the liberal global warming fraud

[moralist]

THE FIDDLING WITH TEMPERATURE DATA IS THE BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER

"When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

The feminized hysteria of catastrophic human caused global warming is a FRAUD.

Liberal bureaucratic parasites LIE to get the government funding they need...

...because they don't produce anything useful.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

Have no fear.

The cavalry is coming to the rescue of the global warming scare project.

Ta-Daa!

Schwarzenegger Calls For More Effort To Fight Climate Change

Since institutional science funded by government couldn't scare the public into giving the technocrats more power, maybe Arny can kick some ass for them.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Still snowing in Canada.

I was actually looking forward to growing oranges. Hrrmph!!

[william.scherk]

Still snowing in Canada.

I was actually looking forward to growing oranges. Hrrmph!!

There is a lot of that place, Canada. The Vancouver region has had in some places a 'false spring' because of unseasonably warm temperatures -- it is more like April than February. Grouse Mountain, Seymour Mountain, and Cypress Bowl -- they each have had a shitty warm season so far. If we had had the Winter Olympics in Vancouver this year instead of 2010, there would be a lack of snow ... but that's weather. Unseasonably warm merely refers to a 'seasonal average' computed over a particular timescale.

As for the Telegraph opinion by Booker, it has had some careful analysis of its components and arguments. If anybody is interested, an argument can be made for a widespread criminal 'adjustment' of raw temperature reading -- and in particular the Arctic, Canadian, Paraguayan 'raw data.' Booker takes this argument from the work of blogger Paul Homewood as indicated.

For those who wonder what can be usefully said against the arguments made by Booker -- and the claims of the Crime of the Century -- here's an article by Stephen Mosher, "Skeptics Demand Adjustments."

If Booker and Homewood are right, global, regional, and local temperature records are non reliable if they are 'adjusted,' meaning that any official numbers, whether from NASA or GISS or BEST or wherever, are suspect.

The responses disagreeing with Booker and Homewood may or may not be read by folks at OL. I'm glad I did the work of tracking down at least some well-argued responses and criticism. It's not that Booker and Homewood are not scientists, it's that they make claims about the scientific work of others -- that is it fraudulent. I want to know if any 'defence' can be made against the charges, and I want to know if the criticism is well founded.

The easiest thing to do is of course accept Booker and Homewood's conclusions without inquiring further. Easy but possibly mistaken.

Edited February 10, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

It's warming up in Tucson. Soon I'll be running the A/C.

Eat your hearts out, Canada.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

It's warming up in Tucson. Soon I'll be running the A/C.

Eat your hearts out, Canada.

Don't look now, but there are Canadians in your midst, plenty of them, a mysterious group with few distinguishing characteristics, known only by their creepy name, "Snowbirds," and their creepy insistence on being 'nice.'

[Brant Gaede]

It's warming up in Tucson. Soon I'll be running the A/C.

Eat your hearts out, Canada.

Don't look now, but there are Canadians in your midst, plenty of them, a mysterious group with few distinguishing characteristics, known only by their creepy name, "Snowbirds," and their creepy insistence on being 'nice.'

We isolate them in trailer parks or rip them off with high seasonal rents and surround them with over-priced knick knacks and special events like the Fiesta de los Vaqueros.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Lol Brant my grandmother went down to Mesa every year for about 35 years.

[Selene]

Debate is over...new consensus is in.

Duke, "the rape school," has done the same to mother Earth!

Brown and his colleagues published their findings this month in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

To conduct their study, they analyzed 34 climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth and most recent assessment report, finalized last November.

The analysis found good consistency among the 34 models explaining the causes of year-to-year temperature wiggles, Brown noted. The inconsistencies existed only in terms of the model’s ability to explain decade-to-decade variability, such as why global mean surface temperatures warmed quickly during the 1980s and 1990s, but have remained relatively stable since then.

“When you look at the 34 models used in the IPCC report, many give different answers about what is causing this decade-to-decade variability,” he said. “Some models point to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as the cause. Other models point to other causes. It’s hard to know which is right and which is wrong.”

Hopefully, as the models become more sophisticated, they will coalesce around one answer, Brown said.

So the consensus is that it is hard to know which is right and which is wrong....

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/climate-models-disagree-why-temperature-wiggles-occur

The authors of the study explain that the above worst-case scenario is "...unlikely to take place.":

The IPCC has previously warmed that global warming is impacting 'all continents and across the oceans'. This map details some of the predicted affects of climate change in different continents. However the latest study claims that the worst-case scenario is unlikely to take place

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YGF3BT44

A...

[Jules Troy]

Wonder who they can blame for the recent 9+ Richter scale earthquake in Indonesia...probably "those stinkin capitalists".

