Of course there are lots of people who don't like to pay their debts when they don't see the direct benefit to themselves. Kicking the can down the road is easy.
What the hell does this have to do with "paying my debts"?
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Best to be polite, state your point and respect folks.
"colossal fool" "juvenile bravado" "behavioral extremeness" and "obsessive compulsive" come to mind.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Newf he has not done so. He's tried. Just because a guy can argue minutia and write a post that is too long and convoluted does not mean he has won an arguement or provided the sealing point.
Ah, darn those too long and convoluted posts of mine! Interesting description, considering you cannot understand any of the sources you quote if you cannot understand my simple, 2 year old level, explanations.
But coming from the guy who thinks CO2 is a by-product of plant growth, I expected no more. I am not surprised it only took me a handful of posts to burn you out of your hole. At times I wondered if you really believed the crazy and incredibly silly things you say or if I was being very artfully trolled.
You try to pass off to not possessing the capacity to comprehend my posts as an excuse for not reading them, so how can you say I haven't rebuked your latest points if you haven't bothered to read them? No worries, no one believes you didn't take the time to read my posts. You read every single word desperately searching for a toehold to argue. When you found no toehold you were forced to move on to something entirely different, perfectly described already as "dumb founded silence."
I will say the most interesting aspect of my interactions with you is the lengths your ego is willing to go to in order to protect itself from harm. You know deep down you've made up most of your argument as you've gone along in order to continue to lie to yourself. I can think of no better example than the "sunspot" and "US Temperature" graphs you posted, complete falsified rubbish you foolishly tried to pass off as legit.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The main point still stands
No inundated islands, no drowning or starving polar bears, no increased storm activity over the season, and oddly enough, winter returns to the North on time.
god isn't real because Pat Robertson is wrong all the time.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: JAMES HANSEN, NASA
Try f***ing reading what I write.
Isn't it the skeptics who accuse 'warmest' of rehashing the old? You had to go back to the 1980's.
It's also against the forum rules to circumvent the censor system.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is the thing, a group of eminent scientists already concluded that Global Warming is not a crisis. They also decry the governmental interference in the economy to "solve the problem". This was on page two of this thread
So why not discredit, argue with, or discount the opinions of this group of scientists, who largely agree with the premise of this thread?
A swing and a miss. Yet again you demonstrate how poorly you looked into the validity of your thoughts before you commit to them.
The "Manhattan Declaration" was signed at the International Conference on Climate Change in 2008 paid for by the Heartland Institute.
The conference isn't being hosted anymore because of lack of participation and funding, so much for your 'group of eminent scientists.' If global warming was really such a fraud would scientists stop supporting them?
This conference is 4 years before the Heartland Institute sponsors the BEST study, a study which undeniably concludes that global warming is real and people are the cause.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Best study is flawed as I said. And, it should be noted that this thread has been under continual discussion since July 2008. The arguments have been hashed over continually as new information comes in.
You're willing to support the findings of the Heartland Institute when some scientists sign a piece of paper but when the Heartland Institute actually does some research and finds global warming is real with the BEST study you reject it. Hypocrisy much? Cherry picking much?
You have said the BEST is flawed, but each time you try to explain why you end up showing how little you actually know about the topic.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Nothing has changed. In fact that is the point. All the dire predictions made by the Gorites and GW alarmists just have not come true.
god isn't real because the second coming of jesus hasn't happened.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: So YES, I get really pissed off about these ******* politicians reaching into my wallet YET AGAIN, and that makes my family's struggle to survive even tougher.
Humans are fundamentally changing the Earth for the worse and you're only worried about being taxed for it...?
Have you given any thought to what might happen to you and your family if it is true?
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Have you given any thought to what might happen to you and your family if it is true?
Yes. A LOT. NOTHING will happen to my family, because CO2 is NOT causing the feedbacks they predicted, and climate sensitivity is not anywhere near as high as they've said. This is bullshit, and I won't pay for it.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The "Manhattan Declaration" was signed at the International Conference on Climate Change in 2008 paid for by the Heartland Institute.
You object to funding from the Heartland Institute, presumably because you think it is biased, but you completely trust climate scientists who rely on continued funding from the government for their paychecks from scaring the s*** out of the public, and the government support is because of the tax revenue they think it will generate?
quote
The conference isn't being hosted anymore because of lack of participation and funding, so much for your 'group of eminent scientists.' If global warming was really such a fraud would scientists stop supporting them?
