NASA now only 38% sure 2014 was hottest year; and my solution

[One Ugly Christian]

After all the hype (and the coordinated news releases) NASA now says they're only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year on record. When is the last time you or any scientist said they were X percent sure about some natural phenomena with 10's of thousands of variables? Just shows what phonies they are.

There's so much that could be said but I do have "a solution" to the entire "problem" of increasing CO2 emissions; All you liberals who believe this foolishness, especially the ones on this site who take every chance they can to speak against fossil fuels, just quit using it. [I have several rabid "environmentalist" friends here in Alaska that burn wood, built their house out of log, drive 70 plus miles round trip every day, fly 100 times more than I and so on.]

I'd also ask; Who the heck are YOU to say how hot or cold the world should be?

There's also this on the growth of Greenland's ice sheet.

 

[oatmeal]

After all the hype (and the coordinated news releases) NASA now says they're only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year on record. When is the last time you or any scientist said they were X percent sure about some natural phenomena? Just shows what phonies they are.

There's so much that could be said but I do have "a solution" to the entire "problem" of increasing CO2 emissions; All you liberals who believe this foolishness, especially the ones on this site who take every chance they can to speak against fossil fuels, just quit using it. [I have several rabid "environmentalist" friends here in Alaska that burn wood, built their house out of log, drive 70 plus miles round trip every day, fly 100 times more than I and so on.]

I'd also ask; Who the heck are YOU to say how hot or cold the world should be?

There's also this on the growth of Greenland's ice sheet.

I wonder if NASA sent up astronauts being only 38% sure they could return alive?

 

[User Name]

NASA and NOAA announced last week that 2014 was the warmest year recorded since measurements began but the fact is that the margin is so small as to be statistically meaningless. NASA itself ranks the probability that 2014 was the warmest year at 38 per cent while NOAA is slightly more confident putting the probability at 48 per cent.​

Source: http://www.reportingclimatescience....-over-within-10-years-says-nasas-schmidt.html

 

[One Ugly Christian]

I wonder if NASA sent up astronauts being only 38% sure they could return alive?

:thumb:

This made me think of the curator of the Natural History Museum who Bob Enyart talked to in Denver. He's 100% sure evolution is true but doesn't even know if he exists. If I ever get the chance I'll ask him if he's 38% sure

 

[Stripe]

:mock: 100 percent of Warmists.

 

[chair]

I wonder if NASA sent up astronauts being only 38% sure they could return alive?

They send up astronauts knowing that they might not make it back. Some didn't.

Science doesn't play "100% certain". That game is reserved for fundementalists.

 

[resodko]

:mock:those who want us to re-enter an ice age

 

[Stripe]

Science doesn't play "100% certain". That game is reserved for fundementalists.

Uh, no. It was Alate who came on here trumpeting 2014 as the hottest year on record. She spent exactly no time even acknowledging the vast inadequacy of that assertion.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist on that which must be true taking precedence.

:mock: 38 percent.

 

[resodko]

this is why i don't accept barbie's claim to be a scientist


he doesn't qualify his statements

 

[oatmeal]

They send up astronauts knowing that they might not make it back. Some didn't.

Science doesn't play "100% certain". That game is reserved for fundementalists.

So you reject science then?

Is 38 % certainty in science sufficient for you?

Would you take aspirin if science was 38% sure it was not poisonous?

Would you apply antiseptics to a cut if you were only 38% that it would do good rather than harm?

Would you purchase a car from a car dealer that only 38% of the customers had anything good to say about him?

Is evolution 38% certain?

Is your paycheck 38% certain?

I am 100 % certain of God. He has never failed me when I play by His rules.

 

[chair]

So you reject science then?

Is 38 % certainty in science sufficient for you?

Would you take aspirin if science was 38% sure it was not poisonous?

Would you apply antiseptics to a cut if you were only 38% that it would do good rather than harm?

Would you purchase a car from a car dealer that only 38% of the customers had anything good to say about him?

Is evolution 38% certain?

Is your paycheck 38% certain?

I am 100 % certain of God. He has never failed me when I play by His rules.

Both you and I take actions based on uncertainty. Not 38%, but not 100% either.

