More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[nytegeek]

I never understood the need of people to deny fact that is obvious and write in front of them because it is inconvenient. I am pretty sure some of the most vocal people denying climate change know that it is real. They just don;t give a crap because legislation implementing environmental safety cut's into their profit or power. They are willing to screw everyone else over for short term gain.

 

[palerider]

I never understood the need of people to deny fact that is obvious and write in front of them because it is inconvenient. I am pretty sure some of the most vocal people denying climate change know that it is real. They just don;t give a crap because legislation implementing environmental safety cut's into their profit or power. They are willing to screw everyone else over for short term gain.

Climate change is real enough...it is always changing. The only people I have ever heard suggest that the climate should remain static....unchanging are the anthropogenic warming wackos who apparently believe that any change in climate must be due to something that we are doing....

The dispute lies in why the climate is changing....Clearly you believe that the activities of man are changing the global climate....so I will ask you upon what evidence you base your belief.

Can you provide one bit of observed measured evidence that proves that the activities of man are altering the global climate? Can you point to anything in the climate today that is unprecedented.....something that is outside the scope...or even approaching the outer boundaries of natural variability?

For that matter, can you produce a single shred of hard, observed evidence that proves the most basic claim of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...that being that an increase in CO2 causes warming which can lead to a runaway greenhouse effect?

I predict that you can't produce any actual observed, measured evidence to support any of the basic tenets of the man made global warming hypothesis....which leads right back to my first question...upon what real evidence do you base your belief?...if it isn't hard, observed, measured evidence, then what is it?

 

[palerider]

A properly constructed computer model is useful for analyzing complex data, just because they can be manipulated doesn't mean that reputable men and women of science are manipulating it for the hell of it.

A computer model is only valuable IF...IF....IF all parameters and variables are known....are you going to try to suggest that climate science knows all variables that affect the climate and to what degree they effect the long term and short term climate? Climate science is in its infancy and at this point has barely scratched the surface in learning what drives the climate.... that being said, a computer model based on such sketchy information is more of a hindrance than anything else...especially when climate science itself has convinced itself that the computer output is real and represents real data.

The climate models are spectacular failures and yet, climate science still places its faith in them and their predictive capability. Tell me, in real science if you form a hypothesis and make predictions based on that hypothesis, and the predictions fail, what do you do with your hypothesis? In real science if your hypothesis fails on even one of your predictions, the hypothesis is scrapped and a new one put forward....not so in climate science...when the predictions fail, great quantities of money are then thrown into fabricating an excuse, and even more money thrown into further propping up the failed hypothesis.

Take the pause for example.....more than 50 excuses have been put forward as to why it happened but not one climate scientist has bothered to mention that the pause falsified the AGW hypothesis....the prediction was ever more warming for ever more CO2...no warming for more than 2 decades now while CO2 has constantly climbed....and then on top of that new claims every year of the warmest year evah.....warmer by thousandths of a degree....tell me, what do you suppose the margin of error actually is for the global mean temperature?....do you think it is accurate to a tenth of a degree?....half a degree?....three fourths of a degree?....of what value, other than publicity is a claim of the warmest year ever by a thousandth of a degree when the margin of error is 100 times greater than the margin by which the warmest year ever is claimed?

 

[Lagboltz]

...tell me, what do you suppose the margin of error actually is for the global mean temperature?....do you think it is accurate to a tenth of a degree?....half a degree?....three fourths of a degree?....of what value, other than publicity is a claim of the warmest year ever by a thousandth of a degree when the margin of error is 100 times greater than the margin by which the warmest year ever is claimed?

You are probably not familiar with linear regression and the central limit theorem, where errors can be diminished proportional to the square root of the number of samples. It is an elementary derivation using calculus. With the plethora of world wide temperature measurements for decades, the error of average temperatures can be quite a bit smaller than any one temperature.

 

[palerider]

So no actual observed measured data....though so. It is always the same old story with climate science...we are all going to die....we are destroying the climate....its all our fault....so us skeptics ask....got any actual observed measured data to support your hand waving hysterics....and the answer is always the same...no...but we have these statistical models....so believe us....believe us.....or we will punish you via the courts....remember what happened to Galileo when he bucked the consensus...of course he was right...but never mind that.

