Super mega "godzilla" El Niño this winter

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you look at actual real temperature measurements, not computer model generated data (what the "scientists" and AGW alarmists use), along with real hard data from satellites, there is hardly any warming, and in the United States case, a half a degree C COOLING over the last decade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...global-warming/

Do you guys that buy into the global warming.......I mean climate change..........or is it climate "disruption" not understand that the data the AGW proponents use IS NOT ACTUAL REAL HARD MEASURED TEMPERATURES??? They use wildly manipulated computer models that try and account for what temperatures were in the past previous to when humans could actually measure temps with instruments, and it correlates that into the future to estimate and compared historical temps to today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...andal-ever.html

If you want to put blind faith in governments around the world to stop a problem that may not even exist and that's potentially built upon fraud, well, god help the rest of us...
 
Last edited:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561...ng-figures.html

"My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified."
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561...ng-figures.html

"My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified."


Gee - look at the source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[13] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns.


That sure sounds like a reliable, unbiased source, right Drew99GT?
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

Indeed. And I always get the absolute straight science from the guys in Pakistan and Palestine!

(Psst, I read the list. Did you?) They're my "go to" source. No bias at all...

Yes I read the list and I read enough physics topics (astro-physics/particle physics ) to know than even Palestine has any number of particle physicists, etc. Small no noname countries have any number of highly educated scientists (many of them from England, China and the U.S. Your Bias is showing.

Oh yea Pakistan..the country that developed their own nuclear weapons and has dozens of world class physicists.

Dr. Abdus Salam [from Pakistan] is regarded as one of the 6 top particle physicists of all time developed the Electroweak quantum theory..a corner stone in QM. He spent much of his energy making Pakistan a bastion of Nuclear physics. And yea he is a Noble Prise winner.

You should do some research before make a quick dismissive slam-dunk retort.

And even if some of the scientific organizations that in your mind are losers..rest assured that any of them have many much smarter better educated folks in them than you (or I)

You may have missed the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on that list. The premier collection of research scientists in the world....just wanted to be sure.
 
Last edited:
From an unbiased point of view -- I really don't have enough data to draw my own conclusions, mostly due to my own laziness:

The climate change.... PROPONENTS are winning this thread.
36.gif
 
Quote:
ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change—seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon's in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago—factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

"Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia," Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon's former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. "This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70 percent CO2," or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561...ng-figures.html

"My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified."


Gee - look at the source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[13] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns.


That sure sounds like a reliable, unbiased source, right Drew99GT?
You really think .gov agencies and universities are unbiased? If so do you also beleive the actual unemployment rate is 5% and the IRS couldn't turn over requested emails because someone's hard drive crashed?
 
Who said that. Everyone is biased. Only an idiot blindly believes any corp or .gov.


You answer the queston I asked instead of running interference.
 
Last edited:
LOL at buster. First he posts about Exxon knowing about GW in 1981 and then he posts a temp chart showing they couldn't have known in 1981.
 
Actually he posted about Exxon knowing about climate change as early as 1981, which is about 25 years before "climate change" became the replacement phrase for "global warming". How prescient!

Oh, and it was in an email. In 1981. That brings up all sorts of questions.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
LOL at buster. First he posts about Exxon knowing about GW in 1981 and then he posts a temp chart showing they couldn't have known in 1981.


.....and in the 70's, there was high concern about global cooling. Look it up.
 
Originally Posted By: spackard
Actually he posted about Exxon knowing about climate change as early as 1981, which is about 25 years before "climate change" became the replacement phrase for "global warming". How prescient!

Oh, and it was in an email. In 1981. That brings up all sorts of questions.


Nah, it was a typically poorly written hatchet job. When I skimmed it, I took it to be based upon a fairly contemporary mail exchange between the writer and ex employee.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Al
July was the hottest global month ever. This year is on track to be the hottest global year ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/feeling-heat-earth-july-hottest-month-record-150129081.html
Post the raw data.
lol..you wouldn't believe it or understand it.
I certainly will not understand why readings from modern high tech instuments need to be arbitrarily "corrected" by people in an office somewhere.
 
hatt, your state is leading the charge in biased, anti science, denier, politicians
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=florida+politician+can%27t+say+climate+change

The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.



DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.




“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html#storylink=cpy




When it comes to biased scientists, I'm betting that there are much fewer in the 97% that agree vs the 3% who are obviously paid to disagree.

"Post your data"

It is much easier to take down the opponents. Because, as you've seen, all of the denier articles etc, come from highly biased sources, that were paid for by Big Oil/Coal/etc or by groups who were founded with the specific purpose of denying climate change (who in turn are paid by those same corps).
Universities that fund the majority of scientific research were not founded on those types of principals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom