« First « Previous Comments 139 - 178 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
The roman warming, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, the dust bowlthe hockey stick(never happened). The climate has been much more variable than the alarmists data manipulations would lead you to BELIEVE!
1. Temperature records are unreliable.
2. Temperatures aren't rising.
3. Man is not the cause of temperature rising.
4. Earth's temperature fluctuations are normal. It is self correcting.
5. CO2 isn't causing temperatures to rise.
What idiot ever said man does not effect his environment? It's the co2 thing that is fraudulent.
Onvocation
It is only fair to start giving Donald Trump credit for global cooling.
97% of scientists
jazz_music says
The discussion of significant figures
Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.
over the long hall....
some people don't get it still.
Here's another simple example. It's often cited that moms have 2.4 children on average.
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.
that type of person is interested in a different kind of "win" than I am.
values are just as likely to be rounded up as down.
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.
There's one type of person that cares about the future
the worst of it won't affect them personally.
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:
I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.
No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.
That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change
Onvacation saysI thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.
No, that was never the mainstream belief.
that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend)
THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.
. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.
temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:
I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.
Onvacation saysI am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.
It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.
My post isn't appearing. what's up?
Obfuscation it is
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.
But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
once it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.
Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.
This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.
At least once. Probably more.
LeonDurham says
I said the mechanism is well understood.
Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem
I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering.
the consequences of global warming are potentially dire,
You can't have it both ways
If the models are correct, ...
No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct
I thought the science was settled.
« First « Previous Comments 139 - 178 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.
Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18