Pickering Angels
Toronto Escorts

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No US Warming Since 2005

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,561
17,825
113
Wrong. The physics shows you have been fooled
Here is a 61 lecture detailing the greenhouse effect by a physics professor. It is factual non political and unbiased
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3v...PeZQy5CNlPh0r3
Totally irrelevant to this discussion larue, nice attempt at changing the subject.

Duh, That's how your blogger was able to manipulate / cherry pick the data
You have the link for the data.
So either prove it was manipulated or apologize for bullshitting and shut the fuck up.
Your choice.

14 data points for 15 years
Holy shit larue, I said the chart showed annual averages, that's why there is only one fucking data point for every year.
Duh.

you/ blogger buddy added back the Urban Island heat effect
The CRN data and ClimDiv data are both on the chart to show that the data set you picked (which is discontinued) shows more warming than the data you claim is tainted.

Go ahead larue, download the data, plot it and prove it or just admit that you really have no clue what the fuck you are talking about.
Your call.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-...e_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2019&month=8
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,328
2,259
113
Totally irrelevant to this discussion larue, nice attempt at changing the subject.
The physics related to the greenhouse effect is totally irrelevant??

your typing fingers move a whole lot faster than your brain does
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
I started this thread and it was based on that data set.

You should read, slowly if necessary, the second post in this thread.
By all means. And then ignore the fact that ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
By all means. And then ignore the fact that ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
So you read that the measurement techniques are highly questionable and there are no reliable measurements earlier than the 20th century.

I understand trusting the experts but their nuance is lost on the poorly educated (for this subject) talking point warriors.

If temperatures are flat over the last 15 years, and US emissions are down, I’m not sure Bernie’s $16T plan is warranted unless the strategy is to make the US much poorer.

China and India, largely outside of the Paris accord, are the issues and where the attention should be focused.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-coal-power-plants-in-one-map/
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
So you read that the measurement techniques are highly questionable and there are no reliable measurements earlier than the 20th century.

I understand trusting the experts but their nuance is lost on the poorly educated (for this subject) talking point warriors.

If temperatures are flat over the last 15 years, and US emissions are down, I’m not sure Bernie’s $16T plan is warranted unless the strategy is to make the US much poorer.

China and India, largely outside of the Paris accord, are the issues and where the attention should be focused.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-coal-power-plants-in-one-map/
I may be dumb but certainly not poorly educated. LLB and MBA. And as dumb as I am I am smart enough to trust the judgement and expertise of 97% of the scientists who actually specialize in the field of discussion.

Bernie's pipe dream is an entirely different topic.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I may be dumb but certainly not poorly educated. LLB and MBA. And as dumb as I am I am smart enough to trust the judgement and expertise of 97% of the scientists who actually specialize in the field of discussion.

Bernie's pipe dream is an entirely different topic.
Neither of your degrees gives you any ability to understand the science here. Same for me.

I do believe there is a pressure to conform to the norm by scientists, but I don’t have any real proof. I have a flakey ex-bro-in-law that was run out of a Pac 10 university for arguing with the scientific norm on climate change.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
I may be dumb but certainly not poorly educated. LLB and MBA. And as dumb as I am I am smart enough to trust the judgement and expertise of 97% of the scientists who actually specialize in the field of discussion.
I'm educated, but I am a cynic. I've always followed one major rule in understanding how people act and behave. Follow the money. There is lots of money on offer for researchers looking to validate climate change orthodoxy.

There are actually some very smart, reasonable and independent people disputing many climate science claims.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
Neither of your degrees gives you any ability to understand the science here. Same for me.

I do believe there is a pressure to conform to the norm by scientists, but I don’t have any real proof. I have a flakey ex-bro-in-law that was run out of a Pac 10 university for arguing with the scientific norm on climate change.
I know nothing about climate science. i do know enough to trust 97% of climate scientists when they have reached a consensus. There may be some pressure to confirm. Areyou really suggesting that that pressure accounts for a consensus among 97% of climate scientists?
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
I'm educated, but I am a cynic. I've always followed one major rule in understanding how people act and behave. Follow the money. There is lots of money on offer for researchers looking to validate climate change orthodoxy.