Are you 100% sure the plane you get on won't crash into the sea?
Are you 100% sure that the side effects of a medicine you take won't hurt you?
Your paycheck is not 100% certain either- your company could fail tomorrow, or you could get fired.
The article about the warmest year may have been wrong, and 38% does not sound like good odds, but don't pretend that you only do things that you are 100% sure of.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

They send up astronauts knowing that they might not make it back. Some didn't.

Science doesn't play "100% certain". That game is reserved for fundementalists.

Oh? Tell that to Al Gore and all the others who have stated unequivocally that the debate over global warming "is over."

Who was it here (think gc) told me that not only is the debate on evolution over but there's not even a controversy over it anymore.

There are similarly other things that evolutionary scientists tout as absolute fact which they've not only never seen but have never even once detected with any instruments--dark matter, dark energy, Oort's Cloud, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are similarly other things that evolutionary scientists tout as absolute fact which they've not only never seen but have never even once detected with any instruments--dark matter, dark energy, Oort's Cloud, etc.

None of that has anything to do with evolution. But it's pretty easy to show that the Oort cloud exists.

We have a constant barrage of long period comets coming into the inner solar system. But they eventually evaporate, so they must be replenished from a source out at that distance. Kepler's laws tell us how to find their apogee. And the fact that they come in from all angles tells us the location is a sphere around the inner solar system, unlike the short-period comets from the Kuiper Belt. Knowing from whence they come, and how far out, the existence of the cloud is inescapable.

The same reasoning was used to confirm the Kuiper Belt. And then we managed to actually sight some of the larger KBRs out there, further supporting it's existence.

 

[Alate_One]

Uh, no. It was Alate who came on here trumpeting 2014 as the hottest year on record. She spent exactly no time even acknowledging the vast inadequacy of that assertion.

I reported what the agencies reported. What *they* didn't report initially was the statistical significance of the measurements.

But even if it isn't the warmest of all, how do you explain the cluster of warmest years that are all within the last 20 years?

The other interesting thing about 2014 is that it wasn't an El Nino year, unlike many of the past warmest.

So, regardless there's a pattern.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist on that which must be true taking precedence.

No, you ignore facts that disagree with your predetermined idea, that man made climate change cannot be real, because if it is, it would require government intervention. And you just can't stomach that.

Fundamentalism has no interest in data, only in principle.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

But even if it isn't the warmest of all, how do you explain the cluster of warmest years that are all within the last 20 years?

Because they're LIARS--just like when they said 2014 was the hottest year. They twist the data to fit their agenda (their liberal agenda)--which is just fine with you. I could see their map/illustration was a lie from the first second as there were many area of, for example, the US that had far from a record warm year in 2014.

No, you ignore facts that disagree with your predetermined idea, that man made climate change cannot be real, because if it is, it would require government intervention. And you just can't stomach that.

Fundamentalism has no interest in data, only in principle.

It would require governmental intervention into the very basic founding blocks of life---everything we use to heat our homes, drive are cars, all products we buy--ever the very air we breath. And ALL government, especially those of India and China, would have to agree. If anybody thinks that's going to happen they live in la-la land.

Also, how about answering my question: Who are you to say how hot or cold the world should be?

LIAberals have no interest in data, only their agenda (which is total governmental control).

 

[One Ugly Christian]

None of that has anything to do with evolution. But it's pretty easy to show that the Oort cloud exists.

We have a constant barrage of long period comets coming into the inner solar system. But they eventually evaporate, so they must be replenished from a source out at that distance. Kepler's laws tell us how to find their apogee. And the fact that they come in from all angles tells us the location is a sphere around the inner solar system, unlike the short-period comets from the Kuiper Belt. Knowing from whence they come, and how far out, the existence of the cloud is inescapable.

No, none of it has anything to do with biologicalevolution (but you already knew this, I'm sure). The "evolution" of stars, galaxies and so on is taught as fact in College text books and the word is used probably hundreds of times and is even in the very title of about a dozen of the basic text on cosmology.

And you also know that the Oort cloud is only theorized, not observed and is only believed because of the assumption that our galaxy is very old.