Originally posted by fierobear: Yes. A LOT. NOTHING will happen to my family, because CO2 is NOT causing the feedbacks they predicted, and climate sensitivity is not anywhere near as high as they've said. This is bullshit, and I won't pay for it.
Basically because the world hasn't ended yet, you don't think humans are negatively impacting the environment?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You object to funding from the Heartland Institute, presumably because you think it is biased, but you completely trust climate scientists who rely on continued funding from the government for their paychecks from scaring the s*** out of the public, and the government support is because of the tax revenue they think it will generate?
I trust the scientists involved with the BEST study, which was sponsored by Heartland. I don't know where you got "government funded climate scientists" or where you draw the rest of your assumptions.
Announced 5 days ago.. Learn something new everyday.
At their last conference Heartland's president Joseph Bast said there were no plans to continue the conferences because of lack of participation and funding. That's probably why they moved it to Europe. Not exactly the signs of a growing movement. Just because they've managed to scrounge up enough people and money doesn't change that, only makes what I said about no more conferences technically incorrect.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-19-2012).]
Basically because the world hasn't ended yet, you don't think humans are negatively impacting the environment?
quote
god isn't real because Pat Robertson is wrong all the time.
So when you lose an arguement you go to ridiculous comparisons or sarcasm?
quote
You're willing to support the findings of the Heartland Institute when some scientists sign a piece of paper but when the Heartland Institute actually does some research and finds global warming is real with the BEST study you reject it.
The "findings" are not that of the heartland institute. They are the findings of close to 200 independent scientists. Get your facts right.
And yes, I reject the Best study because it contains skewed data that flaws its findings.
You should recognize that while you've been on this forum less than a month, others have been here for many years and have gone through discussions on this topic for the past 4 years. You really do have to read the whole thread and not cherry pick one or two statements to try to score points. I would say you are behaving like a Troll. This thread is not an apologetic for denying Global Warming, it is a thread disputing the anthropological causal effect as foisted on society some number of years ago and to date, those theories have been proven scientifically to have none of their predicted outcomes. Of course, when it all started you were likely still in grade school, so the fault is not all yours.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-19-2012).]
You have posted no information to negate the basic argument that Climate change is not anthropologically driven.
The Best study does not measure "global" temperature at all because it measures only land surface temperatures. It included large urban areas which, contrary to Berkeley do in fact impact land temperature averaging.
If you look at Troposphere temperatures you get a more accurate read on "global" temperatures.
Also, look through the 50 pages of discussion prior to your arrival. You will find much evidence to analyze with your superior intellect.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Also, look through the 50 pages of discussion prior to your arrival. You will find much evidence to analyze with your superior intellect.
Oh I've seen plenty of this thread and it only makes me feel embarrassed for our community. I've been an active 'lurking' member for a long while now.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Best study does not measure "global" temperature at all because it measures only land surface temperatures. It included large urban areas which, contrary to Berkeley do in fact impact land temperature averaging.
BEST debunked all of this.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Here is the actual reason for climate change.
Progress!
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-19-2012).]
I see Antartic sea ice growth is now the "proof" of no climate change, only a while back were we told on here to look at the artic.... sigh
I'm guessing the scientists are interested as well...(well maybe only to line their pockets with those huge research dollars... )
No one's entirely sure what's causing the expansion of sea ice in Antarctica, but the likeliest explanation is a disturbing one. According to a 2005 NASA-funded study, warmer temperatures have caused greater snowfall around the continent's edges, where the open oceans provide plenty of raw material for precipitation. (Warmer air absorbs moisture more readily.) The weight of that excess snow pushes sheets of sea ice down into the water, causing more water to freeze.
The incremental expansion of Antarctica's sea ice has coincided with some more troubling changes. Four of the continent's largest glaciers (whose fates are largely unrelated to that of sea ice) are retreating rapidly, and researchers blame increases in ocean temperature. The diminishment of such massive glaciers means that, despite the slow creep forward of the continent's sea ice, the total mass of all Antarctic ice—which includes inland ice—has experienced a marked decrease. And a continuation of that trend could lead to significant rises in global sea levels. Furthermore, snow is melting much farther inland than ever, as well as high up in the Transantarctic Mountain.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-19-2012).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: ALL of the predictions made about Global Warming have failed to come true.
