You are a total loon.
I explained in my post where the data came from. It is the NASA data of mean surface temperatures, pre-adjustment:
http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html
October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
I explained in my post where the data came from. It is the NASA data of mean surface temperatures, pre-adjustment:
http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html
I love seeing ppl like you challenge experts in their field, it's better than comedy.
No, you are the loon on this thread.
You are posting views held by 2% of Canadians at best.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...elieve-in-climate-change-poll/article4482183/
This conspiracy thread business, that NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and all scientists all over the world, except for a plucky band financed by oil tycoons, is pure bunk.
Your kooky ideas are probably less popular then the 9/11 truthers.
NOAA,...‘Polar vortex’ is the new buzzword of 2014 for the millions of Americans learning about its role in producing record cold temperatures across the country. Meteorologists have known for years that the pattern of the polar vortex determines how much cold air escapes from the Arctic and makes its way to the U.S. during the winter.
I know the UNEMPLOYABLEs are known to,... "making stuff up",...but they are your,... making stuff up experts.
Did you not get out of your mothers basement last winter,...???
FAST
'F' isn't for fast, its for fail.
Along with remedial grammar and punctuation, you should also consider basic research skills, including how to use quotation marks and to add links to support your 'quotes'.
Give it another try, using the quote bubble and a link.
Because I fully suspect that your quote doesn't say what you think it says.
And by the way, why do you personally, in your kooky way, think that the polar vortex isn't linked to climate change?
And for bonus points, how do you explain that the insurance industry is now backing climate change science?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/insurance-climate-change-adaptability-1.3323132
(note the correct use of the quote bubble and link to article)
Flip Flop
Are you calling me a liar,...???
Your post,... Polar Vortex?,...Last year?,...Now you're just making stuff up.
So NOW after all the denying that the Polar Vortex even exists,...let alone effecting the weather,...which it has since the beginning,... you now have to admit it,...didn't take you too long,...you flip and flop around like a half dead fish,...with some other similarities.
The vortex has been cycling up and down since recorded time,...but because it doesn't fit your never natural causes bull shit, you chose to state it didn't exist,...!!!
FAST
The "quote" from the NOAA UNEMPLOYABLEs site was word for word,...with absolutely no editing,...
Are you calling me a liar,...???
Just what the hell do YOU think it says,...???
Your post,... Polar Vortex?,...Last year?,...Now you're just making stuff up.
So NOW after all the denying that the Polar Vortex even exists,...let alone effecting the weather,...which it has since the beginning,... you now have to admit it,...didn't take you too long,...you flip and flop around like a half dead fish,...with some other similarities.
The vortex has been cycling up and down since recorded time,...but because it doesn't fit your never natural causes bull shit, you chose to state it didn't exist,...!!!
FAST
As I said, you are a total nutjob.
It is a matter of record -- not a "view" -- that NASA's monthly anomalies show there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker prior to the NOAA adjustments.
http://bit.ly/1O6YPsX
http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html
That's a statement of fact, not an opinion.
What has that got to do with footer's stand that the Polar Vortex didn't even exist,...let alone being a NATURAL phenomena, that has historically, and cyclically effected North America's winters,...???
You know you are degrading yourself by taking footer's side on ANY subject.
FAST
That's just more of your wacko, 9/11 truther type, conspiracy talk.
Claiming that there is no global temp increase, its all faked, that's just lame.
Claiming that 2015 isn't warmer then 2014, its all faked, is even more lame.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...h-2015-toward-planet-s-warmest-year-on-record
This kind of conspiracy crap is probably believed only by a few percentage of the 2% of Canadians who don't believe climate change is happening.
You are a fringe, conspiracy type kook.
There isn't a single word in anything you posted that addresses what I said.
It is a fact that there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker in NASA's data prior to the adjustment.
Ain't that the truth.
In another thread, Frankfooter has once again repeated his claim that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404184&viewfull=1#post5404184
Last edited:
Ok, I know you conspiracy types love your ridiculous claims.
First, provide evidence, legit evidence that NASA changed their measurements.
Next, tell us what date that change happened on.
Next, tell us what range of data was changed.
Once you've shown us real evidence, not just random and probably faked screen grabs, you need to prove 2 things:
1) that they 'adjusted' only the data or measurements for 2015 (as you claim)
2) that they did so to fake that 2015 was the warmest year on record.
Your claims are totally outrageous to begin with.
They are slander, based on propaganda you read on some denier site.
Show us real evidence, I expect its like everything else you post on these thread.
Nonsense.
You're quoting some unscientific poll from 2012, and calling MF2 a loon? Priceless
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotNovember 19, 2015 6:10 PM with 2329 comments
Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary, Climate Hustle, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet’world premiere in Paris.
#
Embedded image permalink
From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore
AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”
“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
Embedded image permalink
Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.
“People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.
“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.
“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.
“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said. (Also See: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues)
“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.
Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Backing away from climate alarm? NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone says ‘we don’t have that kind of evidence’ to claim we are ‘going to fry’ from AGW
Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”
“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.
“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science.
“John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added.
Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.
Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and free to say ‘So what?’”
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”
“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.
“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.
“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.
Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.
Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”
“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.
“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.
Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.
“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.
Embedded image permalink
“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.
“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.
“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.
“Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.
#
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...e-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s9xvYdDb
The change happened on July 15, 2015:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
You are a total fucking head case. It is obvious you are off your meds and are just ranting about things that your dog told you, or wherever it is the voices in your head are coming from.
I didn't say they only adjusted the data for 2015. In fact, I have no idea what you're talking about, as I never said anything that remotely resembles that remark. Quite the opposite is true -- all of the numbers have been changed, particularly the historical record.
Nutjob.
You are trying to backpedal and change what you claimed retroactively.
Here are the changes you were talking about:
2015 is going to be a record year with either methodologies.
