Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

I'm aware that you don't think that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I still trust the word of all of the scientific organizations worldwide more than I do the word of someone posting anonymously on the internet. After all, I'm someone posting anonymously on the internet as well, and a lot of what I post is simply unsupported opinion, just like what you post.

The scientific organizations that are making billions off of the hoax? Did you believe the tobacco industry lawyers and medical witnesses as well?

You should be able to think just a bit for yourself....in real science, one predictive failure of a hypothesis is enough to discredit it and prompt science to develop a new hypothesis....here's two blatant failures...the AGW hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot which does not exist...a million radiosondes confirm this fact....second the AGW hypothesis predicts that as CO2 continues to rise, temperatures will rise right along with it....we are approaching nearly 2 decades now with no temperature increase...either of these facts should legitimately cause the hypothesis to be discarded. The list of failures is long but even an idiot should be able to recognize the two above as predictive failures.

So again, how many failures must this hypothesis experience before it is discarded?

 

[PLC1]

The scientific organizations that are making billions off of the hoax? Did you believe the tobacco industry lawyers and medical witnesses as well?

You should be able to think just a bit for yourself....in real science, one predictive failure of a hypothesis is enough to discredit it and prompt science to develop a new hypothesis....here's two blatant failures...the AGW hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot which does not exist...a million radiosondes confirm this fact....second the AGW hypothesis predicts that as CO2 continues to rise, temperatures will rise right along with it....we are approaching nearly 2 decades now with no temperature increase...either of these facts should legitimately cause the hypothesis to be discarded. The list of failures is long but even an idiot should be able to recognize the two above as predictive failures.

So again, how many failures must this hypothesis experience before it is discarded?

It is no longer an hypothesis. It has stood the test and become a theory. It is the "2 decades with no temperature increase" idea that has been tossed on the trash heap of history.

 

[palerider]

It is no longer an hypothesis. It has stood the test and become a theory. It is the "2 decades with no temperature increase" idea that has been tossed on the trash heap of history.

It remains only a hypothesis and a piss poor failed one at that...The science dictionary defines hypothesis as a statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Which experiments have been performed to confirm its viability?

That same dictionary defines theory as
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So again, which repeatable experiments have been performed to verify the hypothesis....and which accurate predictions have been made...I see that you deny the 2 decade pause in warming while atmospheric CO2 continued its steady rise....and apparently deny the absence of the hot spot. The true deniers are those calling others deniers. I suppose that you also deny that climate science has also called frogs the canary in the coal mine with regard to the effects of climate change...and the walrus, and oysters, and monarch butterflies, and bees, and finches, and gray wolves, and rivers and streams, and japan, and brook trout, and grapes, and alaska, and the antarctic peninsula, and napa valley, and polar bears, and cherry blossoms, and the australian ski industry, and coral, and big trees, and the arctic, and india, and national parks, and birds, and glaciers, and agriculture, and the great lakes, and penguins, and african communities, and the bearing sea.

I suppose you also deny that climate science has predicted less and more snow, less and more rain, less and more arctic ice, less and more antarctic ice, more fires in boreal forests, less fires in boreal forests, that the earth itself would speed up and that the earth itself would slow down, that there would be less summer rain and that there would be more summer rain, that there would be fewer coral reefs and that there would be more coral reefs, that the scottish ski industry was dying, and that the scottish ski industry was on the move, that the oceans would become more salty and that the oceans would become less salty, that there would be an increase in trade winds and that there would be a decrease in trade winds, that winters would become warmer and that winters would become colder, that fish are going to get smaller and that fish are going to get bigger, that there would be less mosquitoes, and the list could continue on at some length.

Refer again to the definition of theory...making predictions about natural phenomena does not mean predicting everything and then claiming success when something happens...each of the above represents a failure of the hypothesis and only a blatant fool, or a branch of science so corrupted by money would even attempt to call such a failed hypothesis a theory.

Tell me, do you believe other organizations who stand to continue to rake in billions so long as their research continues to point in a certain direction?....did you buy into the cholesterol myth?...how many other medical myths did you believe which were based on research which supported an industry? Do you think climate science is immune to the corruptive influences of money? Do you think at all or just gobble up what people of your political leaning feed you?

