Only 38 percent of the time. :chuckle:
Nope. I judge you according to what you say, and what you say shows that you are wildly ignorant at best.
2014 was World's Warmest Year on Record
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Nope. I judge you according to what you say, and what you say shows that you are wildly ignorant at best.
NEWS FLASH !!!
The Senate has changed its mind. Global warming IS NOT A HOAX.
And it is caused by the actions of humans.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060012076
The deniers, like the Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, are outliers.
The Senate has changed its mind. Global warming IS NOT A HOAX.
And it is caused by the actions of humans.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060012076
The deniers, like the Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, are outliers.
genuineoriginal
New member
Are you referring to the raw data that the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) lost or are you referring to the cooked books that they hand out to corrupt everyone else's calculations?
genuineoriginal
New member
_____
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that 2014 was record HOTTEST year? NO
No significant warming, since at least 2005
A few years ago, a new dataset was established called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. It was intended to address various issues raised by climate sceptics: but in fact it has plumped down firmly on the warmist side of the debate, saying that in fact there are no undue biases in the temperature records, changes in the Sun do not have any major climate effects, and so on.
Now, however, the BEST boffins have broken ranks with the NASA/NOAA/UK Met Office climate establishment and bluntly contradicted the idea that one can simply say "2014 was the hottest year on record". According to BEST's analysis (pdf):
Our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.
That may seem like not such a big deal, but it is really. At the moment the big debate in this area is about the "hiatus" - has global warming been stalled for the last fifteen-years-plus, or not?
If you think it hasn't, and you're seeking to convince ordinary folk without advanced knowledge in the area, it is a very powerful thing to be able to say "last year was the warmest on record".
If on the other hand you contend that global warming has been on hold for over a decade, saying "last year was almost exactly as hot as 2005 and 2010" fits exactly with the story you are trying to tell.
+Comment
It matters, because colossal amounts of CO2 have been emitted during the hiatus period - on the order of a third of all that has ever been emitted by humanity since the Industrial Revolution, in fact. Nobody says that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but it could well be that it isn't nearly as serious a problem as had been suggested.
You takes your choice of who you listens to on this, of course: NASA/NOAA/UKMetO or BEST, warmists or sceptics.
But it might be worth remembering that the former are arguing for massive government and economic action, action which people would not take voluntarily - that is action which will make people poorer, then. In other words the warmists want to take away your money and your standard of living (for your own good, they would say). And standard of living is not just consumer goods, it's health care, it's regular showers and clean clothes, it's space programmes and education for your kids and many many other things that you will have less of in the green future advocated by warmists - it's your whole life.
Whereas the sceptics, certainly the more reasonable among them, are merely saying "look here wait a minute". Which is always a good idea before taking massive governmental and economic action, some would say, especially as rather a lot has been done in that line already.
And one thing's for sure - given NASA/NOAA/UKMet's attitude this year ("hottest on record") compared to 2013 ("one more year of numbers isn't significant"), the idea that they aren't actively pushing a warmist agenda - the idea that they are in some way unbiased and objective about all this - is quite plainly rubbish.
_____
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that 2014 was record HOTTEST year? NO
No significant warming, since at least 2005
A few years ago, a new dataset was established called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. It was intended to address various issues raised by climate sceptics: but in fact it has plumped down firmly on the warmist side of the debate, saying that in fact there are no undue biases in the temperature records, changes in the Sun do not have any major climate effects, and so on.
Now, however, the BEST boffins have broken ranks with the NASA/NOAA/UK Met Office climate establishment and bluntly contradicted the idea that one can simply say "2014 was the hottest year on record". According to BEST's analysis (pdf):
Our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.
That may seem like not such a big deal, but it is really. At the moment the big debate in this area is about the "hiatus" - has global warming been stalled for the last fifteen-years-plus, or not?
If you think it hasn't, and you're seeking to convince ordinary folk without advanced knowledge in the area, it is a very powerful thing to be able to say "last year was the warmest on record".
If on the other hand you contend that global warming has been on hold for over a decade, saying "last year was almost exactly as hot as 2005 and 2010" fits exactly with the story you are trying to tell.
+Comment
It matters, because colossal amounts of CO2 have been emitted during the hiatus period - on the order of a third of all that has ever been emitted by humanity since the Industrial Revolution, in fact. Nobody says that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but it could well be that it isn't nearly as serious a problem as had been suggested.
You takes your choice of who you listens to on this, of course: NASA/NOAA/UKMetO or BEST, warmists or sceptics.
But it might be worth remembering that the former are arguing for massive government and economic action, action which people would not take voluntarily - that is action which will make people poorer, then. In other words the warmists want to take away your money and your standard of living (for your own good, they would say). And standard of living is not just consumer goods, it's health care, it's regular showers and clean clothes, it's space programmes and education for your kids and many many other things that you will have less of in the green future advocated by warmists - it's your whole life.
Whereas the sceptics, certainly the more reasonable among them, are merely saying "look here wait a minute". Which is always a good idea before taking massive governmental and economic action, some would say, especially as rather a lot has been done in that line already.
And one thing's for sure - given NASA/NOAA/UKMet's attitude this year ("hottest on record") compared to 2013 ("one more year of numbers isn't significant"), the idea that they aren't actively pushing a warmist agenda - the idea that they are in some way unbiased and objective about all this - is quite plainly rubbish.
_____
Let's all get this straight.
Man has produced 33% of all the man-made carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the last 9 years.
