Sure one side of the argument has all the scientists and evidence behind it, but they should be ignored as journalists and big corporations don't like what they are saying.
(To the Liars) You speak the truth sir, but your claims are not verified by anyone in the world. Anybody know what double speak is that could educate me?
It is all about money, the new jobs agenda, where the elite had to come up with a new Industrial age to bring about more economic prosperity, where a huge markets can be built around green jobs. But the worst part is the redistribution of wealth by selling carbon credits where those wall street cynical malcontents will trade them like comedies, having it built in that large numbers of these credits will be divided up amongst them, ready to cash them in. Evil liars.
Shannon Bream-FYI, YOU do not debate "global warming"!! You're not qualified, and neither are your flunky colleagues from Fox. Get this straight, science is adjudicated through peer review. Try to read the abstracts of these articles, then tell me how you fail to meet their qualifications! It is simple, you can't begin to understand the nuances of this discussion, so stop pretending.
@dwolfcoach Seeing as how a "Climatologist" is a profession that it only roughly 15 years old and makes you a global warmist by definition if you are one, then no one but a global warmist is qualified. This is the attitude that
we are talking about: If you disagree with global warming then "you're a flat earther" or "A denier". Sorry dude, if you disagree you are a "Detractor". Global warming is a religion as no evidence to the contrary is admissable, it's all taken on faith
@guruofdoodoo The data do not lie. Almost every major scientific organization with expertise over climate science has issued statements in support of the IPCC consensus view. These now include:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
I haven't even got past the A's, and you feel qualified to disagree?
@dwolfcoach I feel more qualified then anybody on that fakey made up list of yours as not one of them is the least bit qualified: give me a fucking break "astronomical" so the star gazers are qualified. Your right though the data doesn't lie and the "Data" says that for the last 10 years it has gotten colder not warmer as your shit heads
said it would. Methinks your computer model was programed to tell lies
@guruofdoodoo How pathetically arrogant, but I'm not surprised.
"Peer review is a joke these days as the only ones who review it are the asstards who are claiming the dog ate the original temperatures so noone can reproduce their results." Ha, you do not adjudicate science in your bedroom! Just because you don't agree with the conclusion, you think you can assert your paranoid, conspiracy theory and pronounce yourself right. Cool, guru has developed his own scientific method. What a JOKE!
@dwolfcoach You call citing "FACTS" arrogant? Typical libtard. Peer review is not a or thee scientific method dumbass! Scientific method has to do with the way experiments are conducted and the way your croonies are conducting them is called "Pysuedo science". First you can not adjust for collection methods as your heros claim they did. A thermometer says what it says. If there is an outside force affecting a reading you have to take it again..period. So don't talk about scientific method loser
@dwolfcoach what is it with you libtards that makes you think retyping someones response holds more gravity then just replying to it....Oh wait your reply didn't take up enough space as their was no substance to it. You talk of paranoia like climategate didn't happen. why don't you speak to the facts? Because you would have to admit that man-made global warming was fabricated. The man who did the research for gore's movie is a proven fraud, all of his grants have been returned=fact!
@guruofdoodoo Rightard, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. And any qualified scientist knows you have none to support your propaganda. It's not too late to apply to a community college, they will give you another shot at a REAL science background. They don't offer courses in paranoid, conspiracy theories-sorry!
@dwolfcoach I've cited nothing but facts assface! what you mean is any libtard so called scientist would chant your rhetoric. climategate happened, your asshole buddies claim to have lost the original temperatures, they claim to have "the value added data" which is adjusted for collection methods, the average earth temperature has fallen for the last 10 years so in essence you and your croonies can only hurl insults and chant: it's not twue, it's not twue in your faggy libtard voices.
@dwolfcoach why don't you try explaining how one adjust for collection methods? you're supposed to be oooh so smart fagboy. why don't you try explaining how the original temperatures got lost? why don't you try explaining why the earth not only cooled for the last 10 years but your precious computer module missed it yet there's nothing wrong with it? when you can do these things then you can insult someone else, till then lick my balls bitch! no explanations, minless chanting=global warmist
@guruofdoodoo .... the hottest 2 years on record are 2010 and 2005 according to NASA.... So your claim that the earth has cooled for the last 10 years seems to be like the rest of the anti-global warming agenda - deeply flawed.
@neverfearchrisishere So NASA is your source for temperature records? Gee the organisation that sends people into space is a good place for you and your little green men to congregate. Unfortunately for you some of us actually verify our facts before we spout them. The Average World temperature has been going down for the last 10 years. 2010 had record highs"in certain places" , but it also had record lowes. When the lows out weigh the highs that makes the "average" go down. warming is religion
@guruofdoodoo What is your source? Because I'm looking at a peer reviewed article now with a graph showing that all global annual average temperatures within the last decade are not only unusually high - but all are considerably higher than any global annual average temperature pre-1980, and include 4 all time records.
Global warming is based upon well studied scientific research - and the reason why you will fail to counter my statement with a reputable source is because your wrong.
@neverfearchrisishere Wow peer reviewed! Professor Mann whose research led to the "Global Warming" fairytale was"Peer Reviewed". Since the revalations of Climategate every college that he worked at has been sued and has subsequently had to return grant money because his research was fraudulent. Pre 80's would be
a 30 year period not a 10. As all the original temperatures from the last 20 years have been deleted your peer review is crap! My sources are:National weather service,weather channel..
@neverfearchrisishere By the way the founder of the weather channel says global warming is crap. If you actually followed climategate instead of practicing the religion of liberalism you would know that professor man exagerated the hockey sticks in his graphs along with all the rest of his so called data. As the center for climate change"The Keeper of Records" deleted all of the original temperatures, the same ones we've been suing under the freedom of information to obtain,no one can evaluate
@dwolfcoach Oh and as to the "Just submit your work" bullshit: Many have submitted and it never makes it to the debate as mainstream media are lockstep with you and your hippie comrades. Peer review is a joke these days as the only ones who review it are the asstards who are claiming the dog ate the original temperatures so noone can reproduce their results.How about every collage that professor man worked for having to give back his grant money because of fraud in his research???
@dwolfcoach We have professionals who's job it is to study weather patterns who are excluded from the debate
called" Meteorologist"! They are better known as weathermen. Some of these people have studied weather patterns for more then 50 years, but because they disagree with the whole,"The sky is falling" they are discredited! We've had 2 ice ages and 2 thaws that the warmist can't explain but because we're here this cycle is our fault. For the last 10 years it has been getting colder, WTF??!!
@guruofdoodoo "We have professionals who's job it is to study weather patterns who are excluded from the debate." Wrong! They are NOT paid to study GLOBAL "weather patterns". If you want into the debate, just publish your work and submit it to peer reviewed literature.
The most certainly do not participate in this forum. Wherever your "cooling" data is being generated, please cite it. It takes no rigor to make an assertion, so only the ignorant are listening to your "cooling" nonsense.
@dwolfcoach No only the ignorant(please take a bow dwolf) are ignoring the cooling data as all one has to fucking do is read a thermometer. World temperature readings are available to all. The only data that showed warming was the "value added data" that you frigtard warmest cite, which by the way the original temperatures you fuckheads have yet to produce and your now saying you deleted it. And yes meterologist do study "global patterns" your religious zeolatry shows
You god-fearing neo-cons are a sad paranoid bunch. U must be so embarrassed in your foil hat. NO major internation science institutes support your claim. ZIPPO, NIL. 3 independent investigations revealed no conspiracy. You have been conned by the same lobbyists that tried to tell us that the Gulf war was good, that the ozone hole didnt exist, that tobacco smoke was harmless and that acid rain wasnt a problem - google "Merchants of doubt" for the full monty ... but u won't.
@garlicbreds I will google it! Read Chis Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" Not that you need convincing. But his thesis is quite similar to yours.
@dwolfcoach Thanks dwalf! I wasnt familiar with Mooney. His book does seem closely related, though perhaps more broad in scope. I just saw an interview with him by Prof Oreskes - they may be from the same institution.
Love your comment re Inhofe - I might need to recycle that one, as we have some similar redneck politicians in Australia!
Ha, Jim Inhofe press??? You've got to be kidding. This guy has the scientific IQ of an Oklahoman redneck. Oh wait, he is an Oklahoman redneck! Peer review is where science is adjudicated Jimbo, but it doesn't matter to you. You draw conclusions and then look for the evidence. This is the 21st century and running away from evidence and reason to revert back to ignorance is never going to happen. Climategate is a Fox News construct-there is nothing to it!
These Ass Holes at Fox News are so worried about these lies but when it comes to things that really matter to americans they don't give a Fuck. Let them keep suckin' Rupert Murdoch's Ass fuking Morons. Pussy's !!!
As much as I despise Fox news, they are actually pointing out a valid problem, its not BS. Scientists have a history of lying, skewing, exageratting, or committing straight up fraud in order to keep their grants, funding, or financial investment. Its not that they are evil, but a desperate act of not losing what they have, of course some just want to make money. My problem with GW, whether it gets hot or cold, they say its global warming and no explaination on why the other planets are warming
@dwolfcoach Whatever floats your boat! But all you have done is proven my point because anyone who thinks their is not a financial incentive with this crap is a fool. But, I do want to make one thing clear, do we as man kind need to stop burning fossil fuels, YES, pollution is pollution we need to cut back especially when we do have alternatives. So I am for the switch, just this end of the world as we know it crap is BS.
@shadowwbn "Scientists have a history of lying, skewing, exageratting, or committing straight up fraud in order to keep their grants, funding, or financial investment. Its not that they are evil, but a desperate act of not losing what they have, of course some just want to make money."
Do you understand the level of scrutiny in science and the penalties for "fraud"?
I think you're dead wrong in your assertion. As for financial gain... Exxonmobile returned 40 billion in one quarter last year.
@dwolfcoach Plus, these 'scientists' can barely predict the weather, I can look at their live doppler radar and guess the weather better than them on some nights. Just look at this years original 'hurricane/tropical storm' prediction/expectation, its been wrong, just like last year. So to hell with global warming, we need to focus on ONE thing, that is how do we stop or drastically cut down on polluting this planet with our waste, in a way that will not break our civilization in half.
@shadowwbn The instrument record is clear. Land masses and oceans are warming, extent sea ice is diminishing, oceans are acidifying, sea levels are rising, glacial runoff is slowing, species are migrating or disappearing, ...etc.
