Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[1DOWN4UP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg. Patrick Moore/ Greenpeace

 

[chipbennett]

No "real" scientists at NASA?

Which ones, those attempting to pass off fraudulent data on climate change, or those working on Muslim outreach?

As for your "pop quiz", any numbers I give would be dismissed outright.

That's pretty much the response I expected. The numbers are quite easy to find, and are irrefutable.

 

[Thor]

Here I thought this thread had died a deserving death and the troll had gone on to his other threads to shill for Hitlery and gun control....but alas...the troll persists.

 

[Jludo]

Here I thought this thread had died a deserving death and the troll had gone on to his other threads to shill for Hitlery and gun control....but alas...the troll persists.

As we, INGO, had managed to end the global warming debate once and for all?

 

[david890]

irrefutable.

Yeah, there's a word used by competent, professional scientists every day....

 

[david890]

Greenland's ice melting faster than we thought, study finds

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, there's a word used by competent, professional scientists every day....

Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

The amount of estimated temperature data is not a secret, nor is it disputed that data are estimated. It's right there in the record.

 

[chipbennett]

Greenland's ice melting faster than we thought, study finds

When you're a "climate scientist", you lie; it's what you do.

Greenland Shatters Its Record For July Cold | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

July was the coldest on record for Greenland:

And melt has been below average all summer:

Gavin Hottest Year Ever Update | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Glaciers always increase in size while ice is melting faster than anticipated:

And back before Gavin hid the decline, the 1930s were incredibly hot, and Greenland glaciers actually WERE melting:

 

[Thor]

As we, INGO, had managed to end the global warming debate once and for all?

Debate continues unabated yet some think the 'science' is settled. The trolls keep a'trollin while those actually practicing science keep studying and trying to amass knowledge as opposed to just trying to make everyone else just shut up because they disagree.

 

[two70]

I'm really not sure which assumption concerning climate change is the most amusing/ridiculous. That:

A) Climate is naturally fixed and unchanging. (Even the dimmest of dim bulbs have heard of the ice ages and can figure out that they are not in fact currently buried under tons and tons of ice.... and that that is a good thing)
B) The climate from 50 , 100, 150 years ago (pick your decade) is the one true, natural, constant, desirable climate.
C) The building block of all life on earth(carbon) is harmful to the earth.
D) Plant food (CO2) is harmful to the climate.
E) Experts can predict the disastrous changes in the climate 20, 50, or 100 years hence but struggle to do so correctly 1-2 days in the future.
F) Sun activity doesn't determine our current climate. (Or is it that evil Capitalists control the sun?)
G) The frequent changing of dire warnings from cooling, to heating, to cooling, to heating... before giving up and finally going with the generic catchall of "climate change" isn't an indication of the accuracy of such warnings.

Not amusing but equally ridiculous:
H) Real human lives lost due to climate change prevention efforts are less important than the imaginary lives lost caused by anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Thor]

I'm really not sure which assumption concerning climate change is the most amusing/ridiculous. That:

A) Climate is naturally fixed and unchanging. (Even the dimmest of dim bulbs have heard of the ice ages and can figure out that they are not in fact currently buried under tons and tons of ice.... and that that is a good thing)
B) The climate from 50 , 100, 150 years ago (pick your decade) is the one true, natural, constant, desirable climate.
C) The building block of all life on earth(carbon) is harmful to the earth.
D) Plant food (CO2) is harmful to the climate.
E) Experts can predict the disastrous changes in the climate 20, 50, or 100 years hence but struggle to do so correctly 1-2 days in the future.
F) Sun activity doesn't determine our current climate. (Or is it that evil Capitalists control the sun?)
G) The frequent changing of dire warnings from cooling, to heating, to cooling, to heating... before giving up and finally going with the generic catchall of "climate change" isn't an indication of the accuracy of such warnings.

Not amusing but equally ridiculous:
H) Real human lives lost due to climate change prevention efforts are less important than the imaginary lives lost caused by anthropogenic climate change.

It's a dark comedy, one they don't even realize they are performing.

 

[david890]

When you're a "climate scientist", you lie; it's what you do.

Greenland Shatters Its Record For July Cold | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

That "blog" is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream...

July was the coldest on record for Greenland:

That was a ONE-DAY record. "Weather" is not "climate".

And melt has been below average all summer:

You keep referencing that "blog". Find a few more impartial sources (CNN, BBC, etc.), and then you might have some legitimate arguments.

Glaciers always increase in size while ice is melting faster than anticipated:

Same biased source.