[Selene]

Wonder who they can blame for the recent 9+ Richter scale earthquake in Indonesia...probably "those stinkin capitalists".

87.18% Muslim so it must be their fault?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Blame?

How about fracking?

Oh... they don't do that over there...

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Lmao Michael they will try!!

[BaalChatzaf]

The Earth is experiencing a mild interglacial period. Yes, the planet is warming some. No, we will not turn into Venus. The warming is driven by both natural processes and dynamics and to some extent by human activity. It has not been established to my satisfaction that the human caused increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main driver of the current increase. Several other factors have either been ignored (deliberately and for political reasons) or down weighted in the statistical analysis.

So the warming part is true. The extent and causes have not been made crystal clear.

The issue has been politicized. That is unfortunate.

BTW if there is a major climate trend in the long run, I am betting on another Ice Age, either of limited duration like the so-called "Little Ice Age" (1300-1750 c.e.) or a major long Ice Age like the one that let up about 20,000 years ago. Mankind survived both.

[Brant Gaede]

The Earth is experiencing a mild interglacial period. Yes, the planet is warming some. No, we will not turn into Venus. The warming is driven by both natural processes and dynamics and to some extent by human activity. It has not been established to my satisfaction that the human caused increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main driver of the current increase. Several other factors have either been ignored (deliberately and for political reasons) or down weighted in the statistical analysis.

So the warming part is true. The extent and causes have not been made crystal clear.

The issue has been politicized. That is unfortunate.

BTW if there is a major climate trend in the long run, I am betting on another Ice Age, either of limited duration like the so-called "Little Ice Age" (1300-1750 c.e.) or a major long Ice Age like the one that let up about 20,000 years ago. Mankind survived both.

It did? I didn't know that. Then again, I don't give a damn about "mankind" for it's a bridge too far from the kind I'm interested in. I would care if I could travel to the future to see what happens to these apes, but I can't. Probably Eloi and their cannibal neighbors. Well, that's what we have today.

We have global warming since the Little Ice Age though not measureable from data since 1998. Maybe in ten years we can find more warming data. As some warming or cooling is not much evidence of anything but normal fluctuations including another massive glaciatic ice age it is a poor retreat to call it AGW.

Here, as I see it, are three biggies for impact on "mankind" going forward in increasing severity:

1) The Yellowstone Caldera explodes wiping out most of the United States.

2) An ice age as bad as any in the geological record except one when the planet was turned into a virtual snowball.

3) A giant asteroid or comet impact severe enough to do to complex life on earth as the one that supposedly did in the dinosaurs. It didn't wipe out complex life, just badly impacted it.

For humankind, that seems to be about it. That's what is on the projection screen. It doesn't include the sudden appearance of aliens who "want our women."

There is one more, however, that will wipe out all complex life on the planet, but it's doubtful anything resembling humans will still be around. The sun is inevitably getting hotter. It seems that in several hundred million years the earth still won't be Venus but it might as well be.

I have spoken.

--Brant

[Selene]

I am betting on another Ice Age, either of limited duration like the so-called "Little Ice Age" (1300-1750 c.e.) or a major long Ice Age....

I'll take that bet, what odds will you give me and what is the date certain when I can arrange for my android drone to pick it up?

A...

[moralist]

Bob is actually onto something there...

We're in a classic ice age weather pattern with a record breaking inactive spotless Sun, sequentially record breaking frigid Winters in the higher latitudes, and record breaking drought in the lower latitudes.

Google "Maunder minimum". This has happened before and will happen again. The cycle is independent of industrialization... unless someone proves that activity on Earth affects Solar cycles.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

The Earth is experiencing a mild interglacial period. Yes, the planet is warming some. No, we will not turn into Venus. The warming is driven by both natural processes and dynamics and to some extent by human activity. It has not been established to my satisfaction that the human caused increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main driver of the current increase. Several other factors have either been ignored (deliberately and for political reasons) or down weighted in the statistical analysis.

So the warming part is true. The extent and causes have not been made crystal clear.

The issue has been politicized. That is unfortunate.

BTW if there is a major climate trend in the long run, I am betting on another Ice Age, either of limited duration like the so-called "Little Ice Age" (1300-1750 c.e.) or a major long Ice Age like the one that let up about 20,000 years ago. Mankind survived both.

It did? I didn't know that. Then again, I don't give a damn about "mankind" for it's a bridge too far from the kind I'm interested in. I would care if I could travel to the future to see what happens to these apes, but I can't. Probably Eloi and their cannibal neighbors. Well, that's what we have today.

We have global warming since the Little Ice Age though not measureable from data since 1998. Maybe in ten years we can find more warming data. As some warming or cooling is not much evidence of anything but normal fluctuations including another massive glaciatic ice age it is a poor retreat to call it AGW.

