Global Warming

“Did you? It only gives rough estimates.”

“they also faked the moon landing...”

“Does anybody have any temperature information that ISN'T based on rough estimations from mean data of different time periods?
last edited: 7/17/09 12:33:57 PM”

“yeah, the data that you were given.

...however now that you have acknowledged that you have been shown the data you asked for (after being directed to it 3 times) tell me where the inconsistency is between the two sets of data.”

“It's been tragi-comic seeing people who took Bush's side in so many debates while he brought us to the brink railing about people's need to wake up.”
pedxing

What's sad is no one will debate me. Only snipe. Oh well.”

“oh really?”

“yogisan, I have not been given that.

The data that he used and linked to is based totally on estimates and approximations.

Where are the #s?”

“Sarge is a fake.”

“this should be easy
last edited: 7/17/09 8:16:08 PM”

“So that's still a "no" then?

Nothing like seeing sheep run away when they can't answer. That willful ignorance is a baaa-tch!”

“Nonconformist: you demonstrated the other day that you are a liar and an anklebiter. Report to the I'd in Public Schools thread as you have disqualified yourself from this particular dung throwing contest.

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included. Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency; we switch to a later version as soon as a new complete year is available.The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.) The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999). Modifications to the analysis since 2001 are described on the separate Updates to Analysis. Programs used in the GISTEMP analysis and documentation on their use are available for download. The programs assume a Unix-like operating system and require familiarity with FORTRAN, C and Python for installation and use.

Sounds to me like the good people at GISS have put a f*ck load more thought into this than you have. But of course the faked the moon landing and invented Tang or some #&%!$ like that.”

“I would suggest maybe you look under the WMD to find what it is you pretend to be looking for, your tea team has some experience in these matters.”

“that's nice. as usual, the last brilliant retort is nothing more than name calling and personal attacks. i guess if you have nothing to say... say it with youtube! for the record, i have supported my claims by responded to every one of your posts while you have responded to none of mine.

in 2013 i expect nonconformist to claim he read every post in this thread since 2009 and has yet to find anyone post data supporting global warming.

the hypocrisy of people with a political agenda crying "global warming is an agenda-driven hoax" is so staggering as to be beyond belief.”

“Nonconformist: you demonstrated the other day that you are a liar and an anklebiter.

that's nice. as usual, the last brilliant retort is nothing more than name calling and personal attacks.

LMAO!!!

What is staggering beyond belief is that with everybody claiming the global average temperatures are rising each year, nobody can give more than a rough estimate as to what the temps are for the last decade!”

“I think the Western Fuels Association must have a mailing list. Every time a retired forecaster (or an economist) has a hiccough that sounds like a denial of climate change, it pops up all over the 'Net.”

“one has to wonder why all these people who supposedly are "up" on the concept that institutions manipulate and lie to make money, and government is their tool - don't recognize the global warming fear-mongering for what it is”

“Report to the Intelligent Design in Public Schools thread. You can recycle all your crap over there convincing me the Earth is only 5000 years old.”

“that's nice. as usual, the last brilliant retort is nothing more than name calling and personal attacks.”

“Yep. Make this all about me and not about the issue. I didn't call you any names nor did I attack you personally. I am sorry you feel so defensive.”

“those were your words from this morning. I'm sorry you're so defensive.”

“That nasty ass tone is back.”

“I know you are but what am I?”

“#&%!$ing ExxonMobile”

“was thinkin it’s be nice to have a “trollistan” where all the internet trolls could gather to share our many exploits :)”

“How can the world be 5,000 years old when god was born in Mid January of 1981?”

“It was a clone.”

“Clonnie Reagan???”

“Nonconformist: you demonstrated the other day that you are a liar and an anklebiter. Report to the I'd in Public Schools thread as you have disqualified yourself from this particular dung throwing contest.
Yogi

LMFAO!!! Are you f�n kidding me? LOL! You really are this bad at trolling, aren�t you?

The utterly horrible lie which destroyed my credibility aside, no one needs to read the thread to know that what I asked for is not there. It isn�t anywhere. You guys can continue posting your charts of bunnies with pancakes on their heads all you want but the best way to bring the non-believers to your side is to post "definitive proof that man causes global warming, global cooling, climate change---whatever". If you can�t post that and instead keep pointing out shiny objects, then you have no credibility.

the hypocrisy of people with a political agenda crying "global warming is an agenda-driven hoax" is so staggering as to be beyond belief

My favorite line of the post, lol. I have a political agenda? Well what is it? To keep the money I earn rather than have it stolen to support a fairy tale?

So why banish me to the ID thread? Have I ever posted on that thread? I�ll accept your punishment but let�s make it one that will teach me a lesson. I will report to the real wasteland of Trail Talk: I�ll banish myself to your Boycott Thread.”

“Reality and true science are an anathama to the Socialists.”

“OOPS

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.


Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.







Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.

While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action.

However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice pre-industrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that:

Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.

Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million.

Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years- far predating any possible human impact.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.

Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.

From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend.

The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.

Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Previously earth's plant life has thrived in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

When all the evidence is taken in to account it is clearly evident that there is warming around the globe, but when it comes to the planet as a whole the planet has in fact cooled down over the previous twenty years. It is also clearly evident that what is claimed as 'global warming' is not due to mankind but rather due to volcanoes and other natural phenomena. It is estimated that humans have contributed about two percent of some local climate warming. Many scientists are currently exposing the myths of global warming. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, governments should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries. This may be so but for the agenda that is in reality underlying the global warming threat. Let us not forget the Hegelian Dialectic.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm”

“that study and those people are not credible because they don't believe in global warming!”

“You called it, tilt. Sarge is baaccccckkkkk...

Anyway, the non-believing crowd is the vast minority and consequently, inconsequential.”

“So minorities don't count? WOW..whew lucky that wasn't in evidence when the Republicans passed the Civil Rights stuff huh?”

“So is claiming the skeptics are wrong racist?”

“I guess being a dumbass qualifies as special status.”

“".......when the Republicans passed the Civil Rights stuff huh?"

WTF ??

Which re-write of history did I miss?”

“
ROF

”

“Al Gore's Father voted against the Civil Rights Bill.

FOOL”

“Big deal. A dixiecrat. However, the southern dems did better than the southern repubs...

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

XL, you MAY want to review the REAL history of the Civil Rights Act...if you have time.”

“yawn”

““So minorities don't count? WOW..whew lucky that wasn't in evidence when the Republicans passed the Civil Rights stuff huh?

Hey yawl, Civics101-1.”

“From...gag. Wikipedia (reference material)

The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

As usual Liberals want to further stratify the nation into South and North....UM I prefer to just mention the group as a whole.
last edited: 7/22/09 6:05:20 AM”

“I guess the Muslim World Population wants to be remembered for their minority that keep their crusade banners in storage, eh? Is this another case of Zappa's Dichotomy,' A real republican or a southern republican'?”

“XL nails it!

What a bunch of morons.....”

“Poli Sci 099”

“You don't like facts- they suck when they tell the real tale. Your polemic candidates that couldn't handle the Facts got their asses kicked and yawl will be pissing & moaning about the stupid demwits instead of coming up with solutions , same chit every time.”

“i find it ironic that many of the people that were screaming about the evils of exxonmobile last summer because of the cost of gasoline are now ready to drop to their knees and perform an act of love for the company when it comes to climate change. talk about being #&%!$ing owned!”

“Yogi its standard liberal "situational ethics"

Hence the phrase "Major Fire Downtown clears way for GLORIUS NEW TRACTOR FACTORY" (LOL)”