http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
"CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen.The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen."
Wow!.
Global warming must be real! We really need to takes some serious steps to curtail this planetary heat wave, which threatens to cover so much of the earth in snow and ice!!!
This warming trend that has brought record high global temperatures this past month, and year (indeed this past decade - even though it has been admitted by the lead 'scientist' that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years...), and record snowfalls to so many areas on the planet, must be STOPPED!!!
The only way I can see to do it effectively is to cap CO2 emissions, or at least introduce a trade system whereby heavily polluting industries can buy 'carbon credits' from lesser polluters so they can keep pumping out their normal amounts whilst passing the costs onto the stupid consumers.
Funny, but I don't see anything about how much higher the temps were. And I don't see anything about which data was used, or how much it would cost if a private person were to try and recreate the data. Because I just did a search on my local area of San Diego. The data I wanted, from just three stations in my area, would cost me nearly $700 to obtain.
When will the madness end? We are burning up, even as we are trying so desperately to keep warm.
Our coastal cities are being flooded as we type - so 'they' say.
Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Are we doing the same?
Or, did he know something we have yet to grasp?
Maybe we simply need to live and adapt with an ever changing planet, instead of trying to be control-freaks that try to control even Mother Nature.
Mmmm. Shit tard making stupid statements after I've linked to it who knows how many times. I just ignore him when he argues with nothing, it happens too frequently to bother with.
Some of the people warning about global warming are the same pinheads that during the 60's and 70's were warning about the new ice age. They were wrong then as well as now. 1860-1880 global warming followed by global cooling. 1910- 1940 global warming followed by global cooling. Cooling since 1995. We need to reduced pollution, but cap and tax isn't the way to do it.
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."
From http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm.
"What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production".
"A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture".
"However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
From http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=They_predicted_global_cooling_in_the_1970s.
Here they list 12 links to debunking articles or papers. Go there, read them, or not, I don't care.
This is one of the stupidest arguments that you hear over and over and over in every thread on the subject and usually on every page of every thread.
If all AGW followers took Dyson's approach, I wouldn't have a problem with the movement. In fact, I would be completely unconcerned. I agree with Dyson that if humans have the power to cause global warming, then we have the power to adapt and correct it with technology if needed. For example, instead of reducing C02 output (which has many benefits) a technological solution could remove excess CO2.
From the Wiki article:
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have"
My sentiments exactly.
Satellite data collects infrared light from all over the surface of the planet, 71% of Earth's surface being water. BTW, the planet Mars has about the same amount of dry land as Earth. When temperatures reach above 70°F on Mars, now THAT will be global warming... and also, Mars atmosphere consists of 95% Carbon dioxide....
What does global warming on Mars prove?
That everything is King Arthur's fault.
I love all these complex explanations for other planets warming the same way Earth is...
Perfect example, top marks ol' boy!
Scientist is not stated once in the entire post. Naturally, you point out that there wasn't a scientific concensus supporting the rabid politicians that were extolling the coming ice age 24/7 in the early 70's. It's a simple fact, it happened, and a lot of the same loony toons are indeed pimping the new disaster scenario today. That they have science, if you want to call it that, backing them this time doesn't change anything. The loony tunes don't need evidence, and are in no way restricted to honest portrayals regardless. Hell, even the scientists are doing it. We've got Paucheri and his bunch on record numerous times admitting to flat out lies in order to create a false sense of emergency.
Now that we've dealt with your latest waste of brain activity, would you mind explaining why every class one rural record I've checked(I'll admit, it was only about a dozen, I'm lazy after all) has been modified, often outside the margin of error, to show warming over the last century instead of cooling? Those would be stations like the subset identified by Watts which was then manipulated by the NOAA to show the same increase in trends...
Seriously, go to the site, pick a state at random, and start looking at the stations, find those class 1 sites, and then go to GISTEMP and pick apart the station data. It was immediately obvious to me that something is seriously wrong with the process. The thirties are almost universally high, but once they go through homogenization, the 90's are often higher.
A few more examples, went with Alabama because it's the first state alphabetically, just running through the list...
Fairhope 2NE. Peak temperature just shy of 21 in the late 20's, knocked down about a quarter, with the 1998 peak left alone for the most part.
Gainesville Lock. Sitting in a structure's parking lot, next to, of all things, a lock. Oddly minor adjustments considering it's on the one spot not covered in grass. Unfortunately, they're still shrinking the gap between the high in the 30's and the recent highs.
Greensboro. Peak temperature of 20.25 in the 30's, around .75 degrees hotter than 1998. After homogenization, the thirties are mysteriously half a degree cooler for this rural site and the gap has shrunk to around .25, with 1998 no longer being the recent high...
These are with USHCN site "corrections" already added into the unadjusted values. Before these were made, the thirties were even hotter by comparison, the actual raw station data is less accessible.
Why do you resort to insults? Its detestable when his side does it and I cringe with embarrassment when my side does it. Here is a quote that I remind myself of when tempted to get into the gutter: "Insults and profanity are the effort of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly."