How many people are successful at predicting the future? Where's my flying car!? Did you know in the 1950's it was predicted we could control the weather by 2000?
The weatherman can't even get it right a few days in advance. You expect people to be able to predict the weather years in advance and you demand this in all seriousness.
If lack of human ability to predict the future is your ONLY evidence against anthropogenic global warming that's sad. But I guess it's the only 'evidence' you have to cling to, there certainly isn't any scientific studies that side with you.
The planet is undeniably 0.9*C warmer in the last 50 years. The rate at which this will begin to negatively impact our planet is up for debate. What isn't up for debate is the outcome - horrible - no matter how you look at it.
No one's entirely sure what's causing the expansion of sea ice in Antarctica, but the likeliest explanation is a disturbing one. Right you are. The earth's tilt varies and we can't control it. Very distrurbing indeed.
BTW for every shrinking glacier there are hundreds espanding.
Arn
Where? In its 2011 report, the WGMS measured 136 glaciers from Antarctica to Canada and from Bolivia to Japan, and found that almost 90% are shrinking
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-19-2012).]
Originally posted by newf: No one's entirely sure what's causing the expansion of sea ice in Antarctica, but the likeliest explanation is a disturbing one.
A new study was released last week that covered this.
The study concludes that since 1992 changes in wind is causing the expanding Antarctic sea ice, while the glacial ice is shrinking. As the article says, it's important to disguising between the two (sea ice vs glacial ice).
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-19-2012).]
A new study was released last week that covered this.
The study concludes that since 1992 changes in wind is causing the expanding Antarctic sea ice, while the glacial ice is shrinking. As the article says, it's important to disguising between the two (sea ice vs glacial ice).
Thanks I hadn't seen this, although it may be a conspiracy by the scientists to garner more funding..... (because they wouldn't get funding no MATTER what the cause is, right?)
No one's entirely sure what's causing the expansion of sea ice in Antarctica, but the likeliest explanation is a disturbing one.
Right you are. The earth's tilt varies and we can't control it. Very distrurbing indeed.
BTW for every shrinking glacier there are hundreds espanding.
Arn[/QUOTE]
anatric sea ice is from more snow plus the glaciers/ice cap flowing faster in to the sea both a more ice from warming trick far beyond the nut-con's grasp hint fresh and salt water are slow to mix
pole tilt is a very very slow long long process it ain't variable just a micro progression
and NO IT AIN'T THE ANSWER!!!!
you are stone wrong about expanding glaciers
9 to 1 wrong PLUS your BS 1-to100 = %10000 wrong
3 points missed on all of them care to try again with out big lies ?
How many people are successful at predicting the future? Where's my flying car!? Did you know in the 1950's it was predicted we could control the weather by 2000?
The weatherman can't even get it right a few days in advance. You expect people to be able to predict the weather years in advance and you demand this in all seriousness.
If lack of human ability to predict the future is your ONLY evidence against anthropogenic global warming that's sad. But I guess it's the only 'evidence' you have to cling to, there certainly isn't any scientific studies that side with you.
The planet is undeniably 0.9*C warmer in the last 50 years. The rate at which this will begin to negatively impact our planet is up for debate. What isn't up for debate is the outcome - horrible - no matter how you look at it.
WOW. You're throwing out one red herring after another. This is getting comical.
Tell ya what. You are convinced that mankind is causing the planet to warm, and that is a bad thing. First of all, you DO realize that this is a car forum, primarily for people who own a 20+ year old car powered by an internal combustion engine that emits (among other things) CO2. Why are you so surprised at the resistance you get here? Why ARE you here, anyway?
I presume you own one or more Fieros. Don't sell them, DISMANTLE them. Sell off the metal for scrap. Take whatever money you have and either buy an electric car or a really good hybrid. Otherwise, what the hell makes you think you can lecture us on how we are ruining the planet? Put your money where your mouth is.
WOW. You're throwing out one red herring after another. This is getting comical.
Tell ya what. You are convinced that mankind is causing the planet to warm, and that is a bad thing. First of all, you DO realize that this is a car forum, primarily for people who own a 20+ year old car powered by an internal combustion engine that emits (among other things) CO2. Why are you so surprised at the resistance you get here? Why ARE you here, anyway?