@dwolfcoach The solution to the problem is the same solution that has been used successfully by nature, by evolution, by planet earth. Its called adaptation. Our planet, the planets, the animals, the people, the land, and the oceans have endured countless changes of our global climatic temp. We seriously need to come to grips with the fact that our planet has its own Thermostat and just like when you were a kid, our father wont let us touch the damn thing, so we just need to get over it.
@shadowwbn Thanks for the pep talk, but my father would need to know that keeping it lower was more economical, better for the environment in which his children would live, and wouldn't arm psychotic religious regimes that want to destroy our way of life. You can "get over it" if you want, but me, I'd like to hold my public officials accountable to the scientific process that keeps our democracy strong. If you think it wise to run interference for these corrupt forces, go ahead.
I also would love to know why you think Fox Schmuze is qualified to lead a scientific debate. They're are nothing but a shill for corporate America and wouldn't know scientific truth if it bit them in the ass. (And it will.)
@dwolfcoach I've analyzed satellite glacier data from 2002-present and there was a decline in 2003 but it came back around 2006. All the science supporting global warming comes from computer models which have all been discredited. A computer model is meaningless unless it's predictions are useful and so far all the predictions have been massively overstated according to empirical measurements. The pure raw data just does not support the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
@thebestsumoeva The Nation Snow and Ice Data Center, doesn't concur. Where is your data published? The Arctic has 4.1% decrease per decade, the antarctic a .09% increase per decade. Arctic ice is clearly diminishing-a statistical significance.
@dwolfcoach Google "ijis" it's the second link. FYI it is a Japanese satellite.
The largest decline took ~5 years from 2002-2007 and resulted in close to a 6% loss of ice. Then it expanded 4% and almost recovered and started going down again. Bear in mind the error is estimated at 10% so this data isn't really significant for small changes. At any rate you also assume any melting must anthropogenic which isn't always the case as has been shown by other data.
@thebestsumoeva "Total area of sea ice in Arctic Ocean smallest
since observations started
- Much faster pace of ice melting than forecasted-"
From ijis?? I'm not sure what you're reading, but please let me know what I'm missing. As for cause-there are no known forcing mechanisms, only feedback mechanisms. Anthropogenic CO2 is the primary feedback mechanism. Where are you reading the "controversy"?
@dwolfcoach It is very easy to prove H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas. It is also easy to show nature makes more CO2 than man kind. Looking at ice core data we know the earth has seen periods of higher CO2 concentrations than now and periods when CO2 was rising quicker than currently. Google "The climatic effects of water vapour" you should get an article from "Physics World". The question remains as to whether we should ban dihydrogen monoxide.
@thebestsumoeva No it is not easy to prove nature makes more CO2 than mankind. On the contrary, we emit over 130 times what "nature" emits. (US Geological survey.) I'll give you the link if you'd like. As for paleoclimatolgy, you need to look at the complete story. H2O as vapor is certainly a factor, but warmer air holds more dihydrogen monoixide. (Ha, a ban, good try!)
@thebestsumoeva “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide." NASA.gov.
Your link was good and I appreciate the scientific references vs blog/spin Dr. sources.
@dwolfcoach Theoretically the effect you just spoke of seems reasonable. My problem is that this would mean warmer temperatures create more humidity and more humidity creates warmer temperature so our planet would continuously warm in response to even a small increase in temperature. If this were the case we'd all already be dead. You have to admit there is some driving force much more significant than the one you proposed as to what that is I couldn't tell you.
@dwolfcoach I can't cite an article for this but a biologist said that nature emits 210 gigatons of CO2 per year and absorbs 213.8 gigatons per year while man emits 7.1 gigatons per year and absorbs none. He made the statement that since nature absorbs it then it's ok but man made must be bad if it isn't absorbed. It is commonly known CO2 is a fertilizer for planets so it would seem while we don't absorb it plants will.
Out of 12 years of data! HOLY JEBUS!! They want to base 12 bah-zillion years of the Earth's temperature on 12 years of data. I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE the eco-terrorists. Honestly, if they weren't trying to rule my life, I wouldn't care. But, DON'T SPEND MY TAX DOLLARS ON THIS HORSE SHIT!
"Climategate" never happened. No email showed any such thing. The scientists were exonerated by thee official investigations and tens of thousands of unofficial investigations. Science won, FOX "News" lost!
@Desertphile Science... WHAT IN THE HOLY GOD FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!! There's NO SCIENCE INVOLVED!!! It's as scientific as Catholicism. How about you PROVE humans are the problem before you spend my GOD DAMN MONEY on BULLSHIT! I despise you socialist cock eating fuck-nuts!
@dirtyproduction there is a lOT of data available and not only for the last 12 yrs. The last 12 yrs doesn't matter. there is data for milions of years!
@Desertphile Please do define science. Is science a consensus of a bunch of so called scientist who have a monetary claim in something or is it an unbiased observer after objective facts not subjective opinions. Is making computer models which fail to accurately predict the earths climate good science? Scaring people with made up data and exaggerating claims is not science, it is lying and immoral. Stop being scared of this BS that has been trying to brainwash you since you were a little kid.
@thebestsumoeva ; It's not my place to define science: scientists did that. "Climategate" never happened: grow up, and stop watching the America Treason Network.
@Desertphile I'm going to go out on a whim here and admit I watch all the news networks and to be quite honest while Fox is biased they still don't hold a candle to the amount of bias coming from everyone else combined. You call them out simply because their bias disagrees with your ideology but I say you should broaden your horizons and do your own research. Just because some morons have convinced a lot of other morons that we are destroying the planet doesn't make it true.
@Desertphile What exactly is your definition of reality? Is reality having everyone see the world exactly as you do? Is it a few scientist coming up with a hypothesis and publishing it as fact? If you support the "global warming" hypothesis that we are all going to die from over production of CO2 then provide me some evidence.
And please stop coming up with silly names for news networks and claiming things didn't happen just because MSNBC didn't report about it. Think for your self...
@Desertphile That's a pretty good definition, as a Physicist I like to define it as a theory which was experimentally verified. What's interesting with this definition is that you never know what reality truly is since new theories may be created which better describe your old measurements.
I honestly believe there is more objective evidence against anthropogenic global warming than for it. YT doesn't give me enough room to show you, but if you want to post some research I'd be happy to see it.
@Desertphile Am I supposed to assume that the peers reviewing my journal don't have their own ideas on the matter and will publish a journal that goes against their ideas? There have been many scientist even in the IPCC that have found evidence against global warming and yet their articles don't get published. Google "The climatic effects of water vapour" it's an article that was actually published and contains very good evidence against global warming.
@thebestsumoeva ; Peer-reviewed science journals =LOVE= to publish papers that correct the sciences they are about. They would kill for the opportunity to publish a paper showing AGW did not and is not happening.
@Desertphile There is billions spent on proving global warming is killing us and next to nothing spent on proving otherwise. Are you telling me the peer reviewers would love to publish an article that would result in getting their funding cut off? You think scientist grow money on trees and are uncorrupted? Those leaked emails demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about. At any rate did you read the article I gave you in my last post?
@thebestsumoeva ; "There is billions spent on proving global warming is killing us"
No. No scientist has ever tried to prove global warming is happening, let alone "killing us." Nor are any scientists expecting global warming to kill anyone. Scientists never prove their conclusions: they only disprove them. That is what peer-review does. If you have made a discovery that disproves all of the scientists in the world regarding CO2, AGW, and climate change, tell them: they will reward you greatly.
@Desertphile Are you that much of an idiot? Read those leaked emails and you see exactly what the peer reviewers think of scientist publishing work disproving global warming. Since when is making threats and going so far as to change the values of a journal considered good science? Once again read the article I gave you and quit assuming scientist are angels sent to protect us. I do research at a University and I can tell you they are just like anyone else.
@thebestsumoeva ; I read around 900 of the emails; other people have read all of them. Nobody has ever found any evidence the CRU did anything wrong; "climategate" never happened. There was no scandal.
@Desertphile Most news networks reported the emails and read some of them where they were manipulating data to hide declines in temperature. They also demanded to have publications blocked from various scientist for being in disagreement. They don't have pubic debates on this issue because the backing is quite weak. Many scientist have come out against AGW but they are silenced by the media. Please do tell me what you find so convincing about AGW and I'd be happy to look at it.
@thebestsumoeva ; "...and read some of them where they were manipulating data to hide declines in temperature. "
Dear idiot. The "hide the decline" had nothing to do with temperature, nor with hiding anything. Gods you cult nuts are so fucking stupid. The decline was regarding tree ring proxies, which were "hidden" by using actual thermometer measurements. Sheeeish. You stupid shits will believe anything. The fact remains: "climategate" never happened; the CRU did nothing wrong.
@Desertphile So your telling me when you make a graph of tree ring data and it doesn't support your hypothesis it's ok to replace it with data from another source which does agree with your hypothesis? What do you call the graph? "Tree ring and other stuff vs. time"? Real great science you got there my friend. Since when is forcing nature to match your hypothesis called science?
Once again please tell me what is so convincing about AGW to you.
@thebestsumoeva ; Dear slow person. As you know, tree ring proxies ceased to be accurate in the 1960s. Since then scientists use instrumentation data. Gods you hysterical alarmist nuts are stupid. Please try to keep up.
@Desertphile Assuming you're smarter or more intelligent than someone doesn't make it true. On the contrary it actually makes you pretty stupid. The exact reasoning why stupid people must make personal attacks alludes me, but my guess would be that they have nothing better to do. It is widely known that ground based thermometers are inaccurate for the reason of being located next to growing cities. Satellites are much more accurate and once again you can not drop data that disagrees with you.
@Desertphile Which is a more powerful greenhouse gas H2O or CO2? Is CO2 a pollutant? Why do ice core samples show temperatures rising before CO2 levels? How much CO2 does nature produce vs. man? Since you seem to enjoy science I'm sure you will be delighted in answering all of these questions.
@Desertphile Dear arrogant friend, turn off the TV and come to your own conclusions. I find it interesting how you claim to love science yet you have never done any scientific work or even read a scientific paper. Science to you is listening to what a select few scientist have said and accepting it without questions. It wouldn't be as sad if the claims some of them are making weren't so ridiculously stupid.