 

[PLC1]

It remains only a hypothesis and a piss poor failed one at that...The science dictionary defines hypothesis as a statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Which experiments have been performed to confirm its viability?

That same dictionary defines theory as
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So again, which repeatable experiments have been performed to verify the hypothesis....and which accurate predictions have been made...I see that you deny the 2 decade pause in warming while atmospheric CO2 continued its steady rise....and apparently deny the absence of the hot spot. The true deniers are those calling others deniers. I suppose that you also deny that climate science has also called frogs the canary in the coal mine with regard to the effects of climate change...and the walrus, and oysters, and monarch butterflies, and bees, and finches, and gray wolves, and rivers and streams, and japan, and brook trout, and grapes, and alaska, and the antarctic peninsula, and napa valley, and polar bears, and cherry blossoms, and the australian ski industry, and coral, and big trees, and the arctic, and india, and national parks, and birds, and glaciers, and agriculture, and the great lakes, and penguins, and african communities, and the bearing sea.

I suppose you also deny that climate science has predicted less and more snow, less and more rain, less and more arctic ice, less and more antarctic ice, more fires in boreal forests, less fires in boreal forests, that the earth itself would speed up and that the earth itself would slow down, that there would be less summer rain and that there would be more summer rain, that there would be fewer coral reefs and that there would be more coral reefs, that the scottish ski industry was dying, and that the scottish ski industry was on the move, that the oceans would become more salty and that the oceans would become less salty, that there would be an increase in trade winds and that there would be a decrease in trade winds, that winters would become warmer and that winters would become colder, that fish are going to get smaller and that fish are going to get bigger, that there would be less mosquitoes, and the list could continue on at some length.

Refer again to the definition of theory...making predictions about natural phenomena does not mean predicting everything and then claiming success when something happens...each of the above represents a failure of the hypothesis and only a blatant fool, or a branch of science so corrupted by money would even attempt to call such a failed hypothesis a theory.

Tell me, do you believe other organizations who stand to continue to rake in billions so long as their research continues to point in a certain direction?....did you buy into the cholesterol myth?...how many other medical myths did you believe which were based on research which supported an industry? Do you think climate science is immune to the corruptive influences of money? Do you think at all or just gobble up what people of your political leaning feed you?

Your entire argument centers around the idea that NASA, NOAA, CERN, et. al. would lose their funding if they were to come out and support the notion that AGW is a hoax.

That contention can't be supported any more than the contention that global warming ended two decades ago can be supported.

 

[palerider]

Your entire argument centers around the idea that NASA, NOAA, CERN, et. al. would lose their funding if they were to come out and support the notion that AGW is a hoax.

No, my entire argument centers around the fact that the hypothesis has failed....and denial of the fact that the warming stopped 2 decades ago while CO2 has continued its rise is just stupid...I suppose you believe that the missing heat is hiding out somewhere on earth rather than moving away from earth at the speed of light where it actually is?

Tell me, which rock do you think the missing heat is hiding out under?

 

[PLC1]

No, my entire argument centers around the fact that the hypothesis has failed....and denial of the fact that the warming stopped 2 decades ago while CO2 has continued its rise is just stupid...I suppose you believe that the missing heat is hiding out somewhere on earth rather than moving away from earth at the speed of light where it actually is?

Tell me, which rock do you think the missing heat is hiding out under?

Well, this statement:

Tell me, do you believe other organizations who stand to continue to rake in billions so long as their research continues to point in a certain direction?....did you buy into the cholesterol myth?...how many other medical myths did you believe which were based on research which supported an industry? Do you think climate science is immune to the corruptive influences of money? Do you think at all or just gobble up what people of your political leaning feed you?

led me to believe that you think the world's scientific organizations have become corrupted by money. Instead, your argument seems to be that global warming, not just AGW, but all global warming has stopped. That is quite interesting in light of the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest on record, but please do show us how the planet quit getting warmer a couple of decades ago.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No, my entire argument centers around the fact that the hypothesis has failed....and denial of the fact that the warming stopped 2 decades ago while CO2 has continued its rise is just stupid...I suppose you believe that the missing heat is hiding out somewhere on earth rather than moving away from earth at the speed of light where it actually is?