I presume you own one or more Fieros. Don't sell them, DISMANTLE them. Sell off the metal for scrap. Take whatever money you have and either buy an electric car or a really good hybrid. Otherwise, what the hell makes you think you can lecture us on how we are ruining the planet? Put your money where your mouth is.
You do realize pretty much every car has an internal combustion engine and how that fact does nothing to with the science of what is happening. Nice deflection attempt though
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-19-2012).]
The planet is undeniably 0.9*C warmer in the last 50 years. The rate at which this will begin to negatively impact our planet is up for debate. What isn't up for debate is the outcome - horrible - no matter how you look at it.
When Krakatoa erupted in the 1880s the world temperature fell 1.2C almost immediately from the resulting ash cloud.
Also the planet is not 0.9c warmer in the last 50 years. It has been proven by studies already that the locations they measure the temperatures today are being impacted by expanses of concrete and everything else related to cities. 50 years ago the measuring stations were more rural.
The data they use is flawed. If "the planet" had warmed by that much I assume they are taking surface temperatures, underground temperatures, ocean temperates at various depths, atmospheric temperatures at different altitudes all into account? No, I didn't think so.
[This message has been edited by AusFiero (edited 11-20-2012).]
When Krakatoa erupted in the 1880s the world temperature fell 1.2C almost immediately from the resulting ash cloud.
Also the planet is not 0.9c warmer in the last 50 years. It has been proven by studies already that the locations they measure the temperatures today are being impacted by expanses of concrete and everything else related to cities. 50 years ago the measuring stations were more rural.
The data they use is flawed. If "the planet" had warmed by that much I assume they are taking surface temperatures, underground temperatures, ocean temperates at various depths, atmospheric temperatures at different altitudes all into account? No, I didn't think so.
You assume alright, you assume that the scientists studying this haven't been testing correctly or gathering the correct data. You don't think they have gone out of their way to show this is NOT the case?
Why not look at the research being done, how it's conducted, and if these questions people have (like flawed data, impacts of the sun, tilt of earth, volcanoes, etc..) have been taken into account.
Again I'll trust the science/scientists over the internet experts and know-it-alls but of course you are welcome to your opinion.
quote
Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.
However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.
More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.
It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend -- and hence Climate Change -- are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.
Confidence in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2012).]
However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.
OK, so they make adjustments. How do we know the ADJUSTMENTS are being done correctly? And what is a "correct adjustment"? Adjusted to WHAT, and HOW? Why not just put a damned weather station in the RIGHT place, in the first place?
OK, so they make adjustments. How do we know the ADJUSTMENTS are being done correctly? And what is a "correct adjustment"? Adjusted to WHAT, and HOW? Why not just put a damned weather station in the RIGHT place, in the first place?
quote
research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.
Originally posted by AusFiero: When Krakatoa erupted in the 1880s the world temperature fell 1.2C almost immediately from the resulting ash cloud.
Temperatures fell 1.2*C the following year and and returned to normal within 4 years. The change was not permanent.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Also the planet is not 0.9c warmer in the last 50 years. It has been proven by studies already that the locations they measure the temperatures today are being impacted by expanses of concrete and everything else related to cities. 50 years ago the measuring stations were more rural.
Actually the opposite is true. It's been proven by the BEST study that while urban heat is real the effect on global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.
I should have used the term 'surface', because the planet's surface is 0.9*C warmer in the last 50 years.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: How do we know the ADJUSTMENTS are being done correctly?
The BEST study favors raw data over adjusted or homogenized data. However NASA, NOAA, and Hadley use adjusted and homogenized data. If NASA, NOAA, and Hadley were committing acts of incompetence or fraud by screwing up the 'adjustments', the results wouldn't agree with each other:
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: If NASA, NOAA, and Hadley were committing acts of incompetence or fraud by screwing up the 'adjustments', the results wouldn't agree with each other:
Not unless they are colluding, or making the SAME adjustments.
Originally posted by fierobear: Not unless they are colluding, or making the SAME adjustments.
This thread is supposed to be about EVIDENCE against anthropogenic global warming. Not crazy conspiracies.
As I already stated and you ignored: BEST didn't use the adjustments NASA, NOAA, and Hadley were using. So you fail right out of the gate.
NASA, NOAA, and Hadley are entirely different teams and used their own method. They also released their data and algorithms for the public to scrutinize.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-20-2012).]