If you are able please answer the questions I posed earlier.
@thebestsumoeva ; "Climategate" never happened, brainless puppet. You obey your masters without hesitation, but you can cast off their strings and stand up like a human being: it's not too late. Kill your television. Read some science papers---- Google Scholar really is your friend. You do not have to remain a slave. Good luck.
@Desertphile Enough of the boring generalizations. Lets talk about the science of global warming. Have you given any thought to any of the questions I gave earlier? Better yet can you provide me the scientific evidence that you keep talking about which supports global warming. You can give me links to an article if you'd like.
@thebestsumoeva ; Golly, you admit to being too stupid to work web sites such as Google Scholar, and at the same time you insist all of the scientists in the world are wrong about global climate change. LOL! "Climategate" never happened.
@Desertphile Again you give me more boring generalizations and claim I don't know how to use google scholar. Now your just straight up lying. I said nothing of climategate in my last few replies and you won't shutup about it. If your so scientific about things then answer the questions I gave and provide me your scientific reasoning behind global warming. If your next post fails to contain something scientific I am going to claim victory by default.
@thebestsumoeva ; All you could ever wish to know about climate and the current global climate anomaly is available at your fingertips via Google Scholar. If you are too stupid or too lazy to look it over, pay me $200 and I will do it for you. I accept paypal.
@Desertphile I've actually looked over many articles and would give you scientific critiques on any number if you'd like. I enjoy being more specific and down to earth so I'd rather you bring up what exactly it is that convinces you global warming is true. So far as I can tell the biggest scientific evidence is from computer models which are quite useless unless they produce accurate predictions that match reality. BTW you have yet to say anything scientific so I am claiming victory.
@thebestsumoeva ; Great! Your next step is to submit the papers to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal. The world's scientists will reward and applaud you for correcting them. Please let me know how that goes, m'kay?
@Desertphile By refereed peer reviewed journal do you mean bias? I'm actually publishing things in metamaterials and don't have time/money to do research into climate change. They don't exactly offer grants for disproving global warming so I wouldn't even know where to look for funding for such a thing.
@thebestsumoeva ; "By refereed peer reviewed journal do you mean bias?"
Yes, of course. If you have made an astonishing discovery that shows all of the scientists are wrong, your next step is to write a paper on the subject and submit it for peer-review. What are you waiting for?
@Desertphile There have been papers published on this topic. If you read the paper I quoted you earlier you'd know this. There have also been many scientific debates in which the so called deniers clearly won. Just because MSNBC and CNN don't report this news until late night in the most biased ways doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
@thebestsumoeva ; "There have been papers published on this topic."
Odd how two surveys of the science journals published globally don't show your assertion to be true. Meanwhile peer-review continues to be the gold standard, and 97.6% of scientists agree about global climate change. LOL! Got anything else? P.S. "Climategate" still never happened.
@Desertphile Read the papers for yourself and it's rather easy to find the logical break down in many of them. For example measuring glaciers melting in the Himalaya's doesn't mean man is causing the glaciers to melt. More over it's been shown that as glaciers melt in the Himalaya's they regrow else where.
Why are you so angry with what I'm saying anyways. You'd think it'd be good news considering I'm trying to prove the world isn't going to end.
@thebestsumoeva "...measuring glaciers melting in the Himalaya's doesn't mean man is causing the glaciers to melt."
No scientist says it does or did. The rate of change and the mechanisms involved are unprecedented in 600,000 years of temperature proxy data, and only CO2 explains why.
@Desertphile We happen to start measuring global temperatures at the end of an ice age and freak out if they go up slightly? Ice core samples have shown us that the earth has had higher temperatures and CO2 levels than today and the earth got along just fine. Man only makes 3% of the total CO2 production on earth. The rest comes from natural sources. Perhaps if we kill all the animals we can stop global warming...
@thebestsumoeva ; "We happen to start measuring global temperatures at the end of an ice age...."
We had instruments 10,000 years ago?! Do tell! This will astound the world's scientists. Your next step is to write a paper on the subject and submit it for reer review. It's your civic duty.
@Desertphile Geez I thought you liked science. We didn't have instruments 10,000 years ago, but we can reference temperatures from then with ice core samples. We don't have a thermometer on the sun, but we can tell the surface is around 5500K by approximating it as a blackbody and finding the peak wavelength.
@thebestsumoeva ; "We didn't have instruments 10,000 years ago....."
Idiot. Climate data goes back millions of years; you claimed "we" started measuring global temperatures around 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile, the current temperature anomaly is unprecedented in its rate and cause: 97.6% of the world's scientists say so. If you have evidence to the contrary, submit it for peer review.
@Desertphile. Let me be absolutely clear, the warming today is NOT unprecedented and the world has experienced both faster rises in temperature and faster rises in CO2 NATURALLY. Also CO2 is NOT the major driver of global temperature. At most scientists say we might have an effect. I will publish research as soon as the government gives me a grant to undertake such research.
@thebestsumoeva ; No scientist says the current global temperature anomaly is unprecidented: the rate and the cause are. And CO2 is the only thing that explains it. You gibber about past climate changes, yet the subject is the current one: all of the scientists on the planet who study the subject agree CO2 caused it and is causing it. If they are wrong, tell them so---- write a paper and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal. If you want the address, ask me in private message.
@Desertphile Google "scientist against global warming" and a Wikipedia page will popup with an incomplete list of several scientist. There have also been several scientist that resigned from the IPCC and asked to have their names removed from the so called consensus. When their names were not removed they sued the IPCC. One even states that several of the scientist in the IPCC aren't even scientist, they are activist from Greenpeace and other organizations.
@Desertphile As I said Google "The climatic effects of water vapour" you get an article in a peer reviewed journal disproving much of what the main stream paid off scientist say. I believe you are not illiterate so you don't have an excuse for not reading this article as I've pointed it out earlier.
@thebestsumoeva We all believe what we want to believe, but I trust science to tell the truth as accurately as can be told. CO2 levels are at 392 PPM, highest historical concentrations, sea levels are rising, oceans are acidifying, Arctic extent sea ice is diminishing, Land ice is diminishing, both land masses and oceans are warming and global forcing is not the reason.
Your turn; what is your hypothesis on the cause of these clearly measurable effects??
@dwolfcoach first the sun is the cause of global warming, if it did exist. the sun could do more than any man and has been for centuries. also, do you realize that plants need co2 to live? its the biggest scam ever.
@dwolfcoach first the sun is the cause of global warming, if it did exist. the sun could do more than any man and has been for centuries. also, do you realize that plants need co2 to live? its the biggest scam ever. also i have noticed it is MUCH colder each year and summers are shorter over the past ten years, im sure you would agree with that at least.
@blackhatch46 The sun?? You're skipping some basic facts here-we have very sophisticated methods of measuring this and the sun is quite clearly not the cause. It is much cooler...? Where? If you think that looking out your window you can surmise GLOBAL temperatures, you don't understand this discussion.
@dwolfcoach 392 is the highest historical concentration if you only look at 1800-Now. Ice core samples have shown much higher concentrations as well as higher temperatures which have occurred without man on the planet. Your logic is circular, you see slight sea levels rise, melting of parts of ice sheets, and a slight warming of oceans and immediately blame man with no other proof? BTW some land ice melts while other land ice expands, this is a basic fact of science.
@thebestsumoeva So you trust proxy data, but not thermometers. How far back to the ice cores go? After you find it, then tell me the year CO2 was higher than now. As for the "blame man " thing, hypothesize for me what else the cause could be. Your "basic facts of science" are missing most of the science.
@dwolfcoach Thermometers on the ground tend to show more warming than satellites because cities have popped up next to ground based thermometers. Some ground based thermometers have been found next to HVAC systems for businesses so obviously they give bad results. Read a geology book and they will label out many times in which temperatures were hotter. One of the reasons they think some fauna went extinct is because of cooling not warming. Your basic facts are from Al Gore who isn't a scientist.
@thebestsumoeva Where do you get your info?? Seriously? Peer review is set up to go over these anomalies, not Al Gore, Glenn Beck, or Flunky news outlets. Science puts constraints on claims that are made, and the language with which you describe them. HVACs at businesses...? WOW? Cooling?? Where do you think this global cooling is taking place? Sources?? This is new information so you'll need citation for me to take this seriously. And do me a favor, no more Al Gore nonsense, it's too goofy.
@dwolfcoach goto isthereglobalcooling . com they cite everything they say. It all comes from NOAA or ice cap dot org. The Facts are the world HAS cooled down the past few years. Why do you think they renamed the IPCC to climate change instead of warming? BTW I don't watch flunky news outlets for my information, I read papers and propose my own views. Unlike you I am not a hypocritical moron who has been tricked by mass media and fake science. Sorry I offended your fake science god.
@thebestsumoeva Evidence cannot be offended by you nor can I. Evidence doesn't have feelings and your sources are unimpressive to me. You can pretend to argue with FACTS, but decades worth of data sets are available to you. Reject them if you want, but I won't join your delusional conspiracy, but good luck to you buddy. IPCC is renaming to climate change...? Are you freaking nuts or don't you realize that the CC refers to climate change and has since 1988. It has also been that since the 50's!!
@thebestsumoeva NO you wouldn't. You, like your other "skeptic" friends, have no interest in facts derived from the rigor of the peer review process. That process is crucial to a democracy, not just our health and welfare. Your efforts here are very naive and destructive to the America built on "We the people...".
@dwolfcoach I asked for facts and yet again you fail to deliver them. Instead you divert to making personal attacks on me with a very crude generalization of how you think I think. You aren't arguing about "We the people", you are arguing that people need to be controlled and if they don't support every ignorant scientist you do they should be forced to. Your whole argument runs counter to peoples wishes and you continuously fail to give me any scientific reasoning for your beliefs.
Honestly most of my fellow countrymen (Americans) are so thick have such a little amount of respect or understanding of science that I would not even fault scientist for using dishonest methods to initiate the changes necessary to avert this future doom.
@Keysteeze Please provide some scientific reasoning for your argument.
I may be a global warming denier but at least I'm not scared of going outside for fear I will destroy the planet. Why don't you just get a big doomsday sign and protest outside with the rest of your psycho friends?