Here, as I see it, are three biggies for impact on "mankind" going forward in increasing severity:

1) The Yellowstone Caldera explodes wiping out most of the United States.

2) An ice age as bad as any in the geological record except one when the planet was turned into a virtual snowball.

3) A giant asteroid or comet impact severe enough to do to complex life on earth as the one that supposedly did in the dinosaurs. It didn't wipe out complex life, just badly impacted it.

For humankind, that seems to be about it. That's what is on the projection screen. It doesn't include the sudden appearance of aliens who "want our women."

There is one more, however, that will wipe out all complex life on the planet, but it's doubtful anything resembling humans will still be around. The sun is inevitably getting hotter. It seems that in several hundred million years the earth still won't be Venus but it might as well be.

I have spoken.

--Brant

If the Yellowstone caldera blows, civilization is toast and the human race could be rendered extinct. It nearly happened 75,000 years ago when supervolcano Mt. Toba blew and there were under 5000 humans capable of reproductions. That was a very close call.

[BaalChatzaf]

The Earth is experiencing a mild interglacial period. Yes, the planet is warming some. No, we will not turn into Venus. The warming is driven by both natural processes and dynamics and to some extent by human activity. It has not been established to my satisfaction that the human caused increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main driver of the current increase. Several other factors have either been ignored (deliberately and for political reasons) or down weighted in the statistical analysis.

So the warming part is true. The extent and causes have not been made crystal clear.

The issue has been politicized. That is unfortunate.

BTW if there is a major climate trend in the long run, I am betting on another Ice Age, either of limited duration like the so-called "Little Ice Age" (1300-1750 c.e.) or a major long Ice Age like the one that let up about 20,000 years ago. Mankind survived both.

It did? I didn't know that. Then again, I don't give a damn about "mankind" for it's a bridge too far from the kind I'm interested in. I would care if I could travel to the future to see what happens to these apes, but I can't. Probably Eloi and their cannibal neighbors. Well, that's what we have today.

We have global warming since the Little Ice Age though not measureable from data since 1998. Maybe in ten years we can find more warming data. As some warming or cooling is not much evidence of anything but normal fluctuations including another massive glaciatic ice age it is a poor retreat to call it AGW.

Here, as I see it, are three biggies for impact on "mankind" going forward in increasing severity:

1) The Yellowstone Caldera explodes wiping out most of the United States.

2) An ice age as bad as any in the geological record except one when the planet was turned into a virtual snowball.

3) A giant asteroid or comet impact severe enough to do to complex life on earth as the one that supposedly did in the dinosaurs. It didn't wipe out complex life, just badly impacted it.

For humankind, that seems to be about it. That's what is on the projection screen. It doesn't include the sudden appearance of aliens who "want our women."

There is one more, however, that will wipe out all complex life on the planet, but it's doubtful anything resembling humans will still be around. The sun is inevitably getting hotter. It seems that in several hundred million years the earth still won't be Venus but it might as well be.

I have spoken.

--Brant

By Jove! You are a bit of a misanthrope aren't you?

[Brant Gaede]

What we call "civilization" began about ten thousand years ago in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley--where Iraq is--and the raising of grain as farmers began to support cities and kingdoms. We are due or overdue for 1) and 2) but neither may happen even for another 100,000 years. Humankind has started to self-evolve and continued exponential advances in technology including bio-technology may mean none of my negative prognostications will stop humanity's journey perhaps even unto a kind of immortality. The universe may be full of unknowable superior beings. It's quaint to think we might find them with radio technology that is tending to obsolescence in little more than a hundred years even for us primitives.

Humans during these last ten thousand years have been pretty much the same--the last 40,000 years actually if you only consider the biology--and while I'm curious as to what humans will be only a thousand years from now, I suspect they'll be so different and so much more intelligent I could not live among them. I'd be only of interest to them for purposes of dissection after they got through emptying my brain of anything of possible interest. Public display in a zoo?

The future's going to a bitch that way, but not the here and now, not for most of us--I mean, what can anyone do past, present and future but live and make the most of it? Knowing this is like living with the knowledge that there is no God, just you and what you make of you for you and your social matrix from your family on up.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

On 4/26/2015 at 9:33 AM, Brant Gaede said:

We have global warming since the Little Ice Age though not measureable from data since 1998. Maybe in ten years we can find more warming data.

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 2/8/2015 at 2:20 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Greg,

Have no fear.

The cavalry is coming to the rescue of the global warming scare project.

Ta-Daa!

Schwarzenegger Calls For More Effort To Fight Climate Change

Since institutional science funded by government couldn't scare the public into giving the technocrats more power, maybe Arny can kick some ass for them.

Michael

Do you know what Climate Change said to Schwarzernegger?    I'll be back.