If you turn to denying climate change, then you legitimize the lack of tolerance shown toward you all. If you deny conservative policy is to blame, then I suppose we can debate that, but good luck.

So we should ignore the real world temperature measurements continue to trend lower while the computer models that "prove" global warming are wildly inaccurate high?

All scientists were sure the earth was flat.

All scientists were sure scurvy was caused by lack of exercise.

All scientists were sure that South America and Africa were never connected.

So we should trust the scientists when they tell us what we want to hear and say they could be wrong when they don't.

Standard dissonance response when s*** we hold dear is directly and irrefutably challenged; deny the source's credibility, regardless of how credible it might actually be! It's the only play besides capitulating.

Burn the scientist strawman already!!! BURN IT LIKE IT'S GUILTY!

Lol at using thekid talking about religion for evidence here.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/hom.../08/01291.html
(Note the date on the link 1-8-2007)
A lot of interesting stuff can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/0...arly-a-decade/

This dude does nothing but crunch data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/2...-sure-isnt-97/

The above seems to question that the "consensus" is a consensus. But it is so far over my head I have no idea.

No The models were .1C high 10 years ago and almost .7C high now. The computer model is not reflected in the real world.

So is reality wrong or the model?

LASJ, you might be on to something. Grab yourself a seat at the WSOP Main Event paid for by Dr. Keating.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...00-if-you-can/

PS - lol

Liberals ignore science on many subjects. When life begins, the correlation between having a father in the house and graduating high school and staying out of prison, how spending more on education does not increase test scores, the correlation between low IQ and violent crime. Just handwave the data away and offer excuses.

And you can wave it in as easy as you say it is waved away.

Scienthunkfic

Funny you should mention that. He had 3 posts (including mine) arguing that the warming we have seen is direct heat pollution and not greenhouse effect, and that could explain the spectacular fail of the models.

FWIW: about 75% of the energy we use (electricity, gasoline, etc) is thrown away as waste heat. In the case of a 100W light bulb, you get 10W going to light and about 350W of heat. the light bulb uses about 90 and another 260 or so in the generation and distribution.

As to those 3 posts... they are gone and he switched over to Discus for comments, without addressing them. He does not want to go there. Wonder why?

sweep,

Not drawing the same racist assumptions you do from science isn't ignoring it. It's actually understanding science.

Who brought up anything about race? You did of course. That means you equate blacks with low test scores, high school dropouts, and being violent felons, not me. Standard for libs call someone racist when it's not being discussed and you don't have facts on your side.

Climate Change? You mean the thing you libs used to call Global Warming. And when it came out that the earth has actually been cooling the past 30 years, you changed the term to Climate Change. You want to have that discussion? What a joke!

Anti Muslim attitudes are not a different viewpoint, Anti Muslim attitudes fall under the category of bigotry. Same can be said for Anti Jewish(Antisemitic) attitudes.

The guy you linked made a blanket statement about Muslims.

Just imagine if Mr Fein replaced the word Muslims with Jews irt Feins statement of

President Obama's motives seem fairly clear. Once more he is pandering to Muslims in the hope of healing the breach opened by terrorist assaults.


President Obama's motives seem fairly clear. Once more he is pandering to Jews in the hope of healing the breach opened by terrorist assaults.

I feel Fein would be called a Nazi.

Must be because your theory is brilliant and without flaw! I'm sure you gave him data to corroborate your opinion, showing how heat pollution could account for the observed climate change.

Care to share with the class?

This post is truly horrendous in so many ways.

The Red line is the consensus of the CO2 computer models. The green and blue lines are real world measurement.

It isn't happening. What part of that don't you understand?

NOAA set up over 100 weather stations across the country away from cities and towns starting a little over 10 years ago (USCRN) We only have a decade of data, but they show no warming at the surface in the last 10 years, they show a slight cooling trend.


Dude I'm sorry you bought part of the Brooklyn Bridge. I am. But don't expect me to buy in too.

We label differently as times and studies and understandings change. Especially for such a complex issue. But the fundamental premise has never wavered: That your tribe's favorite past time - burning other people's hydrocarbons to the tune of 90 million barrels per day - is what is ultimately causing severe weather patterns.