 

[patrick jane]

solution: no more people. or we all live in tents and live off the land. just something else to spend trillions on research and development. why can't we terraform the moon, creating greenhouse gases and life supporting conditions ? no, let's send people to mars 25 years from now. what a joke. we can't live on the moon and we're thinking about mars ? what are we learning from deep space and galactic exploration ? cancer cures ? hunger ? are we really helping future generations ? we're looking for possible water and organisms in space ? while life is dying around us. extinct. to da moon, alice ! yeh, that's great. let's do it again ! we have video footage from the 60's. it's all real. let's focus on THIS Planet. now that's a bold concept. i should be able to go to the body "parts" store by now, and shop for a high performance new heart, or some brand new titanium lungs. a whole new brain, on a 30 year fixed rate. JK

 

[Alate_One]

Because they're LIARS--just like when they said 2014 was the hottest year. They twist the data to fit their agenda (their liberal agenda)--which is just fine with you.

No data twisting, just whether statistical noise separates 2014 from other extremely warm years of the last 20 like 2005 or not.

I could see their map/illustration was a lie from the first second as there were many area of, for example, the US that had far from a record warm year in 2014.

But overall, the earth had one of the warmest ever. That's why you can't go with the "it was cold outside" argument.

It would require governmental intervention into the very basic founding blocks of life---everything we use to heat our homes, drive are cars, all products we buy--ever the very air we breath.

Not really. The simplest thing to do would be a tax on certain things. Changing Energy production and efficiency isn't a bad thing. Why do you want to keep burning fuels that we already know cause death and disease directly as well as indirectly?

And ALL government, especially those of India and China, would have to agree. If anybody thinks that's going to happen they live in la-la land.

Yeah lets make the perfect the enemy of the good.

And China has already agreed anyway and is one of the biggest investors in green energy.

India will soon find it has no choice as many of it's population centers will suffer the effects of sea level rise.

Also, how about answering my question: Who are you to say how hot or cold the world should be?

I dunno do you *want* billion dollar disasters every year?

It's much warmer than it has been for thousands of years. Why do you get to say it HAS to get warmer because you can't possibly change your ways or accept government intervention.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

No data twisting, just whether statistical noise separates 2014 from other extremely warm years of the last 20 like 2005 or not.

You're right; I won't call liberals liars anymore as they're just "statistical noise separators."

The simplest thing to do would be a tax on certain things. Changing Energy production and efficiency isn't a b ad thing. Why do you want to keep burning fuels that we already know cause death and disease directly as well as indirectly?

YOU quit using fossil fuels, hypocrite.

And if you want to use "alternative sources" they YOU pay for it.

You liberal puppets are also buying into this total scam while people like Gore have made over 100 million on it and you allow the government to take more and more control of our lives.

And China has already agreed anyway and is one of the biggest investors in green energy.

You live in la-la land.

It's much warmer than it has been for thousands of years. Why do you get to say it HAS to get warmer because you can't possibly change your ways or accept government intervention.

Where on earth did I say "it has to get warmer?" The fact is that liberals want the government to control every aspect of our lives that are good and allow all that is evil (like drug use, killing babies, every form of sick sex, etc.) That, and a hatred for God, is what truly separates us and it's as clear as day. Once again: Who are you to say how hot or cold the earth should be?

Also, this lie about the seas rising is so pathetic it's beyond words. If so, how much has it risen over, say, the last 20 years? [Actually, it's risen for thousands of years but it's funny how I never get an answer from liberals on this]

 

[Stripe]

I reported what the agencies reported. What *they* didn't report initially was the statistical significance of the measurements.

Which is exactly the problem. You parrot the headlines without considering the fundamentals.

But even if it isn't the warmest of all, how do you explain the cluster of warmest years that are all within the last 20 years?

And instead of considering the possibility that an agenda might be driving the stuff you lap up, you go right back to the trough on the rare occasion on which you are forced to retreat.

The other interesting thing about 2014 is that it wasn't an El Nino year, unlike many of the past warmest. So, regardless there's a pattern.

Did you know there will always be a pattern?

No, you ignore facts that disagree with your predetermined idea, that man made climate change cannot be real, because if it is, it would require government intervention. And you just can't stomach that.

The government could not do a thing to affect the weather.

Fundamentalism has no interest in data, only in principle.

If you presented data, we could test that. Instead, you provide pretty pictures.