Tell me, which rock do you think the missing heat is hiding out under?

It really does not matter where the heat is, and it is not missing as you arrogantly claim. All one has to do is look at the rising oceanic waters, the depleting glaciers, etc., and the islands that are seeing their land mass disappear due to rising waters. Of course, that is all in their imaginations according to the likes of you.

The climate has changed several times in the earths history, and that is a truth you cannot deny. Another truth is that with each of these changes life on earth has also changed. Some forms have disappeared, others have grown. Will the change this time eliminate man from the earth as it did dinosaurs? Do you really want to take that chance?

 

[palerider]

Well, this statement:



led me to believe that you think the world's scientific organizations have become corrupted by money. Instead, your argument seems to be that global warming, not just AGW, but all global warming has stopped. That is quite interesting in light of the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest on record, but please do show us how the planet quit getting warmer a couple of decades ago.

Interesting.....completely ignore all of the examples of the failure of the hypothesis and go for some sort of conspiracy...there is no conspiracy...there is only the unfortunate tendencies of big government types to do their part towards further increasing the size of government. There was certainly no conspiracy to create a welfare state but big government sorts simply did what they could to increase the size of government by presenting their side of an argument and refusing to hear the opposing side...here were decades later with the wreckage of that effort and it will be decades still before the damage is corrected if it ever can be.

The temperature increase or decrease for the past 2 decades is statistically not different from zero....the claimed rise is less than the margin of error by an order of magnitude....And I suppose you also deny the heavy manipulation of the surface record....which continues to diverge from the satellite record.

Seems that it is you and yours who turn out to be the real deniers.

And again....how many failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before it is scrapped for a hypothesis which better jibes with reality?

 

[palerider]

It really does not matter where the heat is, and it is not missing as you arrogantly claim. All one has to do is look at the rising oceanic waters, the depleting glaciers, etc., and the islands that are seeing their land mass disappear due to rising waters. Of course, that is all in their imaginations according to the likes of you.

If one looks at the oceans, one sees that from the mid point of the 20th century to the present the rate of sea level increase is lower than it was during the first half of the 20th century when CO2 was supposedly safe. And far more glacial ice was lost in the early 20th century than in the latter half of the 20th century. As to islands, read the literature...it seems that erosion is more to blame for land loss than increased sea level....

It isn't imagination, but is a bleak picture painted by cherry picking data and ignoring anything that runs contrary to the AGW narrative.

The climate has changed several times in the earths history, and that is a truth you cannot deny. Another truth is that with each of these changes life on earth has also changed. Some forms have disappeared, others have grown. Will the change this time eliminate man from the earth as it did dinosaurs? Do you really want to take that chance?

Precautionary principle?? Really? The sky might fall? First you would need to offer up some sort of hard evidence that CO2 is actually causing the climate to change....none exists to date....second you would have to prove that the temperature of the mid 20th century was the optimum temperature for all life on planet earth....next you would have to demonstrate that something could actually be done about the global climate and that the benefit of that theoretical control of the climate would outweigh the cost associated with it.

We know that cold is the true killer, and paleohistory tells us that the earth blooms during periods of warmth. Take for example the 2 degree tipping point that climate science has been warming us about for 3 decades now....are they completely unaware that that 2 degree tipping point was reached during the holocene optimum...and again during the minoan warm period...and again during the roman warm period and again in some parts of the world during the medieval warm period? All of those warm periods were periods of plenty and growth for mankind....what makes you believe that the climate should be static for us now?

Can you point to a single thing happening in the climate now that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variation....much less completely unprecedented in world history?

 

[PLC1]

Interesting.....completely ignore all of the examples of the failure of the hypothesis and go for some sort of conspiracy...there is no conspiracy...there is only the unfortunate tendencies of big government types to do their part towards further increasing the size of government. There was certainly no conspiracy to create a welfare state but big government sorts simply did what they could to increase the size of government by presenting their side of an argument and refusing to hear the opposing side...here were decades later with the wreckage of that effort and it will be decades still before the damage is corrected if it ever can be.