@JuanVoyce I did a study that found the dolphins are plotting against us. If you don't take massive action and shut down all of our industry and burn all of our money they are going to kill all of us. This is by far the number one issue facing man kind right now and action must be taken! The fate of earth depends on it and the science is all agreed on. There is NO debate we MUST forfeit to the dolphins or ELSE!
@JuanVoyce No it was actually published in Al Gore's documentary. He really liked our graphs and didn't ask us for any validity. BTW what do you think we should do about the RNC hacker? He/She clearly broke the law...
@thebestsumoeva “Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data,” Sammon wrote in an email from last December leaked to Media Matters, “we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
uhh....assuming there is an indictment....a fair trial?
@JuanVoyce Most data suggests the planet has cooled the past 10 years while there is a larger upward trend over longer periods. Right now the planet has changed climate in such tiny amounts we can't even say whether it's heating or cooling with all data agreeing within error.
Would you be happy to find out that indeed global warming is a hoax or would you be sad? If it is a hoax do you believe we should still aggressively cut carbon emissions and pass more regulations?
@thebestsumoeva I know...let's throw out all that corrupted temperature data that suggests that the last decade was the warmest ever recorded. Why do satellite pictures and readings show a significant decline in sea and land ice over that period?
I would be fearful, angry, distrustful, and vengeful...just like the Conservatives.
@JuanVoyce I've looked at Arctic Ocean sea ice data from the Japanese satellite ijis and it shows some cyclical changes but the biggest change is never over the 10% estimated error bounds. It also shows a decline in some years with gains in others with no clear long term trend at least since 2002. Just google ijis for yourself and you can see it. I went ahead and plugged the numbers into Matlab to do further analysis. Please provide data before making claims out of thin air.
@thebestsumoeva You better look at that data again. Between Sept. 2002 and Sept. 2010 there was a 15% decline. Greenland and West Antarctica have been losing ice over the same period. Sorry, but the facts don't support your position.
@JuanVoyce From the Arctic data set I looked at I found an 8.22% decline from Sept 2002 to Sept 2010 which is below the estimated error. The overall trend is slightly negative which would indicate a declining ice volume, but this method doesn't take into account ice sheet thickness only surface area. There also seems to be a lower bound at which point some unknown force begins rebuilding the ice as can be scene in the regrowth in 2007.
@JuanVoyce I used 9/1/2002 and 9/1/2010 because you said September, thanks for clearing up the dates you used. I was looking at peaks not troughs. Also ice surface area says nothing of thickness. You must also remember even if ice is declining it doesn't prove AGW is the cause. Science is useless without predictions so we should be able to measure CO2 concentrations and predict sea ice formation/declination as a variable. You can also find good data from the Urbana Champaign CRU.
@thebestsumoeva For a good article on ice thickness google "NASA thin ice". One-year ice (the stuff that is all gone by the September minimum) averages 3' thick; multi-year ice averages 9' thick. Not only is the fraction of multi-year to total ice extent getting smaller, ICE-SAT data shows surviving multi-year ice is getting thinner.
Yes, I would expect this negative decadal trend to continue as predicted by the AGW theory.
@JuanVoyce What is more interesting is that in late 2006 the satellite was turned off for about 5 days and when it came back on the data appears to be shifted downward from the trend it was previously showing. It is also obvious from the trough during this year that the ice was going to begin growing this year. The following year the ice regrew almost to the highest levels ever recorded. It would have been the highest ever recorded had the data not been shifted.
@JuanVoyce Also keep in mind the satellite normally turns off during this period but when it resumes action the data still trends with the previous data. It would appear perhaps this time they made a calibration to the satellite thus causing it to give slightly lower estimates.
Sun, Space Position of solar system controls climate, Not CO2 bull they keep pushing on the sheeple for massive Tax increases and causing the fall of America and the World. We live on a planet spinning thru space , around a star that goes thru heating and cooling cycles over a 12 and 20 year cycle. That is some cycle are more severe than others over a tme period. This cycle is Supposedly to be one of the more severe one and maybe one of the greatest cycles. The Sun Not CO2 will heat the planet.
@Niightversionn Climatism is apart of Scientism, where scientists investigate nature based on their 5 senses and worship mother nature, always investigating how things happen, but not why. eg, why do atoms have the structure they have, why does electricity act the way it does, etc.
Its a scam for a global carbon tax, find more scams to bleed the people dry of their wealth. Just like the world bankers who print their own money out of thin air, we could all be rich if we were allowed to do that.
global warming is BS .... seriously who ever believes global warming is fact obviously doesn't remember grade 10 science when we were taught that carbon dioxide is what trees live on so why on gods green earth would it all of a sudden be bad those eco nuts are stupid!!! its to bring out a global tax to control your asses!!!
@cristop5 --- Incorrect. The UK Parliamentary Committee pardoned what they did but they still said that they should NOT have done it. And if you really think that a panel set up by the University to investigate one of it's own branches is unbiased, well, I'd be willing to bet you are among a very small minority.
@4sylum1nmate Had the UEA NOT set up inquiries you would have been outraged. But when they do you are still put out! But don't worry, three inquiries were set up.
1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This consists of MPs and was not chosen by UEA.
2. Scientific Appraisal Panel. Chosen on advice from the Royal Society. No panelists are associated with the UEA.
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review. None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the IPCC.
@cristop5 Well then provide me the data so I can see it for my self. I do research on metamaterials and am quite good at analyzing data so I would be quite excited to see the data you are basing your conclusions on.
@cristop5 I can't see what you goggled in your video to retrieve the data. I'd also like to know the source of the data as well as how it was collected. Data is nothing but numbers unless you know where it came from and can give it a physical meaning.
1. "I can't see what you goggled in your video to retrieve the data"
If you can't read the search terms links to the databases are given in the sidebars of each video.
2. "Data is nothing but numbers"
If you want more information as to how the data is gathered & derived that is available on the various sites. Have a go yourself first and if you have something specific you can't find get back to me & I will try to find it for you.
4sylum1nmate The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee & the Scientific Appraisal Panel have reported. The ICC email review committee has yet to report.
Yes the Science and Technology Committee was critical of CRU's attitude to FOI requests. But they found no evidence of dishonesty.
The Scientific Appraisal Panel found no evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice.
Meanwhile, the planet is still warming due to our emissions - and the political will to act has weakened.
@cristop5 --- Don't blame me. I'm not the enemy. They knew full well that they were in positions of influence over policy that affected the entire world. And as such they have no room for anything even remotely questionable in their actions.
@4sylum1nmate If you ever come across anyone whose actions are never remotely questionable, please help them set up a religion. I'm in my middle years and still on the lookout.
But perhaps elsewhere you have been equally critical of those in the denier camp who have spread enough lies and confusion to derail action on climate change.
@cristop5 --- Don't judge me until you know me. I merely pointed out a couple facts. No I don't expect anybody to walk on water. But yes I do expect those who propose to make OR influence policy that affects my life to be as damn squeaky clean as possible. There's no room for dirty politics, corruption, or dirty science in this. People's lives are at stake by the millions.
@4sylum1nmate ; "There's no room for dirty politics, corruption, or dirty science in this." Of course. But "climategate" never happened. The scientists did nothing wrong.
@cristop5 So you're telling me a bureaucracy funded through tax payers money investigated another bureaucracy funded through tax payers money both of which stand to lose billions of dollars if they accuse the other one of lying to the public will give us the truth? A quick "google" search for University of East Anglia clearly states they are a Climate Research Unit so we can undoubtedly trust their unbiased opinions when making judgments on where or not to cut funding to climate research.
@thebestsumoeva The idea that climate change isn't happening is head-the-sand idiocy.
The idea that if somehow we suddenly found out that it's not happening, funding would suddenly dry up is similarly moronic. Think it through. We already know many of the things that cause cancer, yet research continues - teasing out the impacts and natures of known and new carcinogens.
It's time to concede that given the planet is the hottest it's been in recorded history, and we need to pay attention.
@cristop5 I'm also a scientist albeit not a climatologists. If you were a scientist you'd know right now is NOT the hottest time in recorded history. Perhaps if you consider recorded history the 1950's to today you may be onto something, but ice core samples and other methods for measuring temperatures historically indicate the earth has been significantly warmer than it is today. You are either playing on words, a complete idiot, or a bold faced liar. I'll settle for playing on words to be nice
The only investigation that should happen is at Faux News. The e-mails had nothing of consequence in them. Fox lies and counts on the idea that whatever is told first is usually taken as truth by the average uninformed citizen.
You're 69 year old stalker. Youre a global warming DENIER with no peer-reviewed science so all you can do is play silly games. Further proof global warming deniers are frauds
Lol there is a debate?
blabbyblah1 1 week ago
Sure one side of the argument has all the scientists and evidence behind it, but they should be ignored as journalists and big corporations don't like what they are saying.
neverfearchrisishere 5 months ago
(To the Liars) You speak the truth sir, but your claims are not verified by anyone in the world. Anybody know what double speak is that could educate me?
Jmillyful 8 months ago
It is all about money, the new jobs agenda, where the elite had to come up with a new Industrial age to bring about more economic prosperity, where a huge markets can be built around green jobs. But the worst part is the redistribution of wealth by selling carbon credits where those wall street cynical malcontents will trade them like comedies, having it built in that large numbers of these credits will be divided up amongst them, ready to cash them in. Evil liars.
SeekTruthinLight 11 months ago
Shannon Bream-FYI, YOU do not debate "global warming"!! You're not qualified, and neither are your flunky colleagues from Fox. Get this straight, science is adjudicated through peer review. Try to read the abstracts of these articles, then tell me how you fail to meet their qualifications! It is simple, you can't begin to understand the nuances of this discussion, so stop pretending.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Seeing as how a "Climatologist" is a profession that it only roughly 15 years old and makes you a global warmist by definition if you are one, then no one but a global warmist is qualified. This is the attitude that
we are talking about: If you disagree with global warming then "you're a flat earther" or "A denier". Sorry dude, if you disagree you are a "Detractor". Global warming is a religion as no evidence to the contrary is admissable, it's all taken on faith
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo The data do not lie. Almost every major scientific organization with expertise over climate science has issued statements in support of the IPCC consensus view. These now include:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
I haven't even got past the A's, and you feel qualified to disagree?
