Global Temperature Update through April...

warrior-cat · May 13, 2015

jamo0001 said:
Infrastructure is wasted money?

No, a lot of the money was not spent on infrastructure. Much of it was spent on frivolous stuff one such thing was 276 awards. Not really sure what that was about but my point is that during the riots many on here and other experts complained that there was money needed to be spent there on jobs, education, etc.. however there was a lot of money sent there 1.8 billion from the stimulus which really did not imo get used for its intended purpose. Now not saying that some did not but only 16 million to infrastructure. Not trying to get off track here but, I was trying to make a point about money being wasted on Global warming companies that can be used for better purposes but first we need to make sure this money is being used as it is intended.

Free_Salato_Blue · May 13, 2015

warrior-cat said:
That's what I figured more BS from you. You see how that works. Your original post to me touted things that I never said such as giving billions to middle east countries which I am totally against but that did not stop you from throwing uneducated assumptions as to what I am about. Also, as has been stated before, you do not address all of the other senseless spending problems Democrats/Liberals have as part of the problem. Again, back to global warming fraud, if we take all of the money being spent on failing companies and over priced ideas that will cost more than their worth, we would be able to help the infrastructure and jobs that you seem (falsely I think) to be concerned about.

Just Dems and Liberals?
"Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."
Even though the DoD says they doesn't want or need any more Abrams or upgrades.

And you complain about money for energy and environmental research. Please tell us what part of our discretionary budget would you cut, cause anything but military is a pretty small slice already. It's guns vs butter.

'"The old liberal blame it on military spending excuse. It is not like we waste money anywhere else in this country."
Basically anyone that doesn't agree with you, you rabidly tag liberal.

BlueThruAndThru_rivals115784 · May 13, 2015

I'm feeling a case of the charts coming on.

akers65 · May 13, 2015

Well this thread went down a strange road, global warming to "we spend too much on military".
Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

warrior-cat · May 13, 2015

Free_Salato_Blue said:
Just Dems and Liberals?
"Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."
Even though the DoD says they doesn't want or need any more Abrams or upgrades.

And you complain about money for energy and environmental research. Please tell us what part of our discretionary budget would you cut, cause anything but military is a pretty small slice already. It's guns vs butter.

'"The old liberal blame it on military spending excuse. It is not like we waste money anywhere else in this country."
Basically anyone that doesn't agree with you, you rabidly tag liberal.

I see that your are too dense to understand. No one is saying we can't cut spending militarily but it is being done in the wrong places, however, that is an argument for another thread. My original point is that the liberal mindset is to always first hit the military when there are also other places to cut spending. We spend way too much on global warming with a lot less in return.

Free_Salato_Blue · May 13, 2015

Hard to understand when you jump from global warming to Baltimore riots.
Never a clear cut solution in your arguments just generalizations.

Having a sustainable energy resource isn't just about global warming, it's about giving OPEC countries the big FU.
One day long after I'm gone the US will have to find a solution to fossil fuels for private, commercial and defense.
The more we can incorporate "green" systems into the overall energy production grid the longer fossil fuel reserves will last.

gracetoyou · May 14, 2015

Back to the subject at hand...here's a great piece by William Briggs. He was a global warming alarmist who is now a skeptic. He also explains correctly that there is a huge difference between a skeptic & a denier.

http://wmbriggs.com/post/15668/

Lord_Crow · May 14, 2015

Right, the skeptic's job is to keep feeding discredited Big Tobacco style propaganda to the ignorant masses in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus on Climate Change while the deniers are the nuts used to try and make the skeptics look sane by comparison.

bigblueinsanity_rivals250340 · May 14, 2015

-LEK- said:
Yea, here's the deal. You are the slow one here. I get you like to deny science and facts, so I'm wasting my breath, but what I said went over your head. My bad though, I forgot I should just pat monkeys on their heads. <insert patting whatever dumb science denier I'm quoting on head gif here>

Lol. Please by all means....continue proving my point.

Deeeefense · May 14, 2015

gracetoyou said:
Back to the subject at hand...here's a great piece by William Briggs. He was a global warming alarmist who is now a skeptic. He also explains correctly that there is a huge difference between a skeptic & a denier.

http://wmbriggs.com/post/15668/

From your article:

"No scientist I know disputes “Man-Made Climate Change Is Real”. None."

Since you think this is a great piece will you now concede the reality of Global Climate Change?

The article takes issue with some of the predication models not the reality of GCC. We know with certainty what the ultimate effects of Climate Change will be, but predicting to what extent they will occur along a given timeline is by it's nature going to be just as inaccurate as predicting the weather for next Thursday. No one should be surprised about that.

-LEK- · May 14, 2015

bigblueinsanity said:
Lol. Please by all means....continue proving my point.

This isnt fox news. You saying it over and over doesnt make it true.

bigblueinsanity_rivals250340 · May 14, 2015

-LEK- said:
This isnt fox news. You saying it over and over doesnt make it true.

Irony at its finest.

gracetoyou · May 14, 2015

Lord_Crow said:
Right, the skeptic's job is to keep feeding discredited Big Tobacco style propaganda to the ignorant masses in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus on Climate Change while the deniers are the nuts used to try and make the skeptics look sane by comparison.

