Science & social aspects of climate change pt 1

Bob Carters 2008 AEF presentation Pt 1 An excellent summary of the power of Green propaganda

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Bob
• Carter
• science
• social
• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• Green
• Propaganda
• sceptic
• emissions

[marktimmer2212]

we are the laughing stock of the galaxy.

aliens have given up their search for intelligent life on earth, and are currently leaving our system

[AEiRobot]

You seem to have a beef with this guy. What happened, did he give you an 'F' in one of his classes, or did he get a job you wanted. Either way, he has published in reputable journals and yes, even Economics journals are reputable. But try this if you are still in doubt:

CARTER, R.M. 2005 A New Zealand climatic template back to c. 3.9 Ma: ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, south-west Pacific Ocean, and its relationship to onland successions. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35: 9-42.

[indulis1]

@indulis1 Sorry search on Muller Congress 31 March 2011

[indulis1]

News flash! Climate skeptic proves that "substandard" temp stations don't affect the measured warming trend. Search on Mueller Congress 31 March 2011. Other news to hand- climate skeptics forced to concede that their UAH satellite based temperature trends had to be adjusted upwards due to errors in their calculations- they did not adjust for changes in the orbits of the satellites, and had s sign wrong in a calculation.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth No kidding they are different. I'm pointing out that two methods of temp readings have been false. I'm not saying they are the same. Not to mention that the HadleyCRU satellite temps were also wrong across Russia, which was pointed out by the Russians themselves. I'm pretty sure the Russians know their own temps better than CRU. Your science is completely flawed, and you continue to drink the cool-aid as if it's vitamin water. LMAO

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

You cannot or won't understand. You refuse to show evidence the satellites you mention are used for global temperature measurement. Why not? Because you cannot prove your dishonest claims. You don't even understand that surface temperature stations are not satellites. Hint: satellites are in space, ground stations are on the ground.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

Full marks for your rhetoric; BS & bluster, but zero for facts.

You still show no proof for your claims. And no proof means you're not telling the truth.

Try reading some science for once. Menne et al. Discussion and link here:

tiny. cc slash SKSSurfaceTempRecord

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth "The very clear evidence is that substandard temperature stations show less warming than the standard ones" What the hell does that mean? lol Your substandard satellite sensors were measuring 10-15deg higher. Not lower. The land based temps that were installed wrong by your scientist were also reading high, because they were installed next to AC units, parking lots, on roof tops, etc. It's impossible for them to measure lower. Again, address the issues I have brought up.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

The very clear evidence is that substandard temperature stations show less warming than the standard ones. Photographs don't measure temperatures. Read the science.

Your rhetoric isn't matched by reality.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

You made the claim, now you must prove it. Show the proof that the data was used in global temperature measurements. That means the data trail to the particular global temperature dataset(s) where you claim it was used. Merely claiming something proves nothing.

That's why you can't and won't provide proof. And no proof means you're not being honest.