 

[dogtowner]

So no actual observed measured data....though so. It is always the same old story with climate science...we are all going to die....we are destroying the climate....its all our fault....so us skeptics ask....got any actual observed measured data to support your hand waving hysterics....and the answer is always the same...no...but we have these statistical models....so believe us....believe us.....or we will punish you via the courts....remember what happened to Galileo when he bucked the consensus...of course he was right...but never mind that.

Did you see rising sealers recently got shown to be false in a new way ?

 

[palerider]

Did you see rising sealers recently got shown to be false in a new way ?

Yep...everything they say is eventually shown to be false, but they keep right on lying, and spinning, and misinforming....I saw that the high priest of manmade global warming alarmism, james hansen, just doubled down on his already failed predictions...it never ends because it never was about science...it has always been about political power and money.

 

[dogtowner]

CBO Misses Obamacare Projection -- by 24 Million People... http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001732

This just in...
Michael Mann of hockey stick fame is now a flat earth denier !

 

[palerider]

CBO Misses Obamacare Projection -- by 24 Million People... http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001732

This just in...
Michael Mann of hockey stick fame is now a flat earth denier !

Mann is trying to preserve just the tiniest smidge of credibility....maybe the AGW crazy train is about to go over that inevitable cliff and those who go over with it are going to have a hard time paying their utility bills in the aftermath. By acknowledging the hiatus in warming even while the atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb, he puts himself in position to identify himself as a skeptic as crazy as that sounds...but there are those who would believe him.

El nino is almost over...the biggest el nino evah and it produced the warmest year evah by about a hundredth of a degree depending on which massaged and manipulated temperature record you subscribe to....personally, I favor the CRN network...it only covers the continental US, but it is state of the art....triple redundant, and so pristinely placed that it requires no adjustment whatsoever....it says that the US has been cooling for 11 years now....I know that it only covers the US, but it does say cooling while the mainstream temperature record says that the US has been warming at the same rate as the rest of the world...clearly, a bias in the adjustmentsexists...a bias that extends beyond the borders of the US. I can't think of a rational, scientifically sound reason to believe that if the CRN were expanded to cover the globe, it would show the same cooling trend globally.

People who believe in AGW do so based on faith, and politics...certainly not on science. The absolute lack of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim of man made climate change bears that fact out.

 

[Jason76]

What is the right wing answer to those who state the obvious fact that the poles are melting? Honestly, it seems like the proof for man made climate change is right there.. In addition, the rising sea level which threaten Miami, New York City, and many Pacific Islands are more proof.

Finally, another big proof lies in Greenland, which has had to abandon it's traditional way of life to some extent because of shrinking ice. If you don't believe me, check out the most recent National Geographic article on Greenland.

 

[dogtowner]

What is the right wing answer to those who state the obvious fact that the poles are melting? Honestly, it seems like the proof for man made climate change is right there.. In addition, the rising sea level which threaten Miami, New York City, and many Pacific Islands are more proof.

Finally, another big proof lies in Greenland, which has had to abandon it's traditional way of life to some extent because of shrinking ice. If you don't believe me, check out the most recent National Geographic article on Greenland.

Don't know abut right wing but Antarctica is expanding per nasa.
As to the artic, yes it's down in extent and volume (square and cubic). But this is more a matter of local weather than global.

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

 

[palerider]

What is the right wing answer to those who state the obvious fact that the poles are melting?

Have they melted before? Of course...in fact, if you look at the history of the earth ice at the poles is the anomaly, not the norm...Do you think there was more or less ice during the Holocene Maximum when it was a good deal warmer than the present?....how about during the Roman Warm period when the temperature was a few degrees warmer than the present....How about during the Medieval warm period when it was a couple of degrees warmer than the present....

Do you see anything happening in the climate that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability?

Honestly, it seems like the proof for man made climate change is right there.. In addition, the rising sea level which threaten Miami, New York City, and many Pacific Islands are more proof.

Right where?...in a climate that is behaving well within the boundaries of natural variability? What sort of proof do you think that is other than that the climate changes?

Finally, another big proof lies in Greenland, which has had to abandon it's traditional way of life to some extent because of shrinking ice. If you don't believe me, check out the most recent National Geographic article on Greenland.

he says while ignoring the fact that growing ice chased off the vikings and made them abandon their farms....melting ice reveals that where we see ice, not so long ago there were human settlements.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Don't know abut right wing but Antarctica is expanding per nasa.
As to the artic, yes it's down in extent and volume (square and cubic). But this is more a matter of local weather than global.