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach I feel more qualified then anybody on that fakey made up list of yours as not one of them is the least bit qualified: give me a fucking break "astronomical" so the star gazers are qualified. Your right though the data doesn't lie and the "Data" says that for the last 10 years it has gotten colder not warmer as your shit heads
said it would. Methinks your computer model was programed to tell lies
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo How pathetically arrogant, but I'm not surprised.
"Peer review is a joke these days as the only ones who review it are the asstards who are claiming the dog ate the original temperatures so noone can reproduce their results." Ha, you do not adjudicate science in your bedroom! Just because you don't agree with the conclusion, you think you can assert your paranoid, conspiracy theory and pronounce yourself right. Cool, guru has developed his own scientific method. What a JOKE!
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach You call citing "FACTS" arrogant? Typical libtard. Peer review is not a or thee scientific method dumbass! Scientific method has to do with the way experiments are conducted and the way your croonies are conducting them is called "Pysuedo science". First you can not adjust for collection methods as your heros claim they did. A thermometer says what it says. If there is an outside force affecting a reading you have to take it again..period. So don't talk about scientific method loser
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach what is it with you libtards that makes you think retyping someones response holds more gravity then just replying to it....Oh wait your reply didn't take up enough space as their was no substance to it. You talk of paranoia like climategate didn't happen. why don't you speak to the facts? Because you would have to admit that man-made global warming was fabricated. The man who did the research for gore's movie is a proven fraud, all of his grants have been returned=fact!
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo Go back to school-learn spelling , then try science. You're a freaking mental case!
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach typical libtard when you can't answer a question or when you're losing a debate because the facts
are against you , you resort to insults. I feel sorry for you and your sorry lot , nothing but mindless sheep following the herd!
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo Rightard, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. And any qualified scientist knows you have none to support your propaganda. It's not too late to apply to a community college, they will give you another shot at a REAL science background. They don't offer courses in paranoid, conspiracy theories-sorry!
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach I've cited nothing but facts assface! what you mean is any libtard so called scientist would chant your rhetoric. climategate happened, your asshole buddies claim to have lost the original temperatures, they claim to have "the value added data" which is adjusted for collection methods, the average earth temperature has fallen for the last 10 years so in essence you and your croonies can only hurl insults and chant: it's not twue, it's not twue in your faggy libtard voices.
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach why don't you try explaining how one adjust for collection methods? you're supposed to be oooh so smart fagboy. why don't you try explaining how the original temperatures got lost? why don't you try explaining why the earth not only cooled for the last 10 years but your precious computer module missed it yet there's nothing wrong with it? when you can do these things then you can insult someone else, till then lick my balls bitch! no explanations, minless chanting=global warmist
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo Fagboy? Seriously? Assface? Ha, what a pleasant chap. See ya!
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo .... the hottest 2 years on record are 2010 and 2005 according to NASA.... So your claim that the earth has cooled for the last 10 years seems to be like the rest of the anti-global warming agenda - deeply flawed.
neverfearchrisishere 5 months ago
@neverfearchrisishere So NASA is your source for temperature records? Gee the organisation that sends people into space is a good place for you and your little green men to congregate. Unfortunately for you some of us actually verify our facts before we spout them. The Average World temperature has been going down for the last 10 years. 2010 had record highs"in certain places" , but it also had record lowes. When the lows out weigh the highs that makes the "average" go down. warming is religion
guruofdoodoo 4 months ago
@guruofdoodoo What is your source? Because I'm looking at a peer reviewed article now with a graph showing that all global annual average temperatures within the last decade are not only unusually high - but all are considerably higher than any global annual average temperature pre-1980, and include 4 all time records.
Global warming is based upon well studied scientific research - and the reason why you will fail to counter my statement with a reputable source is because your wrong.
neverfearchrisishere 4 months ago
@neverfearchrisishere Wow peer reviewed! Professor Mann whose research led to the "Global Warming" fairytale was"Peer Reviewed". Since the revalations of Climategate every college that he worked at has been sued and has subsequently had to return grant money because his research was fraudulent. Pre 80's would be
a 30 year period not a 10. As all the original temperatures from the last 20 years have been deleted your peer review is crap! My sources are:National weather service,weather channel..
guruofdoodoo 4 months ago
@neverfearchrisishere By the way the founder of the weather channel says global warming is crap. If you actually followed climategate instead of practicing the religion of liberalism you would know that professor man exagerated the hockey sticks in his graphs along with all the rest of his so called data. As the center for climate change"The Keeper of Records" deleted all of the original temperatures, the same ones we've been suing under the freedom of information to obtain,no one can evaluate
guruofdoodoo 4 months ago
@dwolfcoach Oh and as to the "Just submit your work" bullshit: Many have submitted and it never makes it to the debate as mainstream media are lockstep with you and your hippie comrades. Peer review is a joke these days as the only ones who review it are the asstards who are claiming the dog ate the original temperatures so noone can reproduce their results.How about every collage that professor man worked for having to give back his grant money because of fraud in his research???
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach We have professionals who's job it is to study weather patterns who are excluded from the debate
called" Meteorologist"! They are better known as weathermen. Some of these people have studied weather patterns for more then 50 years, but because they disagree with the whole,"The sky is falling" they are discredited! We've had 2 ice ages and 2 thaws that the warmist can't explain but because we're here this cycle is our fault. For the last 10 years it has been getting colder, WTF??!!
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
@guruofdoodoo "We have professionals who's job it is to study weather patterns who are excluded from the debate." Wrong! They are NOT paid to study GLOBAL "weather patterns". If you want into the debate, just publish your work and submit it to peer reviewed literature.
The most certainly do not participate in this forum. Wherever your "cooling" data is being generated, please cite it. It takes no rigor to make an assertion, so only the ignorant are listening to your "cooling" nonsense.
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach No only the ignorant(please take a bow dwolf) are ignoring the cooling data as all one has to fucking do is read a thermometer. World temperature readings are available to all. The only data that showed warming was the "value added data" that you frigtard warmest cite, which by the way the original temperatures you fuckheads have yet to produce and your now saying you deleted it. And yes meterologist do study "global patterns" your religious zeolatry shows
guruofdoodoo 11 months ago
Positively-well said!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
You god-fearing neo-cons are a sad paranoid bunch. U must be so embarrassed in your foil hat. NO major internation science institutes support your claim. ZIPPO, NIL. 3 independent investigations revealed no conspiracy. You have been conned by the same lobbyists that tried to tell us that the Gulf war was good, that the ozone hole didnt exist, that tobacco smoke was harmless and that acid rain wasnt a problem - google "Merchants of doubt" for the full monty ... but u won't.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds I will google it! Read Chis Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" Not that you need convincing. But his thesis is quite similar to yours.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Thanks dwalf! I wasnt familiar with Mooney. His book does seem closely related, though perhaps more broad in scope. I just saw an interview with him by Prof Oreskes - they may be from the same institution.
Love your comment re Inhofe - I might need to recycle that one, as we have some similar redneck politicians in Australia!
garlicbreds 1 year ago
Ha, Jim Inhofe press??? You've got to be kidding. This guy has the scientific IQ of an Oklahoman redneck. Oh wait, he is an Oklahoman redneck! Peer review is where science is adjudicated Jimbo, but it doesn't matter to you. You draw conclusions and then look for the evidence. This is the 21st century and running away from evidence and reason to revert back to ignorance is never going to happen. Climategate is a Fox News construct-there is nothing to it!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
The score so far: "climategate" never happened. The America Treason Network made it up.
Desertphile 1 year ago
These Ass Holes at Fox News are so worried about these lies but when it comes to things that really matter to americans they don't give a Fuck. Let them keep suckin' Rupert Murdoch's Ass fuking Morons. Pussy's !!!
earlsworld70117 1 year ago
@earlsworld70117 Yep, dumb enough to think they can control the narrative of scientific debates.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@earlsworld70117 ; What "lies?" You must know by now that "climategate" never happened, and that the scientists did nothing wrong. Surely.
Desertphile 1 year ago
Lol climategate, do people realize climategate was a complete hoax and it was questionable "Evidence" to start with.
drpeppa2357 1 year ago
This is a Fox Fabrication-this is a total misrepresentation of the FACTS! Oh, that's right, facts are liberal...oh my!
You don't adjudicate science on Fox News-esp. Fox!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
As much as I despise Fox news, they are actually pointing out a valid problem, its not BS. Scientists have a history of lying, skewing, exageratting, or committing straight up fraud in order to keep their grants, funding, or financial investment. Its not that they are evil, but a desperate act of not losing what they have, of course some just want to make money. My problem with GW, whether it gets hot or cold, they say its global warming and no explaination on why the other planets are warming
shadowwbn 1 year ago
@shadowwbn You can't be serious??? Ahhh, not worth my time!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Whatever floats your boat! But all you have done is proven my point because anyone who thinks their is not a financial incentive with this crap is a fool. But, I do want to make one thing clear, do we as man kind need to stop burning fossil fuels, YES, pollution is pollution we need to cut back especially when we do have alternatives. So I am for the switch, just this end of the world as we know it crap is BS.
shadowwbn 1 year ago
@shadowwbn "Scientists have a history of lying, skewing, exageratting, or committing straight up fraud in order to keep their grants, funding, or financial investment. Its not that they are evil, but a desperate act of not losing what they have, of course some just want to make money."
Do you understand the level of scrutiny in science and the penalties for "fraud"?
I think you're dead wrong in your assertion. As for financial gain... Exxonmobile returned 40 billion in one quarter last year.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Plus, these 'scientists' can barely predict the weather, I can look at their live doppler radar and guess the weather better than them on some nights. Just look at this years original 'hurricane/tropical storm' prediction/expectation, its been wrong, just like last year. So to hell with global warming, we need to focus on ONE thing, that is how do we stop or drastically cut down on polluting this planet with our waste, in a way that will not break our civilization in half.
shadowwbn 1 year ago
@shadowwbn The instrument record is clear. Land masses and oceans are warming, extent sea ice is diminishing, oceans are acidifying, sea levels are rising, glacial runoff is slowing, species are migrating or disappearing, ...etc.
And your solution to this problem is?
