inconvienent facts

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Point of order:

Climate is real.

Climate change happens.

What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

But that's where the scientists come in. They tell us that the globe is warming and that man's pollution is a huge part of it. So don't believe them?

Question them.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Indeed. But first make an effort to understand the science.
Many don't.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Point of order:

Climate is real.

Climate change happens.

What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

When that debate is whether it's 95% human-caused vs. 100% human-caused, it's disingenuous to frame it as if the debate is human-caused or not.

To be 100% scathingly frank, that is a stupid debate point. You seriously believe mankind drives the climate?

And then we find human error in data collected...

wattsupwiththat.com...

Designed for an orbit synchronized with the sun, NOAA-14’s orbit from pole to pole was supposed to cross the equator at 1:30 p.m. on the sunlit side of the globe and at 1:30 a.m. on the dark side, 14 times each day. One of the instruments it carried was a microwave sounding unit (MSU), which looked down at the world and collected data on temperatures in Earth’s atmosphere and how those temperatures changed through time.

By the time NOAA-14 was finishing its useful life in 2005, however, it had strayed eastward from its intended orbit until it was crossing the equator not at 1:30 but at about 8:00. That pushed its early afternoon passage until after dark and its middle of the night measurements until well after dawn.

Because local temperatures typically change between 1:30 and 8:00, this introduced spurious temperature changes that had to be calculated and removed from long-term temperature datasets that use data from satellite instruments.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

And then we find human error in data collected...

That's not human error. That's instrument error. That's what those adjustments people cry about are for. To correct for biases in the instrument record. It happens with satellites and it happens with thermometers on the surface.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

And then we find human error in data collected...

That's not human error. That's instrument error. That's what those adjustments people cry about are for. To correct for biases in the instrument record. It happens with satellites and it happens with thermometers on the surface.

*sigh* At least you agree it's an error. It's bad data, and the only way people can try to salvage it is to make guesses and bias it.

The entire data set should be scrapped.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Did you even read the article you linked? It's a lot more than guesswork and the point is to remove instrument biases.

The entire data set should be scrapped.

That would be real productive.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

Challenge for you:

If you think you are right, and that AGW is a scam, please explain why, through physics, we are not causing warming.

Or run away and don't answer.

Your choice.

..or given it's a theory YOU believe, please explain why and show evidence.
Whilst you're at it, please show your workings and how you have disproven the null hypothesis.

Note : 'Science says' is not a valid argument.

My explanation of why I believe AGW is a scam is simple, valid and reasonable - no one has proven AGW is going to cause the kind of catastrophe we are told it will ...AND the predictions from the models have turned out incorrect.

Remember - show your workings...

I have explained the basics repeatedly.

What's your null hypothesis - no change? CO2 doesn't cause warming? Man isn't emitting CO2? Elaborate.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Point of order:

Climate is real.

Climate change happens.

What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

When that debate is whether it's 95% human-caused vs. 100% human-caused, it's disingenuous to frame it as if the debate is human-caused or not.

To be 100% scathingly frank, that is a stupid debate point. You seriously believe mankind drives the climate?

Well, yes, it's a somewhat silly debate - trying to determine precisely the cause and effects is, however, useful.

You wrote this:

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

To which I responded:

originally posted by: Greven
When that debate is whether it's 95% human-caused vs. 100% human-caused, it's disingenuous to frame it as if the debate is human-caused or not.

Your response is to ask if I believe that mankind drives the climate?

Mankind exterminated innumerable species.
Mankind destroyed fisheries all over the world.
Mankind obliterated most of the world's forests.
Mankind altered the very rotation of the Earth by damming rivers and streams.
Mankind plowed nearly all of the world's fertile soils for farming.
Mankind moves more material each year than all natural erosive forces of the world.
Mankind altered the very chemistry of the atmosphere through nuclear testing, CO2 emissions, sulfate emissions, CFC emissions, etc.

Mankind is perfectly capable of altering the climate; we've already altered everything else.

Somewhat of a weather authority chiming in here....

we're moving into the tropics.....

two years of aviation weather at Mtn. View Junior College Dallas has to count for something....I started in the 60's suppose

editt it's not manprogenic.....

a reply to: network dude

I do not think the cold areas are ignored. I think the point is the planet as a whole will warm over time.

