Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Money, power, and control is relevant to everything, friend.
C.R.E.A.M.

As I said, enjoy being fleeced... I'll go a different path.

Are money, power, and control relevant to the existence of what we know as gravity?

Yes or no?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Money, power, and control is relevant to everything, friend.
C.R.E.A.M.

As I said, enjoy being fleeced... I'll go a different path.

Are money, power, and control relevant to the existence of what we know as gravity?

Yes or no?

Only where trickle down economics is concerned.

Of course not... but then again gravity is proven science, which was tested heavily beforehand rather than sheltered and protected from testing and questioning. You know, scientific method?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

Here's its foundation:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

If none of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is reality.
If one of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is in question.

Be a hero.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Money, power, and control is relevant to everything, friend.
C.R.E.A.M.

As I said, enjoy being fleeced... I'll go a different path.

Are money, power, and control relevant to the existence of what we know as gravity?

Yes or no?

Only where trickle down economics is concerned.

Of course not... but then again gravity is proven science, which was tested heavily beforehand rather than sheltered and protected from testing and questioning. You know, scientific method?

Yeah, uh, so are the 4 things I mentioned. They are simple physics. Physicists moved past this over a century ago.

Which one is not proven science?
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

a reply to: Greven

Be a hero.

Ok.

Stop running around screaming the sky is falling.

a reply to: neo96

Doesn't change that the sky is slowly, metaphorically falling.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

Here's its foundation:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

If none of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is reality.
If one of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is in question.

Be a hero.

1. Validate the data collected that would lead you to your assertion on energy distribution. So far, the data hasn't been validated. You are taking it on faith.

2. CO2 has been around at higher levels with different climates throughout history. Hanging your hat on CO2 is a poor risk.

3. That is true. But so are volcanoes.

4. You cannot make a declaritive statement without all the facts, and you are basing your assertions on data that has not been vetted.

a reply to: Greven

Is that so?

Is the 'weather' doing anything new?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

Here's its foundation:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

If none of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is reality.
If one of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is in question.

Be a hero.

1. Validate the data collected that would lead you to your assertion on energy distribution. So far, the data hasn't been validated. You are taking it on faith.

2. CO2 has been around at higher levels with different climates throughout history. Hanging your hat on CO2 is a poor risk.

3. That is true.

4. You cannot make a declaritive statement without all the facts, and you are basing your assertions on data that has not been vetted.

1) No, I am not. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is only sufficient to warm the Earth to 255 K. You know how cold 255 K is, right? Instead, the atmosphere is warmer at the surface, cools to the troposphere (well below 255 K), stays virtually the same temperature through the tropopause, then warms through the stratosphere. That's almost all of the atmospheric mass. We know from countless measurements over two hundred years of spectroscopy the absorptive properties of gases like CO2, H2O, O2, O3, etc.

2. And? In the distant past, the Sun was cooler, and CO2 concentration was higher.

3. Thanks!

4. It's a conclusion linking the other three together. Whyever not?

For starters, humans aren't emitting "massive" amounts of CO2. Natural processes emit 750 Gigatons of CO2 per year... human activity emits 29 Gigatons. Ooohhhh!!! My God, we're increasing the amount by a whole 3.9%!!!

Next up, principia-scientific.org... this page refutes your 1st and second points, or at least refutes the idea that CO2 is warming the atmosphere (using physics to refute it, no less).

Your number 4 depends on acceptance of 1 through 3, so no need to even waste my time with that one.

As always, your scam, thanks but I'll pass.

Not saying the Chinese are using HAARP. Not saying that at all.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For starters, humans aren't emitting "massive" amounts of CO2. Natural processes emit 750 Gigatons of CO2 per year... human activity emits 29 Gigatons. Ooohhhh!!! My God, we're increasing the amount by a whole 3.9%!!!

Next up, principia-scientific.org... this page refutes your 1st and second points, or at least refutes the idea that CO2 is warming the atmosphere (using physics to refute it, no less).

Your number 4 depends on acceptance of 1 through 3, so no need to even waste my time with that one.

As always, your scam, thanks but I'll pass.

Oh my God, are you seriously linking principia-scientific.org?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For starters, humans aren't emitting "massive" amounts of CO2. Natural processes emit 750 Gigatons of CO2 per year... human activity emits 29 Gigatons. Ooohhhh!!! My God, we're increasing the amount by a whole 3.9%!!!

Next up, principia-scientific.org... this page refutes your 1st and second points, or at least refutes the idea that CO2 is warming the atmosphere (using physics to refute it, no less).