Not unless they are colluding, or making the SAME adjustments.
Sheesh.
Full circle back to the Conspiracy.
EDIT: I guess that has been my point all along if your OPINION is that it's a conspiracy, or the sun, or it's not warming, or it's voodoo then that's great, have at it.... but don't act like you KNOW these things and are some kind of expert, and don't preach to others and say that their opinion is wrong when you don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone is welcome to their opinion and expressing as far as I'm concerned that's what an internet forum is all about.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2012).]
So what about the radical changes in temperatures between 1350 and 1850? Scientists (The same scientists who now blame man for current temperature rises.) theorise that solar activity and volcanic activity caused this. WOW, who would have thought. More proof man has no control over this planets temperatures. The planet is warming. So what. It has done it before, it will do it again. Scientists are theorists only. NOTHING is ever written is stone.
Remember about 15 years ago the same scientists were scaremongering that the world was heading for a new ice age? Then it was global warming. Now it is we don't really know so lets call it climate change.
The almighty dollar is driving this crap and people are making lots of money from it.
So what about the radical changes in temperatures between 1350 and 1850? Scientists (The same scientists who now blame man for current temperature rises.) theorise that solar activity and volcanic activity caused this. WOW, who would have thought. More proof man has no control over this planets temperatures. The planet is warming. So what. It has done it before, it will do it again. Scientists are theorists only. NOTHING is ever written is stone.
Remember about 15 years ago the same scientists were scaremongering that the world was heading for a new ice age? Then it was global warming. Now it is we don't really know so lets call it climate change.
The almighty dollar is driving this crap and people are making lots of money from it.
Show your facts. I hear a lot of conjecture but like to see you make a better case for any of it. I do see that you have either moved on or accepted FlyingFieros explanation of Krakatoa.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2012).]
Originally posted by newf: Show your facts. I hear a lot of conjecture but like to see you make a better case for any of it. I do see that you have either moved on or accepted FlyingFieros explanation of Krakatoa.
LOL, FlyingFieros confirmed what I said about Krakatoa. Radical climate change in a short period and went back 4 years later. No ill effects to the world. Read back, he is the one saying that the 0.9 rise is our doom and it is unknown what it will do. Krakatoa proved what it will do. Scaremongering on one hand then confirming it will do nothing on the other. Has to make up his mind.
Also why should I have to prove common knowledge? Are the scaremongers trying to forget the new ice age coming, then the global warming title? Climate change is the latest cant fail buzz words. It means we don't know WTF we are talking about but lets give a name to something the world does naturally and make money from it.
LOL, FlyingFieros confirmed what I said about Krakatoa. Radical climate change in a short period and went back 4 years later. No ill effects to the world. Read back, he is the one saying that the 0.9 rise is our doom and it is unknown what it will do. Krakatoa proved what it will do. Scaremongering on one hand then confirming it will do nothing on the other. Has to make up his mind.
Ummm OK you a free to believe what you like against all scientific reasoning. Have fun with that.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2012).]
Also why should I have to prove common knowledge? Are the scaremongers trying to forget the new ice age coming, then the global warming title? Climate change is the latest cant fail buzz words. It means we don't know WTF we are talking about but lets give a name to something the world does naturally and make money from it.
Wait...what is common knowledge now? which argument are you going with? There are many so state yours for the record.
NO it means those with a certain agenda have billions to spend at confusing the issue and it's easy for people to make the easy decision to ignore science IMO.
This thread is supposed to be about EVIDENCE against anthropogenic global warming. Not crazy conspiracies.orithms for the public to scrutinize.
We don't need "crazy conspiracies". We have the Climategate emails, which showed that they colluded on various "tricks", truncating datasets that made a "wrong turn" (disproved warming), rigging peer review to keep contrary evidence from being published...the list goes on and on. YOU are ignoring THAT evidence.
Referencing this graph: From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo)
Which prediction is this using, 1988 or current? If so it's been covered already.
quote
if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), this suggests the actual climate sensitivity is approximately 3.4 to 3.6°C for doubled CO2, which is close to the IPCC best estimate of 3°C.
The argument "Hansen's projections were too high" is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models, but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4.2°C for 2xCO2, but it's also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3°C for 2xCO2, which is consistent with the range of climate sensitivity values in the IPCC report.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2012).]
)
(because they wouldn't get funding no MATTER what the cause is, right?)
