Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by uniquelysane

 

I did post a rebuttal to the ""missing heat" argument.
It was here, perhaps you missed it. There is no actual data that
proves the missing heat, rather this was "modeled" and therfore
was a "projection". You do understand the difference?

There is data. It does not "prove" it. We do our best with what we have got. that is the available data, and our best tools to project within a given degree of certainty. This was done.

1.What is the probability that the upper ocean does not warm for eight years as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise?
2.As the heat has not been not stored in the upper ocean over the last eight years, where did it go instead?

These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough.

We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.”


Even if there was real "data"...which there is not...only simulations!
certainly you do not imagine that the entire concept of AGW has
been predicated on "missing heat", there is no empirical scence there...

This is incorrect. There WAS real data. It simply could not be used to prove it. It COULD be used to run simulations.

Do you realize how you have misinterpreted what was written? I'm trying to get a grasp of your true level of intellect.

As for the second question, it is OBVIOUS.
There was an increase BELOW 700m. Where did the heat go?
SERIOUSLY??
FOR REALZ, REALZ??

Originally posted by redtic

Sorry, I don't have time to read the entire thread,

Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you may be interested to learn that the AGW no
longer holds the majority...

I posted this pages ago, but will repost here

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global
warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,

according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.
www.forbes.com...

So, it is not the majority of science, there is no consenus, and there is not a majority
of scientists faking data, just a few that have huge funding, and they use "models"
to project future trends.

reply to post by burntheships


There are many more "engineers" than "geoscientists". Not every engineer has relevance to the earth sciences. In fact, most DO NOT.

Surely you can tell that "fact" was pure propaganda.

Originally posted by uniquelysane

There is data. It does not "prove" it.

Right, it does not prove anything.

reply to post by burntheships


Obviously, you are no scientist.

There is technical terms, and lay term.

You are terribly, terribly confused, and dragging a lot of decent minds into your web of misunderstandings.

reply to post by uniquelysane


So, now that you have admitted modeling was used as substitute for sufficient data,
and there is no proof, you resort back to ad hominem groveling.

Hmmmm,...

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by redtic

Sorry, I don't have time to read the entire thread,

Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you may be interested to learn that the AGW no
longer holds the majority...

I posted this pages ago, but will repost here

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global
warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,

according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.
www.forbes.com...

So, it is not the majority of science, there is no consenus, and there is not a majority
of scientists faking data, just a few that have huge funding, and they use "models"
to project future trends.

Ha - you're almost as bad as the author of that article. Perhaps you should read the comments below the article..

Originally posted by redtic
Perhaps you should read the comments below the article..

Oh, read the comments and ignore the facts.
No thanks.

reply to post by burntheships


I was attempting to shut you down from your own source, which was obviously full of LIES, and DECEPTION, the same that YOU are trying to pull off in this thread.

THERE IS DATA, and THERE IS EVERY INDICATION FROM THE DATA, that the heat CAN BE MOSTLY ACCOUNTED FOR from the depths of the oceans.

Here is the evidence:

Kevin Trenberth past comments about ‘missing heat’ drew considerable attention. The phrase refers to the fact that the heat accumulation on Earth since about 2004 (e.g. from warming oceans, air, and land, and melting ice) that instruments were able to measure could not account for the amount of global heat accumulation we expected to see, based on the energy imbalance caused by the increased greenhouse effect, as measured by satellites at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere.
These new estimates of deeper ocean heat content go a long way towards resolving that ‘missing heat’ mystery. There is still some discrepancy remaining, which could be due to errors in the satellite measurements, the ocean heat content measurements, or both. But the discrepancy is now significantly smaller, and will be addressed in further detail in a follow-up paper by these scientists.
So what’s causing this transfer of heat to the deeper ocean layers? The authors suggest that it is a result of changes in winds related to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and more frequent La Niña events.

LInk

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by redtic
Perhaps you should read the comments below the article..

Oh, read the comments and ignore the facts.
No thanks.

OK - ignore the comments and ignore the facts then. I've seen enough - thanks for explaining your thread to me. Good luck with your ignorance.

Originally posted by redtic

OK - ignore the comments and ignore the facts then.