During that same 9 year period, global warming took a vacation so we have ended up with the same 'Highest' temperature in 2014 as was reported in 2010 and 2005.
zoo22
Well-known member
I know it doesn't matter to you if the carbon taxers post lie after lie in a vain attempt to debunk the predictions that everyone knows about because they made the cover of TIME magazine.
The so-called 44 papers that the reviewers claim could possibly be interpreted as providing some tangential support to the global warming theory never made it to the general population through major media, did they?
Your "how to survive the coming ice age" cover is a fake cover, and the "cooling of America" story is about the energy crisis. Been through it before.
Will finding out you're posting faked evidence make any difference to you? Will you stop to rethink anything? Or will you just shuffle off convinced that even though you're wrong, you're right anyway.
You're suprised that G.O. resorts to dishonesty to sell his stories?
Haven't you been watching?
Haven't you been watching?
You have a very strange definition for those who are not liberals. It's politically driven 'science'
genuineoriginal
New member
Do you believe the article, The Cooling World, from the April 28th 1975 edition of Newsweek Magazine was faked?
Do you believe the two articles, Another Ice Age?, from TIME November 13, 1972 and also June 24, 1974 were faked?
What about the article, The World's Climate: Unpredictable, from TIME August 09, 1976? Do you think it was also faked?
If these articles didn't make the cover of the magazines, then I got erroneous information on that, but the articles themselves are real.
genuineoriginal
New member
Typical of deniers to pretend magazine articles are what scientists were predicting. This is why deniers are considered to be dishonest.
I am talking about the broad consensus of fact-based evidence and data in science.
I am not talking about the corporate panic to save a reputation and more money by ignoring oil spills and EPA regulations. Neither am I talking about the politicians with money provided by energy corporations.
You mean the stuff that gave us 2014 as the hottest year on record? :darwinsm:
Evolutionists love stringing words together, no matter how little sense they make. :chuckle:
genuineoriginal
New member
Typical of :troll:s to pretend that magazine articles about what scientists are predicting are not really about what scientists are predicting.
So, in your opinion, what are the articles about if they are not about what scientists are predicting?
genuineoriginal
New member
Since the data was modified to fit a theory (instead of the scientific method of invalidating a theory if the data does not support it), there really is no fact-based evidence suitable for a consensus.
No, you are talking about scientists that are trying to save their reputations after falsifying the data and politicians that are trying to generate money from thin air through the imposition of carbon taxes that are guaranteed to do nothing about the supposed problem of global warming.
So, if carbon taxes are guaranteed to do nothing to halt climate change, what use are they?
Oh, right, it has to do with the liberal agenda of wealth distribution and punishing America for not being a third world nation.
I think when business and the corporations merge with government it certainly drives science.You have a very strange definition for those who are not liberals. It's politically driven 'science'
Mussolini called the marriage of business and government fascism.
I call it corporatism. Big business needs to make sure their profiteering continues and that means ignoring the fact that our corporate land- and money-grab depletes the environment.
It's because of corporations that those folks on the Yellowstone River now have to drink bottled water.
They don't make sense in my opinion is because some native speakers of English have a lousy vocabulary and retarded reading skills.
Kids are rarely taught to be critical thinkers or are taught to carry on intelligent conversations. Their parents are so exhausted after working two jobs that it's all they can do to drag themselves to daycare and pick up their kids for dinner at home....
I've noticed how liberals have made use of 'climate change' because their 'man causing global warming' theory is under too much scrutiny.
genuineoriginal
New member
One duty of government is to rein in corporations so privately owned property can be protected, since corporations shield the decision makers from personal liability.
So far, all goverments have failed in this duty.
You guys seem most annoyed because of all the studies regarding global warming. And now the classic "yes it's the hottest year on record, but we don't think so, because it wasn't hottest enough."
Do you have any idea how that sounds to rational people? But instead of focusing on a year or two, let's look at the numbers for the decade:
- 2004 51
- 2005 65
- 2006 59
- 2007 62
- 2008 49
- 2009 59
- 2010 66
- 2011 55
- 2012 57
- 2013 60
- 2014 68
Sample size: 11
Mean x (x̄): 2009
Mean y (ȳ): 59.181818181818
Intercept (a): -1073.1636363636
Slope (b): 0.56363636363636
Regression line equation: y=0.56363636363636x-1073.1636363636
Even in a ten-year span, there's a clear upward warming trend. No point in denying the obvious, unless you're preaching to those who want to be fooled.
(Studies show that "even scientists though global cooling was coming in the 70s" was a denier hoax)
Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.
"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
Barbarian observes:
Typical of deniers to pretend magazine articles are what scientists were predicting. This is why deniers are considered to be dishonest.
G.O. replies:
Typical of s to pretend that magazine articles about what scientists are predicting are not really about what scientists are predicting.
See above. Even that far back, scientists were overwhelmingly concerned about global warming.
The myth of global cooling consensus, aggravated a bit by deniers faking magazine covers.
As you see, what scientists really said wasn't remotely what you claimed. And the fact that you cling to your "popular magazines are more reliable than scienitsts" argument pretty much shows you know it.
Learn from it, and try to do better.
Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.
"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
Barbarian observes:
Typical of deniers to pretend magazine articles are what scientists were predicting. This is why deniers are considered to be dishonest.
G.O. replies:
Typical of s to pretend that magazine articles about what scientists are predicting are not really about what scientists are predicting.
See above. Even that far back, scientists were overwhelmingly concerned about global warming.
The myth of global cooling consensus, aggravated a bit by deniers faking magazine covers.
As you see, what scientists really said wasn't remotely what you claimed. And the fact that you cling to your "popular magazines are more reliable than scienitsts" argument pretty much shows you know it.
Learn from it, and try to do better.