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach The solution to the problem is the same solution that has been used successfully by nature, by evolution, by planet earth. Its called adaptation. Our planet, the planets, the animals, the people, the land, and the oceans have endured countless changes of our global climatic temp. We seriously need to come to grips with the fact that our planet has its own Thermostat and just like when you were a kid, our father wont let us touch the damn thing, so we just need to get over it.
shadowwbn 1 year ago
@shadowwbn Thanks for the pep talk, but my father would need to know that keeping it lower was more economical, better for the environment in which his children would live, and wouldn't arm psychotic religious regimes that want to destroy our way of life. You can "get over it" if you want, but me, I'd like to hold my public officials accountable to the scientific process that keeps our democracy strong. If you think it wise to run interference for these corrupt forces, go ahead.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
I also would love to know why you think Fox Schmuze is qualified to lead a scientific debate. They're are nothing but a shill for corporate America and wouldn't know scientific truth if it bit them in the ass. (And it will.)
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach I've analyzed satellite glacier data from 2002-present and there was a decline in 2003 but it came back around 2006. All the science supporting global warming comes from computer models which have all been discredited. A computer model is meaningless unless it's predictions are useful and so far all the predictions have been massively overstated according to empirical measurements. The pure raw data just does not support the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva The Nation Snow and Ice Data Center, doesn't concur. Where is your data published? The Arctic has 4.1% decrease per decade, the antarctic a .09% increase per decade. Arctic ice is clearly diminishing-a statistical significance.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Google "ijis" it's the second link. FYI it is a Japanese satellite.
The largest decline took ~5 years from 2002-2007 and resulted in close to a 6% loss of ice. Then it expanded 4% and almost recovered and started going down again. Bear in mind the error is estimated at 10% so this data isn't really significant for small changes. At any rate you also assume any melting must anthropogenic which isn't always the case as has been shown by other data.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva "Total area of sea ice in Arctic Ocean smallest
since observations started
- Much faster pace of ice melting than forecasted-"
From ijis?? I'm not sure what you're reading, but please let me know what I'm missing. As for cause-there are no known forcing mechanisms, only feedback mechanisms. Anthropogenic CO2 is the primary feedback mechanism. Where are you reading the "controversy"?
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach It is very easy to prove H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas. It is also easy to show nature makes more CO2 than man kind. Looking at ice core data we know the earth has seen periods of higher CO2 concentrations than now and periods when CO2 was rising quicker than currently. Google "The climatic effects of water vapour" you should get an article from "Physics World". The question remains as to whether we should ban dihydrogen monoxide.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva No it is not easy to prove nature makes more CO2 than mankind. On the contrary, we emit over 130 times what "nature" emits. (US Geological survey.) I'll give you the link if you'd like. As for paleoclimatolgy, you need to look at the complete story. H2O as vapor is certainly a factor, but warmer air holds more dihydrogen monoixide. (Ha, a ban, good try!)
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide." NASA.gov.
Your link was good and I appreciate the scientific references vs blog/spin Dr. sources.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Theoretically the effect you just spoke of seems reasonable. My problem is that this would mean warmer temperatures create more humidity and more humidity creates warmer temperature so our planet would continuously warm in response to even a small increase in temperature. If this were the case we'd all already be dead. You have to admit there is some driving force much more significant than the one you proposed as to what that is I couldn't tell you.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach I can't cite an article for this but a biologist said that nature emits 210 gigatons of CO2 per year and absorbs 213.8 gigatons per year while man emits 7.1 gigatons per year and absorbs none. He made the statement that since nature absorbs it then it's ok but man made must be bad if it isn't absorbed. It is commonly known CO2 is a fertilizer for planets so it would seem while we don't absorb it plants will.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
Out of 12 years of data! HOLY JEBUS!! They want to base 12 bah-zillion years of the Earth's temperature on 12 years of data. I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE the eco-terrorists. Honestly, if they weren't trying to rule my life, I wouldn't care. But, DON'T SPEND MY TAX DOLLARS ON THIS HORSE SHIT!
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
I'm waiting for that indian with a tear in his eye to show up!
BeantownJim 1 year ago
"Climategate" never happened. No email showed any such thing. The scientists were exonerated by thee official investigations and tens of thousands of unofficial investigations. Science won, FOX "News" lost!
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Science... WHAT IN THE HOLY GOD FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!! There's NO SCIENCE INVOLVED!!! It's as scientific as Catholicism. How about you PROVE humans are the problem before you spend my GOD DAMN MONEY on BULLSHIT! I despise you socialist cock eating fuck-nuts!
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
@dirtyproduction there is a lOT of data available and not only for the last 12 yrs. The last 12 yrs doesn't matter. there is data for milions of years!
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@Desertphile Please do define science. Is science a consensus of a bunch of so called scientist who have a monetary claim in something or is it an unbiased observer after objective facts not subjective opinions. Is making computer models which fail to accurately predict the earths climate good science? Scaring people with made up data and exaggerating claims is not science, it is lying and immoral. Stop being scared of this BS that has been trying to brainwash you since you were a little kid.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; It's not my place to define science: scientists did that. "Climategate" never happened: grow up, and stop watching the America Treason Network.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile I'm going to go out on a whim here and admit I watch all the news networks and to be quite honest while Fox is biased they still don't hold a candle to the amount of bias coming from everyone else combined. You call them out simply because their bias disagrees with your ideology but I say you should broaden your horizons and do your own research. Just because some morons have convinced a lot of other morons that we are destroying the planet doesn't make it true.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Reality is now an "ideology?" Golly, I had no idea!
Meanwhile, "climategate" never happened: the America Treason Network made it up.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile What exactly is your definition of reality? Is reality having everyone see the world exactly as you do? Is it a few scientist coming up with a hypothesis and publishing it as fact? If you support the "global warming" hypothesis that we are all going to die from over production of CO2 then provide me some evidence.
And please stop coming up with silly names for news networks and claiming things didn't happen just because MSNBC didn't report about it. Think for your self...
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Reality = that which still exists when nobody believes anything. "Climategate" never happened; there was no scandal.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile That's a pretty good definition, as a Physicist I like to define it as a theory which was experimentally verified. What's interesting with this definition is that you never know what reality truly is since new theories may be created which better describe your old measurements.
I honestly believe there is more objective evidence against anthropogenic global warming than for it. YT doesn't give me enough room to show you, but if you want to post some research I'd be happy to see it.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "I honestly believe there is more objective evidence against anthropogenic global warming than for it."
That's great news! Your next step is to write a paper on the evidence and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Am I supposed to assume that the peers reviewing my journal don't have their own ideas on the matter and will publish a journal that goes against their ideas? There have been many scientist even in the IPCC that have found evidence against global warming and yet their articles don't get published. Google "The climatic effects of water vapour" it's an article that was actually published and contains very good evidence against global warming.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Peer-reviewed science journals =LOVE= to publish papers that correct the sciences they are about. They would kill for the opportunity to publish a paper showing AGW did not and is not happening.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile There is billions spent on proving global warming is killing us and next to nothing spent on proving otherwise. Are you telling me the peer reviewers would love to publish an article that would result in getting their funding cut off? You think scientist grow money on trees and are uncorrupted? Those leaked emails demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about. At any rate did you read the article I gave you in my last post?
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "There is billions spent on proving global warming is killing us"
No. No scientist has ever tried to prove global warming is happening, let alone "killing us." Nor are any scientists expecting global warming to kill anyone. Scientists never prove their conclusions: they only disprove them. That is what peer-review does. If you have made a discovery that disproves all of the scientists in the world regarding CO2, AGW, and climate change, tell them: they will reward you greatly.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Are you that much of an idiot? Read those leaked emails and you see exactly what the peer reviewers think of scientist publishing work disproving global warming. Since when is making threats and going so far as to change the values of a journal considered good science? Once again read the article I gave you and quit assuming scientist are angels sent to protect us. I do research at a University and I can tell you they are just like anyone else.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; I read around 900 of the emails; other people have read all of them. Nobody has ever found any evidence the CRU did anything wrong; "climategate" never happened. There was no scandal.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Most news networks reported the emails and read some of them where they were manipulating data to hide declines in temperature. They also demanded to have publications blocked from various scientist for being in disagreement. They don't have pubic debates on this issue because the backing is quite weak. Many scientist have come out against AGW but they are silenced by the media. Please do tell me what you find so convincing about AGW and I'd be happy to look at it.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "...and read some of them where they were manipulating data to hide declines in temperature. "
Dear idiot. The "hide the decline" had nothing to do with temperature, nor with hiding anything. Gods you cult nuts are so fucking stupid. The decline was regarding tree ring proxies, which were "hidden" by using actual thermometer measurements. Sheeeish. You stupid shits will believe anything. The fact remains: "climategate" never happened; the CRU did nothing wrong.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile So your telling me when you make a graph of tree ring data and it doesn't support your hypothesis it's ok to replace it with data from another source which does agree with your hypothesis? What do you call the graph? "Tree ring and other stuff vs. time"? Real great science you got there my friend. Since when is forcing nature to match your hypothesis called science?
Once again please tell me what is so convincing about AGW to you.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Dear slow person. As you know, tree ring proxies ceased to be accurate in the 1960s. Since then scientists use instrumentation data. Gods you hysterical alarmist nuts are stupid. Please try to keep up.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Assuming you're smarter or more intelligent than someone doesn't make it true. On the contrary it actually makes you pretty stupid. The exact reasoning why stupid people must make personal attacks alludes me, but my guess would be that they have nothing better to do. It is widely known that ground based thermometers are inaccurate for the reason of being located next to growing cities. Satellites are much more accurate and once again you can not drop data that disagrees with you.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@Desertphile Which is a more powerful greenhouse gas H2O or CO2? Is CO2 a pollutant? Why do ice core samples show temperatures rising before CO2 levels? How much CO2 does nature produce vs. man? Since you seem to enjoy science I'm sure you will be delighted in answering all of these questions.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Dear slow person. Turn off FOX "News" and read a newspaper now and then. Sheeeish.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Dear arrogant friend, turn off the TV and come to your own conclusions. I find it interesting how you claim to love science yet you have never done any scientific work or even read a scientific paper. Science to you is listening to what a select few scientist have said and accepting it without questions. It wouldn't be as sad if the claims some of them are making weren't so ridiculously stupid.
