More "man made global warming" is crap stuff you betcha

[calfoxwc]

...mmgw is a freaking CROCK.

Deep freeze grips Upper Midwest, more bitter cold to come...
Temps 40° below normal...
Chicago Colder Than Parts Of Antarctica, Alaska, Iceland...
CHILL MAP...

[jbluhm86]

From your article:

"The University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer notes that the temporary icy cold doesn’t disprove global warming, despite what some non-scientists may claim. On Friday, the globe as a whole was 1.08 degrees (0.6 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1979 to 2000 average.

“In a warming world you’re still going to have unusually hot and unusually cold events happening in a particular part of the world,” Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said. “Weather is not going away.”

 

Proving for the umpteenth time that you only search for headlines and never actually read what your sources say.

 

[MLD Woody]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't search for anything. There was probably an article on The Blaze or something about "mmgw" being a fraud that referenced this report (misrepresented). He just thought he'd "get" us by providing a non right wing link. And by the nature of it not being right wing, he probably thinks it's liberal. 

[Axe]

[Clevfan4life]

These cold snaps were predicted decades ago by smart people who understood the planet and how it seeks to maintain balance. Ive provided links in the past thst dated back decades backing up my claim that people long ago understood the severe weather snaps....both hot and cold...thst would come from unbalancing the system.

Cal is just an ignint hackasaurus with no self reasoning ability.

[MLD Woody]

42 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

These cold snaps were predicted decades ago by smart people who understood the planet and how it seeks to maintain balance. Ive provided links in the past thst dated back decades backing up my claim that people long ago understood the severe weather snaps....both hot and cold...thst would come from unbalancing the system.

Cal is just an ignint hackasaurus with no self reasoning ability.

Sure but what about this expert from the Heritage Institute that's never published work in climatology, has a bachelor's degree in geology, and is funded by the oil companies? 

NO CONSENSUS! 

[Clevfan4life]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Sure but what about this expert from the Heritage Institute that's never published work in climatology, has a bachelor's degree in geology, and is funded by the oil companies? 

NO CONSENSUS! 

I guess he wins the internet what can u do.

[calfoxwc]

7 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

From your article:

"The University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer notes that the temporary icy cold doesn’t disprove global warming, despite what some non-scientists may claim. On Friday, the globe as a whole was 1.08 degrees (0.6 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1979 to 2000 average.

“In a warming world you’re still going to have unusually hot and unusually cold events happening in a particular part of the world,” Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said. “Weather is not going away.”

 

Proving for the umpteenth time that you only search for headlines and never actually read what your sources say.

 

by itself, no. But wouldn't you think that temps would be getting warmer and not setting dangerously historical all time lows?

the truth is, there is absolutely NOTHING that PROVES MMGW either.

it's always been a stalemate - any claim to it's veracity is a crock. that is my point. I search for articles that disprove your liberal wingnut addiction to the farce mmgw cult. There articles on  both sides. It is no fact - it's a farce. NOT PROVEN. So saying it's so so so TRUE is a crock.

Thanks.

[Clevfan4life]

15 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

by itself, no. But wouldn't you think that temps would be getting warmer and not setting dangerously historical all time lows?

the truth is, there is absolutely NOTHING that PROVES MMGW either.

it's always been a stalemate - any claim to it's veracity is a crock. that is my point. I search for articles that disprove your liberal wingnut addiction to the farce mmgw cult. There articles on  both sides. It is no fact - it's a farce. NOT PROVEN. So saying it's so so so TRUE is a crock.

Thanks.

 you just refuse to properly educate yourself. That's all there is to it. 

[calfoxwc]

[calfoxwc]

[calfoxwc]

[MLD Woody]

What a scientifically illiterate country

[calfoxwc]

your dumb mmgw opinions are dumb mmgw opinions, cherry picked.

mmgw is NOT A FACT.

It is in conflict with LEGIT science, and plenty of it.

You may know a lot of science about being a woodpecker, but that's iffy.

[jbluhm86]

12 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

your dumb mmgw opinions are dumb mmgw opinions, cherry picked.

mmgw is NOT A FACT.

It is in conflict with LEGIT science, and plenty of it.

You may know a lot of science about being a woodpecker, but that's iffy.

"Gays can't get married because science" = "LEGIT" science.

[Clevfan4life]

32 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

 

It is in conflict with LEGIT science, and plenty of it.

 

Its been demonstrated to u countless times that it isnt. 

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

"Gays can't get married because science" = "LEGIT" science.

Gays can't get married. Magnets! Legit science!

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

Its been demonstrated to u countless times that it isnt. 

Party before brains 

[calfoxwc]

14 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

"Gays can't get married because science" = "LEGIT" science.

pretty lilly-livered to keep changing the subject of a thread because you keep losing your arguments so fast.