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

If it is local as you claim, then why are global temperatures rising? And since you like NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As to Antarctica, while the ice sheet above the surface is growing, or replacing its summer loss, the underside of the shelf is melting. An even greater question you, and others, will ignore is why is the temperature of the ocean waters also rising? And with millions of tons of garbage floating in the oceans, has nature caused that? Has the pollution that is occurring caused by nature? Or maybe you think nature is creating the nitrogen, and other pesticides, that are polluting the waters, the air, etc. Do you think at other times when there was climate change these particles were present?

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/pyramids-antarctica-ice-melting/1727743.html

Fortunately, others actually care what happens, and are willing to do something about it. BTW, my G/F, and I, went for a drive today in the backwoods which is our "backyard". It always amazes me as to just how much trash ignorant people can throw out even in the most remote places of the woods.

But hey, it is not "man made", right?

http://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/record-support-advancing-paris-climate-agreement-entry-force

 

[palerider]

If it is local as you claim, then why are global temperatures rising? And since you like NASA:

Guess you are unaware of the incredible amount of data manipulation going on within climate science these days.... in 1989 NOAA stated explicitly that most of the warming since 1881 happened before 1919. Now look at any of your graphs.... from 1989 back to 1881....do any of the modern graphs show that most of the warming up to that date (1989) happened prior to 1919? Explain why? What rational scientifically valid reason might there be for manipulating the data so heavily?.... You are a believer, lets hear your explanation.

Fortunately, others actually care what happens, and are willing to do something about it. BTW, my G/F, and I, went for a drive today in the backwoods which is our "backyard". It always amazes me as to just how much trash ignorant people can throw out even in the most remote places of the woods.

But hey, it is not "man made", right?

Typical muddled marxist thinking...confusing issues...not knowing what the hell you are talking about....pollution and the climate change scam are two entirely different things...pollution is a very serious issue in our world, as is run off into rivers and oceans...unfortunately nothing is going to be done about these issues, which could be addressed and actions taken to move toward eliminating them because the climate change scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers....

And those others you mention aren't doing anything on a global scale to address the pollution...or do you mean by "doing something" going to a protest,. waving a sign, and leaving a great giant mess for someone else to clean up which is the typical behavior of liberals...

It is easy to look at the aftermath of a liberal protest and see how much you and yours care about the environment.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Guess you are unaware of the incredible amount of data manipulation going on within climate science these days.... in 1989 NOAA stated explicitly that most of the warming since 1881 happened before 1919. Now look at any of your graphs.... from 1989 back to 1881....do any of the modern graphs show that most of the warming up to that date (1989) happened prior to 1919? Explain why? What rational scientifically valid reason might there be for manipulating the data so heavily?.... You are a believer, lets hear your explanation.

Have you ever heard of advances in technology, or research? I realize how low IQ people such as yourself, cannot understand that as more information is gathered the results change.

Typical muddled marxist thinking...confusing issues...not knowing what the hell you are talking about....pollution and the climate change scam are two entirely different things...pollution is a very serious issue in our world, as is run off into rivers and oceans...unfortunately nothing is going to be done about these issues, which could be addressed and actions taken to move toward eliminating them because the climate change scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers....

Typical fools response. As the pollution flows to the oceans it causes the waters to heat up, and as the waters heat up, or the glaciers melt, there is more evaporation which increases the moisture in the atmosphere which then assists climate change. The same is true of CO2, and other pollutants, as well as the actions of man in cutting down the rain forests, etc. But you are correct in noting nothing will be dome primarily because people like you don't give a shit, and will always find an excuse not to do anything.

And those others you mention aren't doing anything on a global scale to address the pollution...or do you mean by "doing something" going to a protest,. waving a sign, and leaving a great giant mess for someone else to clean up which is the typical behavior of liberals...

I know we are not supposed to "get personal", however, an ignorant ass like yourself makes it hard not to. When I go out into the woods, and collect the garbage people like you leave behind, I am not surprised at the trash I find. It is not the "liberal" who leaves it, it is the redneck right winger who thinks his actions do not affect the environment.

As to the other countries, they are doing more then you simply because their islands, their communities, are in need of it.

It is easy to look at the aftermath of a liberal protest and see how much you and yours care about the environment.

YAWN. Such a fool. Look at the mess after a Rose Bowl Parade. Look at the pollution of a coal mine especially after "mountain top removal". Trashy people are trashy people. Party affiliation means nothing.