If you are able please answer the questions I posed earlier.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "Climategate" never happened, brainless puppet. You obey your masters without hesitation, but you can cast off their strings and stand up like a human being: it's not too late. Kill your television. Read some science papers---- Google Scholar really is your friend. You do not have to remain a slave. Good luck.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Enough of the boring generalizations. Lets talk about the science of global warming. Have you given any thought to any of the questions I gave earlier? Better yet can you provide me the scientific evidence that you keep talking about which supports global warming. You can give me links to an article if you'd like.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Golly, you admit to being too stupid to work web sites such as Google Scholar, and at the same time you insist all of the scientists in the world are wrong about global climate change. LOL! "Climategate" never happened.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Again you give me more boring generalizations and claim I don't know how to use google scholar. Now your just straight up lying. I said nothing of climategate in my last few replies and you won't shutup about it. If your so scientific about things then answer the questions I gave and provide me your scientific reasoning behind global warming. If your next post fails to contain something scientific I am going to claim victory by default.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; All you could ever wish to know about climate and the current global climate anomaly is available at your fingertips via Google Scholar. If you are too stupid or too lazy to look it over, pay me $200 and I will do it for you. I accept paypal.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile I've actually looked over many articles and would give you scientific critiques on any number if you'd like. I enjoy being more specific and down to earth so I'd rather you bring up what exactly it is that convinces you global warming is true. So far as I can tell the biggest scientific evidence is from computer models which are quite useless unless they produce accurate predictions that match reality. BTW you have yet to say anything scientific so I am claiming victory.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; Great! Your next step is to submit the papers to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal. The world's scientists will reward and applaud you for correcting them. Please let me know how that goes, m'kay?
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile By refereed peer reviewed journal do you mean bias? I'm actually publishing things in metamaterials and don't have time/money to do research into climate change. They don't exactly offer grants for disproving global warming so I wouldn't even know where to look for funding for such a thing.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "By refereed peer reviewed journal do you mean bias?"
Yes, of course. If you have made an astonishing discovery that shows all of the scientists are wrong, your next step is to write a paper on the subject and submit it for peer-review. What are you waiting for?
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile There have been papers published on this topic. If you read the paper I quoted you earlier you'd know this. There have also been many scientific debates in which the so called deniers clearly won. Just because MSNBC and CNN don't report this news until late night in the most biased ways doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "There have been papers published on this topic."
Odd how two surveys of the science journals published globally don't show your assertion to be true. Meanwhile peer-review continues to be the gold standard, and 97.6% of scientists agree about global climate change. LOL! Got anything else? P.S. "Climategate" still never happened.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Read the papers for yourself and it's rather easy to find the logical break down in many of them. For example measuring glaciers melting in the Himalaya's doesn't mean man is causing the glaciers to melt. More over it's been shown that as glaciers melt in the Himalaya's they regrow else where.
Why are you so angry with what I'm saying anyways. You'd think it'd be good news considering I'm trying to prove the world isn't going to end.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva "...measuring glaciers melting in the Himalaya's doesn't mean man is causing the glaciers to melt."
No scientist says it does or did. The rate of change and the mechanisms involved are unprecedented in 600,000 years of temperature proxy data, and only CO2 explains why.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile We happen to start measuring global temperatures at the end of an ice age and freak out if they go up slightly? Ice core samples have shown us that the earth has had higher temperatures and CO2 levels than today and the earth got along just fine. Man only makes 3% of the total CO2 production on earth. The rest comes from natural sources. Perhaps if we kill all the animals we can stop global warming...
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "We happen to start measuring global temperatures at the end of an ice age...."
We had instruments 10,000 years ago?! Do tell! This will astound the world's scientists. Your next step is to write a paper on the subject and submit it for reer review. It's your civic duty.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Geez I thought you liked science. We didn't have instruments 10,000 years ago, but we can reference temperatures from then with ice core samples. We don't have a thermometer on the sun, but we can tell the surface is around 5500K by approximating it as a blackbody and finding the peak wavelength.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; "We didn't have instruments 10,000 years ago....."
Idiot. Climate data goes back millions of years; you claimed "we" started measuring global temperatures around 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile, the current temperature anomaly is unprecedented in its rate and cause: 97.6% of the world's scientists say so. If you have evidence to the contrary, submit it for peer review.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile. Let me be absolutely clear, the warming today is NOT unprecedented and the world has experienced both faster rises in temperature and faster rises in CO2 NATURALLY. Also CO2 is NOT the major driver of global temperature. At most scientists say we might have an effect. I will publish research as soon as the government gives me a grant to undertake such research.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; No scientist says the current global temperature anomaly is unprecidented: the rate and the cause are. And CO2 is the only thing that explains it. You gibber about past climate changes, yet the subject is the current one: all of the scientists on the planet who study the subject agree CO2 caused it and is causing it. If they are wrong, tell them so---- write a paper and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal. If you want the address, ask me in private message.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Google "scientist against global warming" and a Wikipedia page will popup with an incomplete list of several scientist. There have also been several scientist that resigned from the IPCC and asked to have their names removed from the so called consensus. When their names were not removed they sued the IPCC. One even states that several of the scientist in the IPCC aren't even scientist, they are activist from Greenpeace and other organizations.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva ; All scientists are against global warming. Meanwhile, still no peer-reviewed papers from your cult. Got an excuse for why?
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile As I said Google "The climatic effects of water vapour" you get an article in a peer reviewed journal disproving much of what the main stream paid off scientist say. I believe you are not illiterate so you don't have an excuse for not reading this article as I've pointed it out earlier.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva We all believe what we want to believe, but I trust science to tell the truth as accurately as can be told. CO2 levels are at 392 PPM, highest historical concentrations, sea levels are rising, oceans are acidifying, Arctic extent sea ice is diminishing, Land ice is diminishing, both land masses and oceans are warming and global forcing is not the reason.
Your turn; what is your hypothesis on the cause of these clearly measurable effects??
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach first the sun is the cause of global warming, if it did exist. the sun could do more than any man and has been for centuries. also, do you realize that plants need co2 to live? its the biggest scam ever.
blackhatch46 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach first the sun is the cause of global warming, if it did exist. the sun could do more than any man and has been for centuries. also, do you realize that plants need co2 to live? its the biggest scam ever. also i have noticed it is MUCH colder each year and summers are shorter over the past ten years, im sure you would agree with that at least.
blackhatch46 1 year ago
@blackhatch46 The sun?? You're skipping some basic facts here-we have very sophisticated methods of measuring this and the sun is quite clearly not the cause. It is much cooler...? Where? If you think that looking out your window you can surmise GLOBAL temperatures, you don't understand this discussion.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach 392 is the highest historical concentration if you only look at 1800-Now. Ice core samples have shown much higher concentrations as well as higher temperatures which have occurred without man on the planet. Your logic is circular, you see slight sea levels rise, melting of parts of ice sheets, and a slight warming of oceans and immediately blame man with no other proof? BTW some land ice melts while other land ice expands, this is a basic fact of science.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva So you trust proxy data, but not thermometers. How far back to the ice cores go? After you find it, then tell me the year CO2 was higher than now. As for the "blame man " thing, hypothesize for me what else the cause could be. Your "basic facts of science" are missing most of the science.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Thermometers on the ground tend to show more warming than satellites because cities have popped up next to ground based thermometers. Some ground based thermometers have been found next to HVAC systems for businesses so obviously they give bad results. Read a geology book and they will label out many times in which temperatures were hotter. One of the reasons they think some fauna went extinct is because of cooling not warming. Your basic facts are from Al Gore who isn't a scientist.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva Where do you get your info?? Seriously? Peer review is set up to go over these anomalies, not Al Gore, Glenn Beck, or Flunky news outlets. Science puts constraints on claims that are made, and the language with which you describe them. HVACs at businesses...? WOW? Cooling?? Where do you think this global cooling is taking place? Sources?? This is new information so you'll need citation for me to take this seriously. And do me a favor, no more Al Gore nonsense, it's too goofy.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach goto isthereglobalcooling . com they cite everything they say. It all comes from NOAA or ice cap dot org. The Facts are the world HAS cooled down the past few years. Why do you think they renamed the IPCC to climate change instead of warming? BTW I don't watch flunky news outlets for my information, I read papers and propose my own views. Unlike you I am not a hypocritical moron who has been tricked by mass media and fake science. Sorry I offended your fake science god.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva Evidence cannot be offended by you nor can I. Evidence doesn't have feelings and your sources are unimpressive to me. You can pretend to argue with FACTS, but decades worth of data sets are available to you. Reject them if you want, but I won't join your delusional conspiracy, but good luck to you buddy. IPCC is renaming to climate change...? Are you freaking nuts or don't you realize that the CC refers to climate change and has since 1988. It has also been that since the 50's!!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach I'm all for facts, if you could provide some I'd be delighted.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva NO you wouldn't. You, like your other "skeptic" friends, have no interest in facts derived from the rigor of the peer review process. That process is crucial to a democracy, not just our health and welfare. Your efforts here are very naive and destructive to the America built on "We the people...".
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach I asked for facts and yet again you fail to deliver them. Instead you divert to making personal attacks on me with a very crude generalization of how you think I think. You aren't arguing about "We the people", you are arguing that people need to be controlled and if they don't support every ignorant scientist you do they should be forced to. Your whole argument runs counter to peoples wishes and you continuously fail to give me any scientific reasoning for your beliefs.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
Honestly most of my fellow countrymen (Americans) are so thick have such a little amount of respect or understanding of science that I would not even fault scientist for using dishonest methods to initiate the changes necessary to avert this future doom.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
@Keysteeze Please provide some scientific reasoning for your argument.
I may be a global warming denier but at least I'm not scared of going outside for fear I will destroy the planet. Why don't you just get a big doomsday sign and protest outside with the rest of your psycho friends?
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
Denier-gate has failed but the RNC hacker is still at large.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce I did a study that found the dolphins are plotting against us. If you don't take massive action and shut down all of our industry and burn all of our money they are going to kill all of us. This is by far the number one issue facing man kind right now and action must be taken! The fate of earth depends on it and the science is all agreed on. There is NO debate we MUST forfeit to the dolphins or ELSE!
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva Was your study published in Sarah Palon's Science?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce No it was actually published in Al Gore's documentary. He really liked our graphs and didn't ask us for any validity. BTW what do you think we should do about the RNC hacker? He/She clearly broke the law...