There are actually some very smart, reasonable and independent people disputing many climate science claims.
Arey ou really suggesting that that explains a consensus among 97% of climate scientists?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I know nothing about climate science. i do know enough to trust 97% of climate scientists when they have reached a consensus. There may be some pressure to confirm. Areyou really suggesting that that pressure accounts for a consensus among 97% of climate scientists?
What EXACTLY do 97% of scientists agree on?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,456
5,650
113
97% of the Scientists disagree with the 3% of the Climate Change Skeptics!!
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,328
2,259
113
I may be dumb but certainly not poorly educated. LLB and MBA. And as dumb as I am I am smart enough to trust the judgement and expertise of 97% of the scientists who actually specialize in the field of discussion.

Bernie's pipe dream is an entirely different topic.
Well perhaps we can educate you further
science is never settled & it certainly is not settled by a poll of opinion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#28636a193f9f
97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick
You can read the rest of the article if your curious

As a LLB & MBA you obviously can learn and are able to make an independent judgement on many different issues
This one will impact you or your family & likely to a much greater extent than you can currently imagine, one way or another

The alarmists will destroy the economy & put restrictions on your lifestyle & that of your family
The flip side of this hysteria is we will cause human extinction due to a trace colorless odourless gas measured in parts per million, if you believe the alarmists

Personally I wanted to make sure I understood the theory & read both sides of the argument

a smart guy like you should not just take a misleading number and let it rule his judgement
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,328
2,259
113
Neither of your degrees gives you any ability to understand the science here. Same for me.

I do believe there is a pressure to conform to the norm by scientists, but I don’t have any real proof. I have a flakey ex-bro-in-law that was run out of a Pac 10 university for arguing with the scientific norm on climate change.
It is absolutely despicable what is occurring at universities
Roger Piekle, Judith Curry, Murry Salby and Peter Riid have all had their careers destroyed because they did not tow the climate alarmist line
Many more just succumb to the intimidation fearful of losing their income
universities use to be places where healthy debate solved problems and created innovation
Now they are more likely to be indoctrination centers for the loonie left

Roger Piekle betrayed the alarmist by testifying before some US senate house committee. He told the truth & it cost him dearly
He lost his job & then tried the speaking tour only to have an alarmist follow his touring agenda & place a lot pressure on the venues to cancel his appearances
He had to switch from being a highly regarded specialist on the economics of weather catastrophes to something to do with athletics.
The vindictive alarmist prevented him from making a living

A high price paid for being honest and telling the truth
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
97% of the Scientists disagree with the 3% of the Climate Change Skeptics!!
Many of these scientists tried to have their names removed from the consensus list. IPCC said that they were the minority opinions in individual reports, so that they were still part of favourable reports, hence the definition of a consensus: amongst a consensus, there are always those that disagree within that group.

In any case, scientific progress is never based on consensus or polling. That's because innovative scientific progress happens with those who dispute the status quo. Many scientists are professors, and when they've been teaching stuff for decades, and some upstart comes up with research that contradicts that, there's always the cries of 'preposterous!' or 'nonsense!'

Case in point was the discovery of the cause of peptic ulcers. The traditional consensus was that excess acid was produced by strees, and relief was to drink milk. Then, 20 years ago, come 2 Australian doctors who discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria, and a simple antibiotic could cure it. The idea was so radical that they couldn't get published by any respectable medical journal. Now, treatment of helico bacter with antibiotics is routine in the case of peptic ulcers.

If scientific progress was limited by consensus, the world would still be flat, and doctors would still be bleeding patients.

The IPCC is a government funded project, and if climate change/global warming was accepted as not happening, or not caused by human activity, there would be no point for governments to fund it along with the thousands of climatologists that it employs. They would all lose their jobs. That's why they're always tweaking their datasets and mathematical prediction models, that have proven to be spectatularly over stated in the last 30 years.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,456
5,650
113
Many of these scientists tried to have their names removed from the consensus list. IPCC said that they were the minority opinions in individual reports, so that they were still part of favourable reports, hence the definition of a consensus: amongst a consensus, there are always those that disagree within that group.