It's just plain annoying when any side decides to use mockery to make themselves feel better. What is worse is when the main portion of a person's argument is merely ridiculing their opponent or the stereotypical caricature of their opponent's position. I don't really have such strong feelings about environmentalism, but it is sad to see science being treated as if it were politics - where concensus matters in voting. It would be analogous to having mathematicians vote upon pi being defined as 22/7ths.
I couldn't agree more:
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
That is pretty cool. I wish Crichton were the author of Red Mars... Kim Robertson's political views are annoying and I usually liked reading Crichton's novels.
I'm a dick. Feel free to go with weak minded though, doesn't bother me.
I would like to reserve that particular line of reasoning for rational discussions though. If debunking the same mythical accusation over and over is rational, then I guess I'll go get my head examined or something...
What mythical accusation are you taking about? Weak minded, are you calling people who don't go with the flow weak minded, or who are you referring to anyway? Something seems to be bothering you and you seem to be writing in a manner which appears to express anger and perhaps zeal. From the usage of "debunking", "rational", "mythical" and the term "weak minded" it would seem that you consider yourself to be rational and strong minded, personality characteristics that overly militant atheists and others who consider only themselves to be intelligent wish that they had in actuality. But really now, what is your deal?
Sheesh, answer a question and get a psych eval...
He referenced the phrase "Insults and profanity are the effort of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly."
That first line should be rather self explanatory. If it's not, I really don't know what to say.
For the rest of it, I guess you just didn't bother to read what you were attacking. Start with #278 and you can hopefully figure it out. If that doesn't help, blegh...
Passive agressive types that get offended at the drop of a hat are boring, so I wont bother spelling it out for you using small words and a bigger font size if you're still lost.
Nope, I didn't bother to read everything and I'm not going to. Your superciliousness in the recent posts is enough for me in my current state of somnambulism.
Jump into a thread without bothering to read it, and ask someone why they posted something. Brilliant!
Although my sarcasm is blunted, for this thread it's really not that off...
Jumping into controversial threads without reading the entire content happens quite often. Especially on wrongplanet... heck, most people there don't even read the OP. On this forum the OP is on each page, which is a good feature. Anyhow, I'm tired lately, not just certain hours of the day, and this tiredness is due to stress involved in wedding preparations and it being finals week at my college. I'm not going to read every single post you have composed and I do not need to. Why don't I need to? It's called extrapolation. I see the types of posts you are making now and I consider it a safe bet that most of your previous ones on this topic are just more of the same.
As soon as the next page rolls over the deniers get to repeat the same arguments that were just debunked on the previous page.
The reason is that deniers are not required to prove anything. As we've seen a good lie is often far better than a weak truth. This is because the point of the denier is the same as the tobacco supporter. Neither has any real science upon which to stand so what they do is to simply cause as much noise as possible. The more noise they make the more they can claim that the science isn't settled.
So jumping into the middle of a thread like this is no big deal, it's still pretty early in this thread. The last thread went about 1500 replies before it petered out but I gave up on it at about 1,000.
I don't really know why any of us really bother. I certainly am not trying to change anyone's opinion because that's impossible. If anything it's for the few people that might not have decided one way or another and a desire to make sure that the opposing opinion is not left unchallenged. But we have absolutely zero effect on either the science or the politics.
To me one of the most telling attributes of most deniers is that they are expert climatologists. If you don't believe it just ask them whereas most proponents make no claim to any special expertise they simply believe that a dedicated education, years of work in the field and publication of literally hundreds of respected peer reviewed papers gives someone's opinion much greater weight than some self acknowledged asshole on the internet.
If folks are so smart then why don't they go over to Real Climate where they can argue directly with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt? The reason is that their recycled arguments which can play fairly decently against the uneducated in the field are instantly seen for the garbage they are by the real experts.
I consider this to mean that you a protagonist for environmentalism then?
Thank you for agreeing with me on that after correcting me by truncating the word "same" to make a point of equivalency rather than equality.
Yeah, it's just like people who for a rebuttal in a debate shout, "you've seen no evidence for my opponents views!!! No evidence exists!!!!"...
Fine by me. You can stake out the "I don't agree with anyone" position. A contrarian's contrarian. I would say curmudgeon except assuming the age in your profile is correct you're far too young to be a curmudgeon plus I like to think I have the curmudgeon position pretty well locked up.
But in case you haven't noticed I've quoted far more direct scientific evidence than everyone else in the thread combined. Just because I don't feel obligated to do so in every reply doesn't mean that my primary arguments are baseless opinion.
Plus what real evidence have you presented in your 8 replies so far other than indicating the ability to string "superciliousness" and "somnambulism" together in a reasonably coherent sentence? OK so you've proved you passed high school grammar, now what?
I wonder if Numers realizes yet that he stuck his head into a wood chipper.
lmao, now that's funny.
Exactly.
Welcome, to the wood chipper.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