But since you brought it up - you lose again:

mag·net·ism

Dictionary result for magnetism

/ˈmaɡnəˌtizəm/

noun

noun: magnetism

1. 1.

   a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, resulting in attractive and repulsive forces between objects.

Here's a link that will explain down to your level lol

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/magnetism.html

Almost everyone knows these six basic facts about how magnets behave:

1. A magnet has two ends called poles, one of which is called a north pole or north-seeking pole, while the other is called a south pole or south-seeking pole.
2. The north pole of one magnet attracts the south pole of a second magnet, while the north pole of one magnet repels the other magnet's north pole. So we have the common saying: like poles repel, unlike poles attract.
3. A magnet creates an invisible area of magnetism all around it called a magnetic field.
4. The north pole of a magnet points roughly toward Earth's north pole and vice-versa. That's because Earth itself contains magnetic materials and behaves like a gigantic magnet.
5. If you cut a bar magnet in half, it's a bit like cutting an earthworm in half! You get two brand new, smaller magnets, each with its own north and south pole. (This is, of course, a joke. You don't get two worms if you cut a worm in half. But you do get two magnets.)
6. If you run a magnet a few times over an unmagnetized piece of a magnetic material (such as an iron nail), you can convert it into a magnet as well. This is called magnetization.

maybe one day you will learn to stick to the subject of a discussion, and actually legitimately make a genuine true point.

Maybe, you might one day win an argument.

Or not. you liberals never learn. lol

 

[calfoxwc]

10 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Party before brains 

and yet, I can prove I am absolutely correct:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#783a67744c7c

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

 

 

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

[calfoxwc]

http://www.cfact.org/2016/05/31/three-facts-prove-climate-alarm-is-a-scam/

Three facts prove climate alarm is a scam

By Larry Bell|May 31st, 2016|CFACT Insights|50 Comments

1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

1. No recent warming despite higher CO2

First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3º F between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.

During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nîno spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically significant global warming for nearly two decades.

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments, or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

2. Extreme claims proven extremely wrong

Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”

Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)

As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.

Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

3. Inconvenient confessions from IPCC authorities

So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.

As written in a 2007  Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-global-warming-ipcc/2016/05/31/id/731497/#ixzz4AFsMDeCo

[calfoxwc]

Just now, calfoxwc said:

1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

so, quoting from my previous post - you liberal Christines lose. I've been saying for years and years - mmgw is not true, not established fact - it is a liberal creation to effect economic change - mass redistribution of wealth, UN style. on a local liberal lever - it establishes a political "gotcha" to take more and more in taxes, to fun a greater, more dangerously destructive welfare state.

[cccjwh]

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county

Public polling is slow moving closer to reality. 

 

 

 

 

[Clevfan4life]

That study that Forbes article is based on...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

 

Whoever wrote that is not a scientist for one, and is a complete asshole. That is a complete made up study. Nothing was peer reviewed because no impartial "scientist" would ever dream of writing something like that let alone put their name to it....dear god my 12 yr old niece could write better than that. Some lawyer good at bullshit lawyer speak wrote that horseshit

[calfoxwc]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

 

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'

'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.'

'Global warming really has become a new religion.'

"I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November...I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.'

'We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.'

[Canton Dawg]

[calfoxwc]

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/03/differences-between-real-science-and.html

There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (AGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, AGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda. 

 

1. Real science says "Question everything".  AGW says "Questioning AGW is reckless because it threatens the planet."
2. Real science never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. AGW tries to break that cycle by claiming "the debate is over" and "the science is settled". "SETTLED SCIENCE" IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/...
3. Real science develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. AGW ISN'T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore's movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to AGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of AGW. There is no observation that AGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
4. Real science relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as "non-believers", equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:http://business.financialpost....
5. Real science grants awards for disproving accepted truths. AGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.../
6. Real science has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but AGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...
7. Real science doesn't claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist
8. Real science keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein's Relativity is still being tested a century later. AGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn't like:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
9. Real science accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When AGW predictions are wrong they don't question the hypothesis...they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.
10. Real science never recommends that skeptics be JAILED: http://gawker.com/arrest-clima...   http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16...
11. Real science doesn't create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.
12. Real science tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. AGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth's climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.spectator.com.au/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Bunk | DeSmogBlog

https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/142901

Dec 21, 2007 - “there are some serious scientists with peer-reviewed research that gives genuine doubt to the MMGW consensus, which implies that ...

 

https://newspunch.com/tens-of-thousands-of-scientists-declare-climate-change-a-hoax/

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Gotta love REAL Science - not snowflaks liberal fantasy emotional land. lol

[calfoxwc]

https://newspunch.com/tens-of-thousands-of-scientists-declare-climate-change-a-hoax/

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims