Har Har Har Global warming crap

[Woodbutcher]

Hmm...mistermack can see through the insidious plots of global warming supporting climate scientists, all 96% of them, and see that their science is crap, all without knowing any science at all. Anything that doesn't agree with your opinion is a rabid blog, and you have no resources to show support for your side. Either you are completely ignorant, or you are a troll. Or just fucking stupid. Take your pick.

[Clinton Huxley]

All you enviro-sheeple need to wake up and smell the roses. It's a rose called
"Conspiracy" and it's perfumed like bullshit. Every climate scientist is in on
it, willingly or otherwise. Try blowing the whistle, why don't you? Because Big
Green know where you live. You like your kids kneecaps? Better toe the line. The
universities and independent research institutes? They know which side their bread
is buttered. Grant allocating bodies? Peer-reviewed journals? They're in so deep
you'd need a hockey stick to pull them out. No-one is going to break the Gaian
omerta, not while the greenbacks keep rolling in.

[mistermack]

Hmm...mistermack can see through the insidious plots of global warming supporting climate scientists, all 96% of them, and see that their science is crap, all without knowing any science at all. Anything that doesn't agree with your opinion is a rabid blog, and you have no resources to show support for your side. Either you are completely ignorant, or you are a troll. Or just fucking stupid. Take your pick.

There doesn't need to be any plots. Just ask yourself honestly, would you go in for any branch of climate science, if you were sceptical of MMGW? The answer is you would have to be extremely stupid, as you would never get work.
You might just POSSIBLY be prepared to keep it entirely to yourself, and live a lie.
Or else spend your working years on the dole.
So your 96% claim is stupid. What did you expect?

As far as their science being crap goes, it IS crap, when it comes to FORECASTING the climate. Complete crap.
If it was good, you would have an OFFICIAL forecast for the climate, and it would be matching reality.
None of that has happened.

I don't rubbish climate science, I rubbish their ability to forecast the climate.
Just as, I don't rubbish earthquake science. The difference is, they DON'T pretend that they can forecast earthquakes.

We can be pretty sure that earthquakes will continue to happen. We can also be pretty sure that climate will continue to happen. If they were honest, they would leave it there, until they could REALLY forecast the climate.

But if you think that they can forecast the climate, where is the CONSENSUS on what the climate will do in the next ten years? That's one consensus that's conveniently missing.

If you think that they CAN forecast the climate, you are completely ignorant, or you are a troll. Or just fucking stupid. Take your pick.

[Woodbutcher]

You don't have the faintest fucking idea what climate science means. You think it means day-to-fucking day forecasts. It doesn't, believe or not. It means TRENDS in weather patterns. They are not easy to forecast, but they can be worked out by comparing data from ocean deposits and ice cores to see what happened before. Climate is not the same as weather; you have the two mixed up whether you believe me or not. Climate changes during thousands of years due to Milancovic cycles and different energy output from the sun, these changes drive the weather. Previous warming and cooling was driven by natural cycles over thousands of years, now the warming is happening a lot quicker, and CO2 seems to be the culprit. There is no other reason why the warming is happening. They do NOT forecast weather, they are saying it's getting warmer and we seem to be causing the trend. They DO use computer simulations to try to determine future weather patterns, but that's not gospel.
Where do you get your information from? I would like to know, because what info you post here seems to be your very own interpretation of facts. How about disease? Are doctors in a conspiracy to continue cancer because they can make money out of it, instead of curing it? How about cars running on water, free energy from perpetual motion, aliens controlling the governments, Freemasons, Rosicrucians? You accuse Americans of being stupid, but often you seem to forget to think. Give it a rest You are wrong, you don't understand and you are like Seth and the "ebil gubnment". You two have a lot in common, actually. One is the total and utter ignoring of data that does not support your views, calling it a biased blog. Must be nice to be infallible.

[mistermack]

Who mentioned weather? Not me.

Global temperature, over a whole year, is a measure of climate, not weather.

But the global temperatures are what is being " forecast " by the GW alarmists, and you can measure that accurately, and they ARE measuring it accurately. And they are constantly giving predictions and estimates, which are all over the place.
( Presumably on the assumption that if they produce ENOUGH predictions and estimates, ONE of them is going to be right, and they can trumpet a success in about ten years time.

The track record is of complete failure. Sixteen years ago, nobody forecast that global temperatures would stay steady till now. It was just a question of how much they would have rocketed up.
So even with the thousands of varied estimates, no-one got it right. And the GLOBAL temperatures, over sixteen years, is not weather.

And yet, you expect me to believe that they have it right about what the global temperatures will be like in a hundred years time.
Ludicrous.

[Woodbutcher]

Show me the data which shows the forecast to be a complete failure. You're spouting complete bullshit now. I want a research paper from a peer-reviewed study, not your opinions. And you say climate but describe weather every fucking time, asshat. Learn the difference. Is english your first language?

[mistermack]

Show me the data which shows the forecast to be a complete failure. You're spouting complete bullshit now. I want a research paper from a peer-reviewed study, not your opinions. And you say climate but describe weather every fucking time, asshat. Learn the difference. Is english your first language?

I see. You want peer-reviewed studies from me, but YOU can post nothing but insults.
I don't think you have much to teach ME about anything. Which is a shame.

[Seth]

Where do you get your information from? I would like to know, because what info you post here seems to be your very own interpretation of facts. How about disease? Are doctors in a conspiracy to continue cancer because they can make money out of it, instead of curing it?

Maybe.

How about cars running on water, free energy from perpetual motion, aliens controlling the governments, Freemasons, Rosicrucians?

Ever hear of "hydrogen?" It's a component of water which has been used as a fuel for a long time.

Perpetual motion? Well, how about tapping the energy of the universe through one of the 11 dimensions and other potential energy fields and phenomena that science has only a dim view of? Ever here of "zero point energy?"

Aliens controlling government? Fuck, there's probably aliens IN government. Obama is one under some theories. In any event it's not outside the realm of possibility and just because you think it's improbable doesn't mean it's impossible..

And Freemasonry and Rosicrucians do exist. Freemasonry in particular has had an impact on politics for a long time. Doesn't mean Freemasons control the economy, but Freemasonry controlling the economy is no less likely that Marxists doing the same thing. All it takes is numbers.

You accuse Americans of being stupid, but often you seem to forget to think. Give it a rest You are wrong, you don't understand and you are like Seth and the "ebil gubnment".

Government IS evil. Inherently so because the humans who operate government are...well...human and thus subject to greed, corruption, pursuit of power and privilege, etc.. Thus government is always going to be evil, but it's also a NECESSARY evil, like fire is. It's a servant of the people only when carefully controlled, constrained and limited in its ability to explode out of control. When that happens, just like a forest fire, government can and will consume everything it its path.

You two have a lot in common, actually. One is the total and utter ignoring of data that does not support your views, calling it a biased blog. Must be nice to be infallible.

I'm not infallible, merely right in this instance.

[Seth]

Who mentioned weather? Not me.

Global temperature, over a whole year, is a measure of climate, not weather.

But the global temperatures are what is being " forecast " by the GW alarmists, and you can measure that accurately, and they ARE measuring it accurately. And they are constantly giving predictions and estimates, which are all over the place.
( Presumably on the assumption that if they produce ENOUGH predictions and estimates, ONE of them is going to be right, and they can trumpet a success in about ten years time.

The track record is of complete failure. Sixteen years ago, nobody forecast that global temperatures would stay steady till now. It was just a question of how much they would have rocketed up.
So even with the thousands of varied estimates, no-one got it right. And the GLOBAL temperatures, over sixteen years, is not weather.

And yet, you expect me to believe that they have it right about what the global temperatures will be like in a hundred years time.
Ludicrous.

Yup. The dirty little secret of global climate change models is their margin of error, which the "scientists" don't care to mention, for very obvious reasons: The plus/minus margin of error in EVERY climate model every created grows so quickly as the forecast time span increases that it's simply not possible to predict ANYTHING with any accuracy even two years from now, much less 50 or a hundred years from now.

What that means is that all the "mean global temperature" forecasts ever made are nothing more or less than wild-assed guesses, and the climate scientists KNOW it. As you say, no prediction made in the last decade has come anywhere near being accurate as indicated by ACTUAL global temperature shifts ACTUALLY recorded.

[Seth]

Oh dear, facts seem to be inconveniently debunking global warming alarmism...

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend
August 13, 2013 - 12:16 PM
By Barbara Hollingsworth
Subscribe to Barbara Hollingsworth RSS

Antarctica Tourism

Tourists view iceberg near Antarctic Peninsula. (AP)
(CNSNews.com) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.”

But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.

“To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.”

Although the NOAA report noted that in 2012, “the Arctic continues to warm” with “sea ice reaching record lows,” it also stated that the Antarctica sea ice “reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles” on Sept. 26, 2012.

And the latest figures for this year show that there’s been a slowdown of melting in the Arctic this summer as well, with temperatures at the North Pole well below normal for this time of year. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi calls it “the coldest ever recorded.”

The Associated Press had to retract a photo it released on July 27 with the caption, “The shallow meltwater lake is occurring due to an unusually warm period.”

“In fact, the water accumulates in this way every summer,” AP admitted in a note to editors, adding that the photo was doubly misleading because “the camera used by the North Pole Environment Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original position, which was a few dozen miles from the pole.”
AP Before/After North Pole

Before/after North Pole photos retracted by AP.

NOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase.

"Even with all this data manipulation, the trend is down as shown by this Hadley global plot," writes Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology at The Weather Channel. (See D'Aleo - Real Story About Temps.pdf)

"Last year was the 8th warmest but 7th coldest since 1998. They explain it away with the predominance of La Ninas or a solar blip, but say it was the warmest decade nonetheless, so stop questioning us," he said.

On August 7th, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten quoted Irish solar expert Ian Elliott predicting that lower levels of sunspot activity over the next few years “indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age.”

“If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out.

“When one carefully reads the report, we find that the NOAA findings actually do confirm precisely what the skeptics have been claiming all along:

1. The Earth has stopped warming.

2. The climate models exaggerated future warming [caused by] CO2 climate sensitivity is much lower than we first thought.

“That’s the real issue at hand,” he added.

[Tero]

Har har har, trend!
///But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.//

Woody: why do you bother? They are going to argue like for ever.

[Seth]

Har har har, trend!
///But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.//

Woody: why do you bother? They are going to argue like for ever.

Damned facts! Don't you hate it when those damned facts blow up a perfectly good political agenda?

[Tero]

You have a point. One point. A point is not a trend.

[Seth]

You have a point. One point. A point is not a trend.

Yeah...except it seems to be a decade-long trend at this point, which is exactly the opposite of what the global warming alarmists predicted. So which shall we look to for the more accurate answer to the question...theories and models that have been demonstrated to be wrong, or actual recorded facts?

I say facts.

If the global warming alarmists has PREDICTED this decade-long temperature drop and all the other evidence we now see accurately in their models and then said "this is a temporary and predicted drop, but it's going to turn around and shoot up like a hockey stick in X number of years" then I might be persuaded to be less skeptical of their "the sky is falling" rhetoric.

But they didn't. They completely and totally screwed the pooch while yammering on and on that their predictions are correct...except they aren't. So why should anyone go on believing them, pray tell?

Particularly when one looks at the political and economic motives not just of "climate scientists" whose economic and academic futures depend entirely on confirming the bias that the governments of the world, for political and economic reasons, have decided to try to lie into the truth, but upon the machinations of the powers behind the thrones of the world who are in it strictly for profit, and who stand to literally create a financially-motivated one-world government controlled by shadows flickering around in the dark corners of the economy.

There's plenty enough money involved to corrupt anyone. Absolutely anyone. And if there isn't enough money there's certainly enough lead and/or explosives to remove any impediments that might block the Progressive agenda.

You think that's a wild conspiracy theory, fine. But what if I'm right? What then?

I find it highly amusing that a forum filled with skeptics of every stripe would be so dogmatically and religiously attached to the whole "global warming" agenda. The fervor with which it's being defended easily rivals the Inquisition on a grand scale.

Doesn't say much for reason or skepticism does it?

[Jason]

Here. Watch the dancing ninja for 3 hours. It will explain everything you need to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Afterwards you will be a true believer free of doubt.



For more information watch this site for 3 hours a day for 4 days: http://ninjaworksit.ytmnd.com/