Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I do not know of any climate scientists who are going to deny climate change exists, scientists themselves are very clever people who know that good news never gets funding, and a scientist without funding becomes a very clever person looking for a job.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


All the skeptics are probably over reading the new Draft Paper release over at WUWT. It uses the new WMO ISO standard for citing and adjustment parameters for surface stations, whereas, the Muller Paper uses the 15 year old standards, with a warming bias built in.

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

wattsupwiththat.com...-68286

Not going to hover on this thread, but will check in periodically.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared


I don't know where you're getting your information from. Most of the evidence shows that CO2 is a very major player in the planet's natural climate past.



I dont know where youre getting YOUR information from but co2 is only responsible for like .03% of warming and water vapor plays a much larger role, 80%? You can try to claim water vapor is nothing because it condenses but has it all condensed? Is the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere higher or lower when its warmer or cooler?

I also dont know why you keep calling things on the opposite side of your argument memes. Is this some strategy to make the other arguments look like theyre less than yours? To somehow denigrate them? Is it your brain maybe just doing this unconciously?

If all this warming is man made then why has co2 been higher in the last 420000 years multiple times, temperature been higher multiple times and Earth has still plunged into ice ages? Why has it been continuously warming for the last 18000 years but suddenly its mans fault?

Why is this meme of yours ongoing in spite of the climategate emails, and the IAC saying the IPCC needs to fix its science? And why do you stand behind this meme in spite of the fact that warming and cooling has been shown to be a cycle that has happened numerous times without the intervention of man?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


unfortunately the skeptics only want to read a certain "type" of information. they don't seem to want to read any of the extensive research on the subject. i hear the same talking points over and over again. "the earth has cycles" being the main one. this is said as if the climate scientists think the earth has been the same since it first formed.

anyway, i love all of your posts and well thought out responses. i wish it weren't so futile.

did you read this article? www.rollingstone.com... i think we are doomed. i can't see how it's possible to get all the big fuel companies across the world to make the changes needed in order to stop this. we're looking at not just a 2 degree increase in temps but an ELEVEN degree increase. it will be a science fiction movie in real life and it's already starting.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Anyone care to tell me where to upload pictures? Can I even do it yet? I hope so.

Can any of you global warming groupies explain how it warmed and froze for the last 420000 years 4 times (milankovitch cycles) without mans help and where the forcing came from before our industrialization supposedly made it happen? If not your whole argument is up poo's creek without a paddle.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by deckdel
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Well, as it happens even leading meteorologists switch sides on this topic, as they re-calibrate their data. Now its global freezing instead:

www.dailymail.co.uk...



Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


Forget global warminig when we can control the reflective albedo of the earth. As for cold winters, bring them on - nobody wants slugs and snails on their crops.

We use weathermodification.com to reduce our sunburn, provide precipitation where and when.

As for the weather forecasts, you want to try myweather.com for the accurate 5-10 day forecast. They are run by the Rothchilds so are probably good.

I'm not a shill, just finding diamonds in the dust.

Peace.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


Anthony Watts is a nut. just my opinion but i think he's full of crap.

edit to add this link that discusses Watts junk science: thinkprogress.org... /
edit on 29-7-2012 by pasiphae because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by winnar
Anyone care to tell me where to upload pictures? Can I even do it yet? I hope so.

Can any of you global warming groupies explain how it warmed and froze for the last 420000 years 4 times (milankovitch cycles) without mans help and where the forcing came from before our industrialization supposedly made it happen? If not your whole argument is up poo's creek without a paddle.



can you be more specific?? "global warming groupies" have never doubted the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by winnar
 


okay, i think i know what you are saying. natural climate change that takes 41,000 years (milankovitch cycles) is not the same as what is happening now.

watch the first video in this link.... congressional hearing on CSPAN. they discuss the cycles you're talking about plus all the other planets heating up. the scientist tries to explain it in layman terms.

thinkprogress.org...
edit on 29-7-2012 by pasiphae because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2012 by pasiphae because: stupid typo



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I don't get it, where's the proof? Saying we're to blame doesn't make it so...I mean I can throw a ton of links right now that prove not only is Earth heating up, but so are many of are neighboring planets..wow on second thought maybe we people are so horrible were polluting the WHOLE solar system?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SolarIce
 


i think you should watch the discussion in the first video in this link. the scientist explains it. you can choose to think the guy is making it all up if you want.

thinkprogress.org...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


I certainly grasp that insults and repeating the lines and data of others seems to be the basis of discussion here. I don't necessarily come to every debate with my boxes of notebooks for years online in tow. I bring my brain and my ability to reason and think through a problem with logic. I don't look to simply repeat the data of others while offering no reasoning of my own.


In other words, you present your own opinion, with zero evidence to back it up, and when pressed for evidence, you take your ball and go home.

Hmmm..... I'm ATTEMPTING..to keep civil discourse and walk from the combat threads and the fighting that ATS has all too often become.

It isn't a debate and it's not about showing each other evidence. That's getting to be a joke on entirely too many threads. Now I am far from someone who comes light on links, quotes, citations of evidence and general support of my positions as a general rule. If anything, I get nasty notes occasionally about TOO much of it.

It's Sunday though and I am not always 100% raring to spend my day finding proof against the same arguments these forums see a few times a week, every week without fail. In fact, this thread is the 3rd one TODAY I was a part of or following closely on THIS exact topic. Should I just copy/paste? It's the same arguments from your side...to the same counters on my side..and on and on.