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva
Since all the scientists were exonerated, I would think Fox News viewers (who were so badly misled) should demand an apology...from Fox News.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce How were they misled? And what should we do about the hacker if he is found?
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva “Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data,” Sammon wrote in an email from last December leaked to Media Matters, “we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
uhh....assuming there is an indictment....a fair trial?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce Most data suggests the planet has cooled the past 10 years while there is a larger upward trend over longer periods. Right now the planet has changed climate in such tiny amounts we can't even say whether it's heating or cooling with all data agreeing within error.
Would you be happy to find out that indeed global warming is a hoax or would you be sad? If it is a hoax do you believe we should still aggressively cut carbon emissions and pass more regulations?
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva I know...let's throw out all that corrupted temperature data that suggests that the last decade was the warmest ever recorded. Why do satellite pictures and readings show a significant decline in sea and land ice over that period?
I would be fearful, angry, distrustful, and vengeful...just like the Conservatives.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce I've looked at Arctic Ocean sea ice data from the Japanese satellite ijis and it shows some cyclical changes but the biggest change is never over the 10% estimated error bounds. It also shows a decline in some years with gains in others with no clear long term trend at least since 2002. Just google ijis for yourself and you can see it. I went ahead and plugged the numbers into Matlab to do further analysis. Please provide data before making claims out of thin air.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva You better look at that data again. Between Sept. 2002 and Sept. 2010 there was a 15% decline. Greenland and West Antarctica have been losing ice over the same period. Sorry, but the facts don't support your position.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce From the Arctic data set I looked at I found an 8.22% decline from Sept 2002 to Sept 2010 which is below the estimated error. The overall trend is slightly negative which would indicate a declining ice volume, but this method doesn't take into account ice sheet thickness only surface area. There also seems to be a lower bound at which point some unknown force begins rebuilding the ice as can be scene in the regrowth in 2007.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva
Date Area
9/9/2002 5,646,875
9/18/2010 4,813,594
Decline 833,281
Percent 15%
These dates are the minimums for each year. This decline in multi-year ice reflects a decline in ice thickness, the worrisome trend.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce I used 9/1/2002 and 9/1/2010 because you said September, thanks for clearing up the dates you used. I was looking at peaks not troughs. Also ice surface area says nothing of thickness. You must also remember even if ice is declining it doesn't prove AGW is the cause. Science is useless without predictions so we should be able to measure CO2 concentrations and predict sea ice formation/declination as a variable. You can also find good data from the Urbana Champaign CRU.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva For a good article on ice thickness google "NASA thin ice". One-year ice (the stuff that is all gone by the September minimum) averages 3' thick; multi-year ice averages 9' thick. Not only is the fraction of multi-year to total ice extent getting smaller, ICE-SAT data shows surviving multi-year ice is getting thinner.
Yes, I would expect this negative decadal trend to continue as predicted by the AGW theory.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce What is more interesting is that in late 2006 the satellite was turned off for about 5 days and when it came back on the data appears to be shifted downward from the trend it was previously showing. It is also obvious from the trough during this year that the ice was going to begin growing this year. The following year the ice regrew almost to the highest levels ever recorded. It would have been the highest ever recorded had the data not been shifted.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce Also keep in mind the satellite normally turns off during this period but when it resumes action the data still trends with the previous data. It would appear perhaps this time they made a calibration to the satellite thus causing it to give slightly lower estimates.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
Sun, Space Position of solar system controls climate, Not CO2 bull they keep pushing on the sheeple for massive Tax increases and causing the fall of America and the World. We live on a planet spinning thru space , around a star that goes thru heating and cooling cycles over a 12 and 20 year cycle. That is some cycle are more severe than others over a tme period. This cycle is Supposedly to be one of the more severe one and maybe one of the greatest cycles. The Sun Not CO2 will heat the planet.
spellbinder00 1 year ago
@spellbinder00 ; "The Sun Not CO2 will heat the planet. "
Idiot.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Niightversionn Climatism is apart of Scientism, where scientists investigate nature based on their 5 senses and worship mother nature, always investigating how things happen, but not why. eg, why do atoms have the structure they have, why does electricity act the way it does, etc.
inqisit0r 1 year ago
global warming is complete BS and even if it was real.. fuck the world let it burn along with all the greed and materilism that humans lovee so much
MRbaXR6TurbO 1 year ago
Hmmmm...let's see, he's got a corporation hinging on Climate Change and he thinks it's real. I'm shocked!
dlh1250 1 year ago
Its a scam for a global carbon tax, find more scams to bleed the people dry of their wealth. Just like the world bankers who print their own money out of thin air, we could all be rich if we were allowed to do that.
t3chk4 1 year ago
climate change is the biggest hoax ever.
mozartin2 1 year ago
global warming is BS .... seriously who ever believes global warming is fact obviously doesn't remember grade 10 science when we were taught that carbon dioxide is what trees live on so why on gods green earth would it all of a sudden be bad those eco nuts are stupid!!! its to bring out a global tax to control your asses!!!
Jacintalee24 1 year ago
Phil Jones' CRU has been investigated by:
1. The House of Commons' Science & Technology Select Committee
and
2. An international panel of academics set up by the University of East Anglia.
The findings of both inquiries are now in. Professor Jones and the CRU were exonerated by both inquiries.
I haven't seen Fox reporting these findings. I hate to say it, but is it possible Fox News is biased?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 --- Incorrect. The UK Parliamentary Committee pardoned what they did but they still said that they should NOT have done it. And if you really think that a panel set up by the University to investigate one of it's own branches is unbiased, well, I'd be willing to bet you are among a very small minority.
4sylum1nmate 1 year ago
@4sylum1nmate Had the UEA NOT set up inquiries you would have been outraged. But when they do you are still put out! But don't worry, three inquiries were set up.
1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This consists of MPs and was not chosen by UEA.
2. Scientific Appraisal Panel. Chosen on advice from the Royal Society. No panelists are associated with the UEA.
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review. None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the IPCC.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 I'm a scientist, can I look over what they did?
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva I'm a scientist and a citizen. I read the reports of the three investigative panels.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Well then provide me the data so I can see it for my self. I do research on metamaterials and am quite good at analyzing data so I would be quite excited to see the data you are basing your conclusions on.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva I don't know which aspects about AGW you take issue with, so I don't know which data you want to look at.
If you think it's not warming have a look at my channel where I've uploaded three videos doing some basic analyses of global temperatures.
If you want other data I will point you in the right direction if I can.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 I can't see what you goggled in your video to retrieve the data. I'd also like to know the source of the data as well as how it was collected. Data is nothing but numbers unless you know where it came from and can give it a physical meaning.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebestsumoeva
1. "I can't see what you goggled in your video to retrieve the data"
If you can't read the search terms links to the databases are given in the sidebars of each video.
2. "Data is nothing but numbers"
If you want more information as to how the data is gathered & derived that is available on the various sites. Have a go yourself first and if you have something specific you can't find get back to me & I will try to find it for you.
But look harder than you did the first time.
cristop5 1 year ago
4sylum1nmate The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee & the Scientific Appraisal Panel have reported. The ICC email review committee has yet to report.
Yes the Science and Technology Committee was critical of CRU's attitude to FOI requests. But they found no evidence of dishonesty.
The Scientific Appraisal Panel found no evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice.
Meanwhile, the planet is still warming due to our emissions - and the political will to act has weakened.
Congrats!
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 --- Don't blame me. I'm not the enemy. They knew full well that they were in positions of influence over policy that affected the entire world. And as such they have no room for anything even remotely questionable in their actions.
4sylum1nmate 1 year ago
@4sylum1nmate If you ever come across anyone whose actions are never remotely questionable, please help them set up a religion. I'm in my middle years and still on the lookout.
But perhaps elsewhere you have been equally critical of those in the denier camp who have spread enough lies and confusion to derail action on climate change.
No? Oh well. Not to worry.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 --- Don't judge me until you know me. I merely pointed out a couple facts. No I don't expect anybody to walk on water. But yes I do expect those who propose to make OR influence policy that affects my life to be as damn squeaky clean as possible. There's no room for dirty politics, corruption, or dirty science in this. People's lives are at stake by the millions.
4sylum1nmate 1 year ago
@4sylum1nmate ; "There's no room for dirty politics, corruption, or dirty science in this." Of course. But "climategate" never happened. The scientists did nothing wrong.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@cristop5 So you're telling me a bureaucracy funded through tax payers money investigated another bureaucracy funded through tax payers money both of which stand to lose billions of dollars if they accuse the other one of lying to the public will give us the truth? A quick "google" search for University of East Anglia clearly states they are a Climate Research Unit so we can undoubtedly trust their unbiased opinions when making judgments on where or not to cut funding to climate research.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva The idea that climate change isn't happening is head-the-sand idiocy.
The idea that if somehow we suddenly found out that it's not happening, funding would suddenly dry up is similarly moronic. Think it through. We already know many of the things that cause cancer, yet research continues - teasing out the impacts and natures of known and new carcinogens.
It's time to concede that given the planet is the hottest it's been in recorded history, and we need to pay attention.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 I'm also a scientist albeit not a climatologists. If you were a scientist you'd know right now is NOT the hottest time in recorded history. Perhaps if you consider recorded history the 1950's to today you may be onto something, but ice core samples and other methods for measuring temperatures historically indicate the earth has been significantly warmer than it is today. You are either playing on words, a complete idiot, or a bold faced liar. I'll settle for playing on words to be nice
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only investigation that should happen is at Faux News. The e-mails had nothing of consequence in them. Fox lies and counts on the idea that whatever is told first is usually taken as truth by the average uninformed citizen.
tombeardman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Niightversionn
Spitfiremacx,
(I mean N ii ghtversionn Nig tversionn (no h)
Nigh tt versionn
Nightver ss ion,
Knigh tt vision
Nigh ttt version
Nightversiom,
Nightverslon, Nightversionnn, aryhuk, etc...)
You're 69 year old stalker. Youre a global warming DENIER with no peer-reviewed science so all you can do is play silly games. Further proof global warming deniers are frauds
Nightversionn 1 year ago
lmfao at 6:00 the sus says SO!!!!!!????? lol
Potemtole 1 year ago
Comment removed
GWfarce 1 year ago