The temperature increase or decrease for the past 2 decades is statistically not different from zero....the claimed rise is less than the margin of error by an order of magnitude....And I suppose you also deny the heavy manipulation of the surface record....which continues to diverge from the satellite record.

Seems that it is you and yours who turn out to be the real deniers.

And again....how many failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before it is scrapped for a hypothesis which better jibes with reality?

So, you dispute not just AGW, but that the Earth is getting warmer at all?

and you think that the scientists at CERN, NOAA, NASA, The National Geographic Society, and the rest are all "big government types"? Based on what, I wonder?

 

[palerider]

So, you dispute not just AGW, but that the Earth is getting warmer at all?

Seriously PLC, can you read? Do you just look at blocks of text and make up meanings to assign to them and then argue against what you make up?

The earth has been getting warmer for about 14,000 years now although the long term trend for the past 5 or 6 thousand years has been cooling. Each warm period has been successively cooler moving from the holocene maximum through the minoan to the roman and medieval warm periods.

and you think that the scientists at CERN, NOAA, NASA, The National Geographic Society, and the rest are all "big government types"? Based on what, I wonder?

Half of them are government and you don't think an organization like the national geographic society appreciates a large government....you really can't see the activism at work in such organizations? Are you really that blind? Never mind, of course you are.

So again How many failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before it is found by climate science to be invalid.....or do they continue to prop it up so long as the funding money keeps rolling in. Discarding it after one failure would be science....propping it up so long as the funding continues would be politics. Do you deny that the hypothesis has failed on any prediction that was made based upon it?

 

[invest07]

I would suggest all you GW chicken littles check this phrase in any search engine:
"Medieval Warm Period"
This lasted from around 950AD to around 1250AD. The climate in England was so warm that the Vikings found vineyards in England.
After around 1250 the climate began to become cooler.
This cycle of the earth warming and cooling has been documented for many thousands of years.
My state, Florida, has varied from 60% smaller than it is today to an estimated 3 times larger than today, based on sea levels.
Florida has a central ridge extending down the peninsula generally paralleling I-75 which extend from about Gainesville south past the small town of Lake Placid.
This ridge is believed to be the remains of a coastal dune. Today that ancient dune averages almost 70 miles from the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic.
Think about that for a minute.
At one time sea levels in the Atlantic and Gulf were far higher than today and more than half of the peninsula of FL was under water. And the edge of that ancient water line is now 70 miles inland.
I live at a 95 foot elevation and my lot may have been underwater thousands of years ago.
There is a wealth of empirical evidence available to anyone who chooses to read it that the earth has gone though multiple heating and cooling cycles during it's 4.5 billion year life.
Today's heat cycle (if there is one) is part of an eons old cycle of natural causes that we can't control like solar output and volcanoes.
We have tons of problems more pressing than a little temp change, which we probably can't change anyway.

Why don't you brainwashed apostles of Al Gorey chill out and direct your attention to an issue you can change.
There are 3000 babies a day slaughtered in this country every day. Babies that will never get the chance to get a hug or learn to walk or play soccer or go to their first prom. Stopping death by abortion is a very achievable goal and worthy of your attention. GW is not.

​

 

[palerider]

I would suggest all you GW chicken littles check this phrase in any search engine:
"Medieval Warm Period"
This lasted from around 950AD to around 1250AD. The climate in England was so warm that the Vikings found vineyards in England.
After around 1250 the climate began to become cooler.
This cycle of the earth warming and cooling has been documented for many thousands of years.
My state, Florida, has varied from 60% smaller than it is today to an estimated 3 times larger than today, based on sea levels.
Florida has a central ridge extending down the peninsula generally paralleling I-75 which extend from about Gainesville south past the small town of Lake Placid.
This ridge is believed to be the remains of a coastal dune. Today that ancient dune averages almost 70 miles from the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic.
Think about that for a minute.
At one time sea levels in the Atlantic and Gulf were far higher than today and more than half of the peninsula of FL was under water. And the edge of that ancient water line is now 70 miles inland.
I live at a 95 foot elevation and my lot may have been underwater thousands of years ago.
There is a wealth of empirical evidence available to anyone who chooses to read it that the earth has gone though multiple heating and cooling cycles during it's 4.5 billion year life.
Today's heat cycle (if there is one) is part of an eons old cycle of natural causes that we can't control like solar output and volcanoes.
We have tons of problems more pressing than a little temp change, which we probably can't change anyway.