No thanks, I'll keep the facts, and deny ignorance.

reply to post by burntheships


Correction, you will continue to misdirect, and change the goal posts.
You have been called out for your lies on multiple occasions in this thread.
Since this is for public consumption, people will be able to decide for their selves based on the data presented, and weak attempts to manipulate by the OP.

Originally posted by uniquelysane
THERE IS EVERY INDICATION FROM THE DATA, that the heat CAN BE MOSTLY ACCOUNTED FOR from the depths of the oceans.

From your link, it was again, modeling....

A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations

LInk

One must be diligent to differeniate between real data, and modeling.

reply to post by burntheships

I do say, they are really good at the game they play....
This I deduce from just how many people are frightened they will
wake up soon and the ocean will be in thier back yard, and nevermind
that companies like Monsanto are given free reign to pollute the farmlands
with toxic chemicals while they sue the pants off little farmers.

You are right about that. The propaganda machine churns...

and we go blank with that thousand yard stare.

I thought about the chemical thing the other day. I live in an HOA and the regimen here is to spray, spray, spray... with 9 different kill - icides. The lawn is green and free of weeds, the worms and snails are all dead. The flying insects and the birds that eat them are gone. I have seen just one pick up truck full of one load of chemical fertilizer for all the lawns here. It is tons of the stuff in sacks that fill the bed of the truck. And its not just chemical fertilizer anymore. The newest types have pesticide, fungicide and weed killers already added. Its a Frankensteins chemical brew.

When I think of all the HoAs across the country that must be doing the same thing, I cringe. Nobody even complains anymore. The puddles on the sidewalk after treatment have a "sheen" and dry to a yellow brown crust. They overuse it and there are literal piles of the stuff where they pause the machine and refill. I know that when it rains it all runs off down the drains marked "No dumping, flows to bay".

I guess we all do it too. Washing our laundry and dishes in the dishwasher. We are going to pay the price for this.

reply to post by burntheships


How dare you speak to me of "diligence" after the purposefully skipping over the lies you spewed which were called out, yet you choose to ignore.

For shame.

Originally posted by intrptr

When I think of all the HoAs across the country that must be doing the same thing, I cringe. Nobody even complains anymore. The puddles on the sidewalk after treatment have a "sheen" and dry to a yellow brown crust. They overuse it and there are literal piles of the stuff where they pause the machine and refill. I know that when it rains it all runs off down the drains marked "No dumping, flows to bay".

Yes, rinse and repeat every year! The results from insecticides alone are
going to be catastrophic. I read the other day where it has wiped out not just
the honeybees, but also the wild bee population, to the point it is affecting
the food supply at this point.

The price tag for all of this, its going to be so huge, no mad scientist is going
to be able to save the day....its such a scheme.

reply to post by uniquelysane


You know, your right, as I dont think you understand the meaning
of the word "diligence" when it comes to science.

Repeated theories, mixed with projected data, modeled does not
empirical scientific evidence make.

reply to post by uniquelysane

You have been called out for your lies on multiple occasions in this thread.

What you are doing is called cyber bullying. Repeated derision of another member in an attempt to discredit them or their opinions on any matter is against the ethos of this site.

Labeling someone an outright "liar" will get you banned.

reply to post by burntheships

When I was a kid in the Scouts we could still drink the water in the Sierra Mountains. Every year the elevation that it was now unsafe rose by another 1000 feet until it was all "unsafe". I miss that. The water used to be so sweet to drink from high brooks and streams. That was decades ago.

I remember fishing in the Sacramento Delta too. Now you aren't supposed to eat any of the fish from there. They are too contaminated with chemical fertilizer.

But if you go there, people still catch catfish and sturgeon then sell them to certain restaurants. This by passes the regulations about toxic levels of nitrogen in the fish from the chemical fertilizer run off.

I been there when they come around and tell us to save the fish for them, they will pay for it. I asked them what they do with them and thats what they said. Sell them to restaurants...

Yummy.

Sorry about the off topic, I know this is a thread about the "weather."

reply to post by intrptr


Its all good.

We would be remiss not to address pollution, its all relevant.
You would imagine that the AGW congregation might care about the effects
of RoundUp in the water, alas...they dont seem to much care.

It actually does have a destuctive impact on the ecosystems...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...