What upsets me the most about this conversation is that is politically polarized.
If you are a conservative you do not believe in global warming.
If you are a liberal you do.

Can we not meet in the middle somewhere?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: intrepid
One or two seasons are not a good basis for looking for trends. Years are needed.

and yet, it's the warmest on record, again. and the year just started. I guess it must be really hot everywhere else. Balmy weather up north I hear. sunshine and 80's in northern Maine.

Well I am up north... and we just set an all time record for the most consecutive days with temperatures below the freezing level at 167.

Glow Ball Warming my butt.

a reply to: bronco73

And you are talking about weather not climate making yourself look stupid.

No one on this board, I guarantee it, actually knows to what degree, humankind is responsible for changes in the world's climate. But they act like they do. Top climate scientists don't know.. but posters here do?

There is no doubt though, that humankind can absolutely make changes to our planet in negative ways. And the fact it was initially global warming, and is now recognized as climate change, doesn't mean people are switching gears. Again, scientists did not know. They are still learning. So you can hardly point and laugh at people for not knowing more than the professionals.

Less pollution, cleaner energy, smarter care for our planet is a good thing. How about focusing on that, instead of trying to nitpick and try to find a few people who may benefit from it. Who cares - the world if full of a-holes that are going to take advantage of every situation. That doesn't take away from the fact that the planet needs better care, and we need to stop ignoring the impact humans have on the world we live.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: bronco73

And you are talking about weather not climate making yourself look stupid.

no its people like you throwing out insults that look stupid. if you don't like my post, debate it. But dont' start throwing out childish insults. It's immature and by my understanding of the forum guidelines it's also against the rules.

and i was talking about consecutive days of cold temperatures in my post. Not weather. Not climate. I invite you to read it again to verify.

a reply to: bronco73

I'm not throwing out insults. I'm pointing out you are talking about weather vs climate. You are making a fool of yourself.

a reply to: bronco73

Ok what's the difference between weather and climate?

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: bronco73

Ok what's the difference between weather and climate?

lmgtfy.com...

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: bronco73

I'm not throwing out insults. I'm pointing out your talking about weather vs climate. Your making a fool or yourself.

and you are making a complete ass out of yourself. You are intentionally misinterpreting my post with the intent to start an immature flaming war. I'm done with you, you are being incredibly and I believe intentionally obtuse, and I will not allow you to draw me into a childish and senseless name calling war.

ignore mode /on

a reply to: bronco73

I'm assuming your ignore mode is set to on so you can't see this post. Testing.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

Challenge for you:

If you think you are right, and that AGW is a scam, please explain why, through physics, we are not causing warming.

Or run away and don't answer.

Your choice.

..or given it's a theory YOU believe, please explain why and show evidence.
Whilst you're at it, please show your workings and how you have disproven the null hypothesis.

Note : 'Science says' is not a valid argument.

My explanation of why I believe AGW is a scam is simple, valid and reasonable - no one has proven AGW is going to cause the kind of catastrophe we are told it will ...AND the predictions from the models have turned out incorrect.

Remember - show your workings...

I have explained the basics repeatedly.

What's your null hypothesis - no change? CO2 doesn't cause warming? Man isn't emitting CO2? Elaborate.

You've not explained anything at all to support the claims.

I do like the subtlety of your two null hypothesis examples, though - separating out two statements that I'd actually disagree with, as would most. I think we can agree that man emits CO2.. and though i 'believe' CO2 causes warming we could debate it (it might, but we don't know and won't know for a very long time, perhaps in a few generations time when we have the technology to measure the effect on temperature effectively)

Neither of those points confirms an apocalypse due to AGW, one we can only avoid if we pay more tax and help smear people (inc. scientists) that hold the view that AGW is not a major cause of climate change.

AGW is a scam to make money, demonstrated by failing models, that were always folly to try and develop.

What 'science' actually says is that global warming could increase by an amount that is benign and will have no real impact to an amount that will have a serious impact. Within the temperature rises predicted, AGW is but a part of the equation. No one really knows whether this is a major problem we need to take drastic action on or just a benign issue we don't really need to worry about. That's if you even give the models any credibility in the fist place.

Scam pushers take the extreme modelled scenarios and try to swindle people out of money through fear. - of course, these scammers have plenty at stake to worry about... their next grant.