Why don't you brainwashed apostles of Al Gorey chill out and direct your attention to an issue you can change.
There are 3000 babies a day slaughtered in this country every day. Babies that will never get the chance to get a hug or learn to walk or play soccer or go to their first prom. Stopping death by abortion is a very achievable goal and worthy of your attention. GW is not.

It is funny, the global warming crowd has been harping for decades about a 2 degree tipping point...if the temperature increases 2 degrees we are doomed and on and on....they make these warnings in the blissful ignorance that the 2 degree tipping point has already been surpassed by at least several degrees already in this interglacial. The holocene maximum was far warmer than the present and probably saw clear polar waters during the summer months...the minoan warm period was a few degrees warmer than the present, the roman warm period was a few degrees warmer than the present, the medieval warm period was a couple of degrees warmer than the present. All of these periods saw mankind make great advances most certainly due to the fact that food was more plentiful...when food is easy to come by, social advances move up on the agenda.

The global warming religion is based on lies, deceit, cherry picking, data manipulation, and outright fabrication. The hypothesis is a miserable failure and it is politics that is keeping it propped up at this point...politics and money....certainly not the scientific method.

And you are absolutely right...there are a plethora of real problems in the world that we could address and actually do something about but at present none of them can be adequately addressed because the anthropogenic global warming hoax is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers.

The true problems won't be able to be addressed thill the AGW hoax is finally put down...and then how many billions upon billions will have been wasted that could have went to actual problems, hurting actual people, with actual solutions?

 

[invest07]

pale,
You hit it right on the head with this statement:

The global warming religion is based on lies, deceit, cherry picking, data manipulation, and outright fabrication. The hypothesis is a miserable failure and it is politics that is keeping it propped up at this point...politics and money....certainly not the scientific method.

Several years ago Al Gorey said the science is settled and humans are causing GW.
It was exactly at this point that GW became a religion and stopped being science.
A TRUE person of science knows the SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED.
Any true scientific theory or hypothesis is always subject to revision with new data, if that data better explains what is going on.
Gorey's statement conveniently left this pivotal and fundamental concept out.
In effect, Gorey was saying : GW should be accepted without question.
Accepting a concept without questioning is a characteristic of religion and not science.
At this moment, Gorey declared GW to be a religion and appointed himself as High Priest.

A similar analogy can be applied to political concepts about race.
I recently filled out a job app and did not check off any box for race because they did not have "Human" as a choice.
If Anglos can breed with Asians and Africans and Polynesians, genetically we are all the same race.
Breaking humans into races is a political division and certainly not scientific.

In addition to being a government power grab I believe GW is also about wealth redistribution and making a select few individuals (Al Gorey included) uber wealthy.
Check out this site: http://www.carbontax.org/

 

[PLC1]

Seriously PLC, can you read? Do you just look at blocks of text and make up meanings to assign to them and then argue against what you make up?

The earth has been getting warmer for about 14,000 years now although the long term trend for the past 5 or 6 thousand years has been cooling. Each warm period has been successively cooler moving from the holocene maximum through the minoan to the roman and medieval warm periods.

Then, what is the point of a thread questioning whether this is the hottest year ever?
Of course, the Earth goes through warm and cool cycles.

Half of them are government and you don't think an organization like the national geographic society appreciates a large government....you really can't see the activism at work in such organizations? Are you really that blind? Never mind, of course you are.

So again How many failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before it is found by climate science to be invalid.....or do they continue to prop it up so long as the funding money keeps rolling in. Discarding it after one failure would be science....propping it up so long as the funding continues would be politics. Do you deny that the hypothesis has failed on any prediction that was made based upon it?

Yes, of course.