In any case, scientific progress is never based on consensus or polling. That's because innovative scientific progress happens with those who dispute the status quo. Many scientists are professors, and when they've been teaching stuff for decades, and some upstart comes up with research that contradicts that, there's always the cries of 'preposterous!' or 'nonsense!'

Case in point was the discovery of the cause of peptic ulcers. The traditional consensus was that excess acid was produced by strees, and relief was to drink milk. Then, 20 years ago, come 2 Australian doctors who discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria, and a simple antibiotic could cure it. The idea was so radical that they couldn't get published by any respectable medical journal. Now, treatment of helico bacter with antibiotics is routine in the case of peptic ulcers.

If scientific progress was limited by consensus, the world would still be flat, and doctors would still be bleeding patients.

The IPCC is a government funded project, and if climate change/global warming was accepted as not happening, or not caused by human activity, there would be no point for governments to fund it along with the thousands of climatologists that it employs. They would all lose their jobs. That's why they're always tweaking their datasets and mathematical prediction models, that have proven to be spectatularly over stated in the last 30 years.
There are numerous cases of the Climate Change Deniers who have been spreading misinformation with regards to the Climate Change and the Research that has proven to be justified. We saw that in 2011 where the Scientist in question had his work labelled as "fraud" by a right wing think tank like The Frontier Centre for Public Policy who apologized and settled out of court. Then there is also a certain Lisa Raitt who tweeted a link to a Financial Post opinion piece that falsely claimed, against scientific consensus and a report released by the federal government in April, that there’s “no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators of extreme weather.” The story was authored by an economist who does not believe in climate change. When challenged by Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe, she had to withdraw her tweet:

"Well I’ve learned my lesson in tweeting anything about climate change. I’m going to be transparent & let you know I’m deleting the earlier tweets. I’m not the one to fight with on this because like most I believe that emissions cause climate change and we should reduce emissions."

https://www.motherjones.com/environ...rs-to-court-and-wrested-an-apology-from-them/

In other words of course there are numerous examples of Scientists performing proper Research and the Scientific experiments / trials to prove that certain Cancers etc have a real cause and treatment to help to quell the growth of the tumours etc. But when there is zero research and just online Conspiracy Theorists, that feed people with false data, sure that is what we should be very concerned with. In other words the majority of researchers and top scientists still believe that Climate Change is real and not a hoax!!
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
What EXACTLY do 97% of scientists agree on?
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
Many of these scientists tried to have their names removed from the consensus list. IPCC said that they were the minority opinions in individual reports, so that they were still part of favourable reports, hence the definition of a consensus: amongst a consensus, there are always those that disagree within that group.

In any case, scientific progress is never based on consensus or polling. That's because innovative scientific progress happens with those who dispute the status quo. Many scientists are professors, and when they've been teaching stuff for decades, and some upstart comes up with research that contradicts that, there's always the cries of 'preposterous!' or 'nonsense!'

Case in point was the discovery of the cause of peptic ulcers. The traditional consensus was that excess acid was produced by strees, and relief was to drink milk. Then, 20 years ago, come 2 Australian doctors who discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria, and a simple antibiotic could cure it. The idea was so radical that they couldn't get published by any respectable medical journal. Now, treatment of helico bacter with antibiotics is routine in the case of peptic ulcers.

If scientific progress was limited by consensus, the world would still be flat, and doctors would still be bleeding patients.

The IPCC is a government funded project, and if climate change/global warming was accepted as not happening, or not caused by human activity, there would be no point for governments to fund it along with the thousands of climatologists that it employs. They would all lose their jobs. That's why they're always tweaking their datasets and mathematical prediction models, that have proven to be spectatularly over stated in the last 30 years.
It is the consensus until it is not. Notwithstanding all of the "science" you and the deniers have been spouting for years the consensus has not changed.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
That’s all rear view mirror.

No call to action there.

Do 97% agree on how much warming there has been?
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
That’s all rear view mirror.

No call to action there.

Do 97% agree on how much warming there has been?
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.


The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.


Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
 
Toronto Escorts