Your number 4 depends on acceptance of 1 through 3, so no need to even waste my time with that one.

As always, your scam, thanks but I'll pass.

Oh my God, are you seriously linking principia-scientific.org?

Oh my God, is that inconvenient to your narrative?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

Here's its foundation:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

If none of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is reality.
If one of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is in question.

Be a hero.

1. Validate the data collected that would lead you to your assertion on energy distribution. So far, the data hasn't been validated. You are taking it on faith.

2. CO2 has been around at higher levels with different climates throughout history. Hanging your hat on CO2 is a poor risk.

3. That is true.

4. You cannot make a declaritive statement without all the facts, and you are basing your assertions on data that has not been vetted.

1) No, I am not. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is only sufficient to warm the Earth to 255 K. You know how cold 255 K is, right? Instead, the atmosphere is warmer at the surface, cools to the troposphere (well below 255 K), stays virtually the same temperature through the tropopause, then warms through the stratosphere. That's almost all of the atmospheric mass. We know from countless measurements over two hundred years of spectroscopy the absorptive properties of gases like CO2, H2O, O2, O3, etc.

You are pulling things from your buttocks. Verify and validate the data used to make your declarations. All I'm asking.


I'm not even going to discuss the global-climate-change-temperature-drama-carbon-Gore-piss myself-issues until I see a study or studies done on the data collection.

Because as far as I can tell, the data collection is all confirmation-biased to prove or validate a hypothesis.


Bad science.


If I had a student try this # in the graduate classes that I taught, I'd have failed them.

You are pulling things from your buttocks.

Yep they are.

Climate change. The new Mayan doom porn prophecy.

One where they get to make a snip load of cash off of, and IGNORE the hell out of green legislation and agencies have existed since the Nixon Administration.

That's right people.

The states been in charge for over 6 decades.

And their screaming the end is nigh.

What a load of horse snip.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For starters, humans aren't emitting "massive" amounts of CO2. Natural processes emit 750 Gigatons of CO2 per year... human activity emits 29 Gigatons. Ooohhhh!!! My God, we're increasing the amount by a whole 3.9%!!!

Next up, principia-scientific.org... this page refutes your 1st and second points, or at least refutes the idea that CO2 is warming the atmosphere (using physics to refute it, no less).

Your number 4 depends on acceptance of 1 through 3, so no need to even waste my time with that one.

As always, your scam, thanks but I'll pass.

Oh my God, are you seriously linking principia-scientific.org?

Oh my God, is that inconvenient to your narrative?

It's like Stormfront for science.

So uh, no... it's inconvenient for yours.

originally posted by: Greven
It's like Stormfront for science.

More hyperbolic foolishness.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There's a guy named Richard Muller. He thought like you. He wanted to check the data and methods for himself too.

Here's what he used to say:

"I think that Climategate is a very unfortunate thing that happened, that the scientists who were involved in that, from what I've read, didn't trust the public, didn't even trust the scientific public. They were not showing the discordant data. That's something that - as a scientist I was trained you always have to show the negative data, the data that disagrees with you, and then make the case that your case is stronger. And they were hiding the data, and a whole discussion of suppressing publications, I thought, was really unfortunate."

www.skepticalscience.com...

So, he got into the nuts and bolts. He thought he was going to show how messed up the presented data was.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

www.nytimes.com...


If you're interested, its easy to find out more about all of the methodology used. But it's not easy to hand it to you on a silver platter.

Ah... I understand, I referenced the heretics.
principia-scientific.org...

Our specific objectives include:

Promoting the broadest possible dissemination of impartial science information untainted by politics or corporate interest in as many languages and to as many nations as possible
Advancing independent, non-affiliated scientific discoveries unencumbered by political ideology or corporate financial interest.
Providing impartial scientific advice and evidence to international policymakers, news outlets and the general public
Being a cost effective ebook publishing service to our members at preferential rates for their personal and career advancement
Offering financial support either by grant or loan, to authors in science who we believe have potential to advance the association’s core values
Discouraging inappropriate or unconscionable scientific methods by exposing them where they are proven to exist

I can see where any scientific organization that openly separates themselves from the bonds of political and corporate interests, rejects restricting knowledge to only the world's elite societies, selects their own for funding and grant money to foster actual scientific research which digs into the corporate and political racket of restricting funds to only those protective of the scam, and actually holding the real spirit of the scientific method above the gangster bastardization of it used loosely around the AGW church could pose a serious threat to your cause.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
It's like Stormfront for science.

More hyperbolic foolishness.

Using a dodgy source based on the first thing you googled and getting called on it makes it hyperbolic foolishness?