from focusing on the collapse of the failed hypothesis and the obvious fraud that propped it up for so long.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

 

[dogtowner]

I wouldn't assume that these guys actually "know" anything. They exhibit a level of faith that only the most brain dead of cultists could muster... Can you imagine...thinking that one could achieve a measurement accurate to .4mm with a ruler that is off by amounts varying from zero to 7 feet 10 inches...or that any branch of science could actually be settled to the point that 97% of scientists in that field agree when there is far more we don't know about the basics of that science that what we do know...Can you imagine how in the dark one must be to believe that is science and not money and politics at work?

As with medicine science is corrupted once politicized. Government has no business being involved with most anything but particularly science and education & business.

 

[palerider]

As with medicine science is corrupted once politicized. Government has no business being involved with most anything but particularly science and education & business.

Funny how they will howl about some small pittance coming from big oil as a corrupting influence but think that money coming from the government is as clean as the wind driven snow and even though government out funds big oil by a factor of 1000 to one, they don't think that government money can corrupt....in short.....they don't think.

 

[Jason76]

It was very cold in my home area of East Tennessee during the last two winter months. However, now that it's march, it's pretty much 70 to 80 degree weather with no sign of turning back. It seems almost like an overnight massive change.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

As with medicine science is corrupted once politicized. Government has no business being involved with most anything but particularly science and education & business.

And yet the Founding Father thought important enough that it should be thus they even put it into the Constitution.

 

[palerider]

And yet the Founding Father thought important enough that it should be thus they even put it into the Constitution.

In which article of the constitution do you find a provision for government schools? Schools were state business, not federal...and if you have a handle on history....then you know that SAT scores began to fall the very next year after the federal government involved itself in the school system....and the scores have steadily declined even after multiple dumbing down jobs have been done on the SAT....clearly the federal government isn't well suited to educate children...just look around...today, we have to import scientists from other nations because we aren't producing enough of our own...shameful but that's how it is.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

In which article of the constitution do you find a provision for government schools? Schools were state business, not federal...and if you have a handle on history....then you know that SAT scores began to fall the very next year after the federal government involved itself in the school system....and the scores have steadily declined even after multiple dumbing down jobs have been done on the SAT....clearly the federal government isn't well suited to educate children...just look around...today, we have to import scientists from other nations because we aren't producing enough of our own...shameful but that's how it is.

If you had a handle on history you would know that it was Thomas Jefferson, among others, that proposed, and started, public education through the second year of college.

http://lwv.org/content/history-fede...on-where-have-we-been-and-how-did-we-get-here

You are correct in the idea that the control of the schools was to be local, however, over the years that control (like so many others issues) of the matter has been acquiesced to the "powers that be". When parents quit being involved it left a gap in the control which was quickly filled by those with a different agenda. back in the 80's a book was written titled "Dumbing Us Down". Look it up.

 

[palerider]

If you had a handle on history you would know that it was Thomas Jefferson, among others, that proposed, and started, public education through the second year of college.

You said the founders put it into the constitution....I asked which article....I can't help but notice that you did not link to the constitution.