You really know nothing. If you did you would get what a skeptic is.

Deeeefense said:
From your article:

"No scientist I know disputes “Man-Made Climate Change Is Real”. None."

Since you think this is a great piece will you now concede the reality of Global Climate Change?

The article takes issue with some of the predication models not the reality of GCC. We know with certainty what the ultimate effects of Climate Change will be, but predicting to what extent they will occur along a given timeline is by it's nature going to be just as inaccurate as predicting the weather for next Thursday. No one should be surprised about that.

You guys are missing the point. I've never denied human-caused global warming & neither does any scientist that is a skeptic. The skepticism is over the politicizing of the issue that has derailed it from true science leasing to statements that have no support.

Dr. Judith Curry, who's research is funded by NOAA & NASA, is one of the most objective voices of this issue. Watch her Senate testimony if you really want to know why some skeptic's are skeptics. And also know that skeptics DO believe in human caused global warming but separate fact from fiction & polictical alarmism:

P19978 · May 14, 2015

-LEK- said:
Probably more interesting is the science deniers who refute fact because they literally believe their opinion is on par with facts. This is most of the uneducated. As more and more facts for years have been settled, the science deniers still scream like children. It's not even a debate. It's like the science deniers claim gravity doesn't exist or the sun is a bunch of fairy princess flying together. It's not a debate. Science deniers lost a long time ago. Only the monkeys still throw poop.

Facts>opinions

Also, no one uses the the argument that it's cold today, therefor climate change is proven/disproven. Because that lacks logic or fact, usually, that's in the science deniers monkey camp. But with all the deniers stupidity, pretty sure most of them don't use that strawman argument.

You hit all of the cliches except "But its Settled Science!"

Lol...

wkycatfan_rivals376690 · May 14, 2015

Lenin and Trotsky wishes they had thought of 'settled science'.

-LEK- · May 14, 2015

Here, since so many of you like to find articles from Fox news or crazy lulu land, I will give you this. TBH, I am shocked some of you can read. Its a little place called NASA. You may have heard of them.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

gracetoyou · May 15, 2015

-LEK- said:
Here, since so many of you like to find articles from Fox news or crazy lulu land, I will give you this. TBH, I am shocked some of you can read. Its a little place called NASA. You may have heard of them.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Not everyone at NASA or funded by NASA agrees with James Hansen.

BTW...did I mention that Dr. Judith Curry's research is funded by NASA & NOAA?

AustinTXCat · Jul 12, 2015

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows.

Interesting. If this projected event indeed occurs, then watching certain heads explode around here should provide considerable entertainment.

elwood_blue · Jul 12, 2015

LordEgg said:
No wonder the nazis rose to power. Heat makes folks cranky.

"And that's the double truth, Ruth!"

warrior-cat · Jul 12, 2015

MirageSmack · Jul 12, 2015

I agree with the previous post, the sun rules all. It's why other planet Temps go up and down with ours, when we clearly don't have an effect on Mars and Venus.

Reading through this thread, NASA struck my interest. My uncle worked there through the end of the rocket era. He designed guided missile systems for the Navy as well. He thinks NASA is a joke now, that all scientist are bought and paid for, he always says look who funds a scientist work to see what their outcome would be.

I agree, science is not always correct. In my youth we were warned about another ice age, global warming was a thing of fiction. The Ohio River was frozen solid for the only time in my life, a solid month and we never hit 32°. Pluto was a planet said scientist for centuries, Brontosaurus was a real dinosaur they said. Yet those who believe one way or the other in this subject are infallible. Last week on TV I saw that the California drought was due to global warming. Meanwhile, two days ago, Louisville proclaimed this as the wettest July on record...announced on July 10th. Did they ever just consider things were randomn?

-LEK- · Jul 12, 2015

Glad we can trust the opinion of your uncle over the tens of 1000s of accreditation climate scientists have. Pretty much open and shut really.

Levibooty · Jul 12, 2015

I'll be dead when all the Dumbasses will be saying OHSHIT he was right!

bigblueinsanity_rivals250340 · Jul 12, 2015

AustinTXCat said:
'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows.

Interesting. If this projected event indeed occurs, then watching certain heads explode around here should provide considerable entertainment.

Oh theyve already hedged their bets, along with all the other global warming alarmists.

Global warming, then climate change, now climate confusion.

Its beyond me how anyone can think any of these people have a clue.

Lord_Crow · Jul 12, 2015

And by "these people" you mean every scientific institution on earth with a national or international standing. Every country whether it be Communist, Socialist, Constitutional democracy, Constitutional monarchy, Democracy, Democratic republic, Dictatorship, Emirate, Islamic republic, Marxist, Monarchy, Parliamentary government, Presidential , Republic, or Totalitarian - if they have a scientific institution that is legitimate and not funded by big energy interests then they subscribe to anthropogenic global warming.

The total body of the world's greatest scientific institutions are in consensus on this subject.