If trying to disengage and attempting to prevent actually adding to the problem of open fighting is seen as weakness...I can accept that if the long term of this site improves. ATS has FAR more fighting now than is healthy. It will do quite well without my adding to it...,however sorely tempting this thread made the risk.

This thread and the combat nature it started as, right from the title itself, is precisely what is bringing down one hell of a good site. Now..I really am done on this thread. Call it taking my "ball" home, or whatever you like. I call it spending my Sunday evening on something better than the equivilant of debating advanced theories of physics with a 10 year old. It just doesn't get anywhere and EVERYONE ends up pissed off in the end.

Oh.. Refer to the few dozen other threads I HAVE posted Links, Quotes, Charts or other supporting evidence. It simply wasn't worth the trouble here, once it became clear this was never intended as anything OTHER than a straight up combat thread.

Enjoy your combat. I cede the field for more productive discussion.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Figured that would be the first response


Regardless of what you think of him, the Paper (Draft, not peer reviewed yet) is co written by Steve McIntyre, with in input from Roger Pielke Sr., who is a IPCC reviewer. Again, it is also using the new 2010 World Meteorological Organization Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation ISO standards, which is how he came up with the new data, and Muller in his newest paper, is using the old, outdated standard (12 - 15 years old), with the built in warming bias. The standard Muller is using, takes the data from the non-compliant (large UHI effect, urban) stations, and adjusts the data FROM the COMPLIANT stations (rural, less UHI effect), effectively raising the temps! This is what Watts and many other skeptics have been claiming for years, so I wouldn't discount it so easily. This is from data that is freely available to anyone. Who is in denial???



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 





- the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper had spelling errors. (seriously)

If this paper is peer-reviewed, wouldn't be nice to have it clear of spelling errors?
I guess it means nothing to you, but I am not impressed by anything that is released with spelling errors. It may not indicate stupidity, but it does indicate laziness, especially today. Computer spell-check programs have been in use for years. Releasing a paper with spelling errors indicates that either the person did not proofread it, or did not care enough to have someone else do it.
If they don't care enough to make it right (and this is supposed to be such an important subject) why should anyone care enough to read it?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


www.climate-resistance.org...

Yet as we can see, since 1994, Greenpeace have been the lucky recipients of well over $2 billion in roughly the same time. A difference of three orders of magnitude.

And what have they done with it? Lobbied. And pulled high-profile stunts to gain media attention. And lobbied. And run expensive PR and media campaigns. And lobbied. And interrupted democratic processes and the generation of electricity and sabotaged crops. And lobbied. And picketed the forecourts of privately run ESSO garages. And lobbied. And lobbied. And lobbied. And, of course, terrified the public about cancers, apocaplyses, armageddons, catastrophes, too often and too many to begin to list here. You can do a lot of lobbying and PR work with 2.2 billion dollars.
And don’t forget that a vast amount of work done is done for Greenpeace for free by activists, journalists, campaigning celebrities, and politicians who are keen to appear to be up-to-speed with the climate bandwagon, and therefore ‘in-tune’ with today’s concerns. Nothing epitomises this state of affairs better than the image of an MP or prospective Prime Minister in bed with an NGO. Because politics is regarded as sinister, whereas NGOs, in today’s world, are seen to be above that kind of stuff – “ethical”, rather than political. By achieving the ethical seal-of-approval of vociferous and high-profile NGOs, politicians can claim to have a stainless character. Environmental NGOs foster suspicion of politics, which is corruptible, claiming that their vision of “the good life” isn’t subject to contest, criticism or influence because “the science is in”.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Seriously?



It could also mean that the individual who wrote it didn't much value correct spelling as much as some other people.

Not lazy, necessarily. Just a different focus, perhaps.

Maybe we should see the actual report before assuming a sprll checker wasn't used. Have you never seen incorrect spell checking before?
edit on 29-7-2012 by unityemissions because: just to point out I'm keeping the spelling error..just for you extra DIV



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


his weather station study is flawed and his breakthrough information doesn't change the facts. he's pocketing some cash of the sale of his book though. i posted a video that talks about his misinformation.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Your vid is outdated. This is a brand new (Draft) paper. In that vid, NOAA used ADJUSTED data for the comparison, therefore it makes sense the the temps MATCHED. Did you actually go read the draft at his website, before you write it off as the typical denier mentality would. Get a clue


Also, he has to fund his activities somehow, as he won't "qualify" for a Gov. grant



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 



Maybe we should see the actual report before assuming a sprll checker wasn't used. Have you never seen incorrect spell checking before?

Sure, I have seen incorrect spell-checking.

That is why I mentioned proofreading. There are still people that proofread for a living. When a person knows how to spell and use punctuation (it should go along with being a collegiate scholar), they can do it themselves, if they aren't too lazy.

I am totally serious by the way. When I look over a job application, I actually place values on spelling,
punctuation and (OMG) penmanship.

ETA: I proofread my emails before I send them to customers and vendors. Why look like you are stupid or lazy because you failed to check over your work? Those emails are mostly read by one person, not released on a national level.
edit on 29-7-2012 by butcherguy because: Spelling.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Then I must point out it's "too" not "to".

Well, it goes both ways. I don't perceive people who have a few spelling errors as stupid or lazy. I do, however, tend to view grammer nazis as being a bit foolish.

edit on 29-7-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)





 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def