So this tired and predictable tactic is pretty lame, and I think you know it.

Heck, it used to be the Democrats who were understood as the party of institutionalized racism. My how things change, huh?

You're the joke. If not, you wouldn't punt to semantics while you sit back and let Jayhawk here carry the heavy load of concentrated bs for you. ... (Cont.)

Well, no. But we should be honest about what those "real world" measurements entail, as well as what they actually show.

You, below, are not really doing that. That's what happens when you do a quick Googlez search for what you hope to be true and present it as fact without checking your work.

Well, while saying "all" makes this lazy language a crock of s**t -- since your entire premise of denying climate change works off the 3% of scientists who deny the condition -- it is interesting that you have to go back 600 years to find some vaguely defined examples.

I use a similar "flat-earther" line trying to make a point when dealing with peak oil denialists, so I see what you're trying to do there. Much like oil depletion models, climate modelling is an extremely complex study where the data provides plenty to cherry pick. It's notable, though, how similar the strategy is between climate denialists and peak oil denialists. Lazy conclusions, truncated timelines, and outright falsehoods are sprinkled throughout their presentation.

This is no different.

So ****ing lazy. First, link the source for your eye candy. Don't just post some graphic attached to photobucket and hope it passes off as some "gotcha" for your team's dumb agenda. They aren't in your previous links, either, .. .you know, the ones for that laughable blog site "whatsupwiththat.com dot missthepoint. But, to your graphic, who made it? Is that Alabama-Huntsville? From when? What it the vertical axis? Celsius? Fahrenheit? A percentage? Are they using the newer models, where a cooling bias from the Stratosphere was removed? ... Do better.

Next, why are you presenting mid-tropospheric levels only, as your evidence, while conveniently ignoring the upper and lower levels?

Worst, why does your dumb argument also conveniently omit recorded surface temperature over the same timeline? Ocean temperature? You guys don't seem to like those readings, do you?

Awwww...



Why is it that you denialtards cherry pick at every phase of this debate, over and over and over again? Are you hoping -- if you throw some technical horse**** at a forum of "yeah, color chart seems right" politards -- that no one will notice? At least link to it, like I just did.

Recall that one of the major effects of AGW is a cooling of the Stratosphere. So Stratospheric cooling adds a cooling bias to the microwave signals. The signal the satellite measures underestimates the Tropospheric temperature. This is most an issue with channels T2 & T3. For T2, around 15% of the signal originates in the Stratosphere and since the Stratosphere has cooled much more than the Troposphere has warmed the effect of this is more than 15% of the reading.

Yeah, see, they got smarter and adjusted for that. Because their understanding of the process evolved, NOT because they earned carbon credits for doing so.

So these various analyses clearly show that the Troposphere IS warming, as determined from multiple sources. And if anyone quotes satellite temperature data to make a point with you, make sure you ask them which series they are referring to. If they simply say ‘the satellite data from UAH’, they may not know what they are talking about.

Ding, ding!

Again, link what you think you are talking about... For context, if nothing else. Their parallel USHCN data, using 10x as many sites, provided a different result though, didn't it?

Meanwhile, here's what NOAA ultimately concludes, and it doesn't seem to jibe with what your'e trying to pass off above:

… the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop … Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.

Ouch.

And, just for sample size, all of the various global temperature trend analyses show significant warming in the average temperature:

NASA GISS
CRU
Hadley Centre

Your dishonesty so far in this bid at reinforcing your "work-backwards-from-a-conclusion" platform is surpassed only by your arrogance in going about it.

No, the "dude" is a fraud and a long-discredited former TV weatherman.

Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts

But isn't that just like a climate change denying con to admit "I'm not a scientist, but ... I really like this guy's blog because it tells me exactly what I want to be true."

Dude, this isn't the place for a detailed dissertation of weather patterns. That would be really F-ing boring. I believe a thread already exists for that discussion. You can find it here:


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...hange-1339989/

You seem to not know what "science" is.

Why bother even responding to that predictable hand wave response? You let Dids spin you, Sweep, make him tell you why he thinks you are wrong.