Lord_Crow · Jul 12, 2015

Lord_Crow · Jul 12, 2015

Lord_Crow · Jul 12, 2015

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
(Scientific Organizations That Oppose the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

NONE

rodgerblue · Jul 12, 2015

"Climate change" is a myth. It is an opiate for the masses.

-LEK- · Jul 12, 2015

rodgerblue said:
"Climate change" is a myth. It is an opiate for the masses.

Yes, love when the dumbass chimp chimes in. I hear Gravity is false too. You should test this out.

Kaizer Sosay · Jul 12, 2015

Maybe he means "these people"...

...1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.

For example:

One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding.
In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.”

There are several other documents just like these. But why? Why would they manipulate data and falsify reports? Political pressure in the form of funding...or rather cutting off funding if results don't match agendas.

More recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — came out to Breitbart News . . . and revealed that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!

Add someone mentioned NASA earlier. Hmmmm...

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

None of this was in the initial press release...nor was there a later press release to announce this information. Why? I'll give you a hint: It involves the number 22-billion.

Kaizer Sosay · Jul 12, 2015

Here are a few more things to consider...

Global Warming Crusader and Nobel Peace Prize Winner ALGORE

In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.

POTUS Obama

You are likely familiar with the story of the failed Solyndra green energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million; President Obama took a lot of flak for that. But did you know that...

...when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors . . . Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. The company went under (along with the $500 investment by the US taxpayers) but those two investors made millions in the process. Coincidentally, both have since made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.

It doesn’t stop there...

In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right?
There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.
First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.

And around and around we go.

-LEK- · Jul 12, 2015

Al Gore doesn't equal most of the worlds climate scientists. Attack the argument not the person. You can always find people with agendas. Money is made on both sides. Just take the scientific evidence by itself.

-LEK- · Jul 12, 2015

You can find where billions were made by companies ignoring climate change.

Kaizer Sosay · Jul 12, 2015

-LEK- said:
Al Gore doesn't equal most of the worlds climate scientists. Attack the argument not the person. You can always find people with agendas. Money is made on both sides. Just take the scientific evidence by itself.

Did you not read my first post? The one that talks about some of the "scientific evidence" that has been reported. Including NASA...which I believe you originally brought into the fray.

Lord_Crow · Jul 12, 2015

Provide a link to your sources, please.

Ahnan E. Muss · Jul 13, 2015

rodgerblue said:
"Climate change" is a myth. It is an opiate for the masses.

[banana] Right on cue.

Kaizer Sosay · Jul 13, 2015

Lord_Crow said:
Provide a link to your sources, please.

OK...But keep in mind I am not saying that man-made greenhouse gas emissions aren't somewhat harmful to the Earth's atmosphere. They are. Just not at the catastrophic and eminent danger levels that some would lead the public to believe. My problem is with the alarmists and their abuses of scientific data concerning the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption issue. And with the governments (including the US) who manipulate studies to advance their agendas. And with the scientists who manipulate the data to ensure the cash flow from said governments for the funding of their projects.

Also keep in mind that Professor Robert Stavins is on YOUR side. He was on your side before he said this...and he is STILL on your side. Just google him. But he doesn't like the government muddying up science by asking scientists to manipulate data or reports any more than I do. And then ask yourself why the main stream media didn't grab this story and SHOUT from rooftops about it.

...Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.’

...His comments follow a decision two weeks earlier by Sussex University’s Professor Richard Tol to remove his name from the summary of an earlier volume of the full IPCC report, on the grounds it had been ‘sexed up’ by the same government officials and had become overly ‘alarmist’.

Link...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-government-meddling-crucial-UN-report.html

Here's another link. This one concerning the "97% of scientists" stat that you throw out there without knowing where that number came from. Well, here is where that number originated from...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

From the last part of that story...

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Lord_Crow · Jul 13, 2015

Thank you for citing your sources. I never use the "97%" number because while that is an overwhelming consensus it pales in comparison to having every scientific institution on earth with a national or international standing all in agreement on the issue.

Most of what you are posting in your first paragraph is taken out of context and the political infighting over the wording of the IPCC reports are well documented and in no way is a reflection of the actual science no moreso that the George W. Bush administration's well known penchant for doing precisely the same thing... politicians changing the meaning of scientific reports.

Secondly and more embarrassingly, your last paragraph is quoted from an utterly discredited study done by a crackpot organization that shows you are only superficially familiar with this issue insomuch as can be googled in 5 minutes. You have irreparably discredited yourself by citing this utter nonsense. The below link eviscerates your fabricated information and reveals it to be a complete fraud of epic proportions. I can't post the entire article because it goes into great detail that exceeds the 10000 word limit on posting here, but you can click and have a great laugh at how severely your petition is discredited:

"In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published theirPetition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attempt to by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization.

The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.

It is also false.

---------

At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.
---------

Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it’s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the “30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC” meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it’s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

Lord_Crow · Jul 13, 2015

What is hilarious is that anyone with a BA degree could be one of their 30,000 if you take them at face value, but even that minimum level of education cannot be verified. That's like asking 30,000 Jiffy Lube mechanics to sit in judgment of the world's greatest aerospace engineers.

Global Temperature Update through April...

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member