And back before Gavin hid the decline, the 1930s were incredibly hot, and Greenland glaciers actually WERE melting:

Ever seen before and after pix from Glacier National Park? Gonna have to change the name soon....

 

[Jludo]

I'm really not sure which assumption concerning climate change is the most amusing/ridiculous. That:

A) Climate is naturally fixed and unchanging. (Even the dimmest of dim bulbs have heard of the ice ages and can figure out that they are not in fact currently buried under tons and tons of ice.... and that that is a good thing)
B) The climate from 50 , 100, 150 years ago (pick your decade) is the one true, natural, constant, desirable climate.
C) The building block of all life on earth(carbon) is harmful to the earth.
D) Plant food (CO2) is harmful to the climate.
E) Experts can predict the disastrous changes in the climate 20, 50, or 100 years hence but struggle to do so correctly 1-2 days in the future.
F) Sun activity doesn't determine our current climate. (Or is it that evil Capitalists control the sun?)
G) The frequent changing of dire warnings from cooling, to heating, to cooling, to heating... before giving up and finally going with the generic catchall of "climate change" isn't an indication of the accuracy of such warnings.

Not amusing but equally ridiculous:
H) Real human lives lost due to climate change prevention efforts are less important than the imaginary lives lost caused by anthropogenic climate change.

I don't believe any of those assumptions are made. Pick one and show me where your claim makes any sense.

 

[Jludo]

That "blog" is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream...

If it weren't for like 3 persistent non-scientist bloggers I don't think INGO would have any links to post on here.

 

[david890]

I'm really not sure which assumption concerning climate change is the most amusing/ridiculous.

Which side is making these assumptions? Please cite your sources.

A) Climate is naturally fixed and unchanging. (Even the dimmest of dim bulbs have heard of the ice ages and can figure out that they are not in fact currently buried under tons and tons of ice.... and that that is a good thing)

It would be impossible for someone arguing FOR climate change to hold this view, so I'm assuming it's attributed to the deniers.

B) The climate from 50 , 100, 150 years ago (pick your decade) is the one true, natural, constant, desirable climate.

There is not "true" climate, but we can certainly COMPARE climates from one time to another.

C) The building block of all life on earth(carbon) is harmful to the earth.

An excess of CO2 in th atmosphere is harmful. See also, "Venus".

D) Plant food (CO2) is harmful to the climate.

What is the IDEAL level of CO2 for plant growth?

E) Experts can predict the disastrous changes in the climate 20, 50, or 100 years hence but struggle to do so correctly 1-2 days in the future.

"Climate" is not "weather". Predicting the weather - what will happen in 1-2 days is difficult because weather is far more chaotic than climate.

F) Sun activity doesn't determine our current climate. (Or is it that evil Capitalists control the sun?)

Again, whom is claiming this? Also, evil capitalists are doing their best to hold back green energy.

G) The frequent changing of dire warnings from cooling, to heating, to cooling, to heating... before giving up and finally going with the generic catchall of "climate change" isn't an indication of the accuracy of such warnings.

Citations?

Not amusing but equally ridiculous:
H) Real human lives lost due to climate change prevention efforts are less important than the imaginary lives lost caused by anthropogenic climate change.

How many lives have been lost to CC prevention efforts? Be sure to cite your numbers. Estimating the numbers of lives that would be affected by a 20' sea-level increase isn't that hard.

 

[chipbennett]

That "blog" is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream...

When you have no argument, you resort to logical fallacy.

That was a ONE-DAY record. "Weather" is not "climate".

Record-cold single-day temperature, during allegedly record-heat trend? Yeah, that's likely.

You keep referencing that "blog". Find a few more impartial sources (CNN, BBC, etc.), and then you might have some legitimate arguments.

When you have no argument, you resort to logical fallacy.

Same biased source.

When you have no argument, you resort to logical fallacy.

Ever seen before and after pix from Glacier National Park? Gonna have to change the name soon....

Ever heard of changes to those glaciers in years prior to 1979? Yes, that time period actually exists. Hard to believe, I know. Those glaciers were melting during the 1930s, too - which is a time period that the climate-change fraud artists would have you believe was near the minimum-cold period for the 20th century. (All part of their effort to hide the decline.)

 

[chipbennett]

If it weren't for like 3 persistent non-scientist bloggers I don't think INGO would have any links to post on here.

The determining criterion for "scientist" or "non-scientist" is not "posts data that disrupts my worldview". Heller doesn't make up his data. He posts publicly available data, and shows how those data have been fraudulently manipulated.

On the other hand, nearly everything that the climate-change fraudsters do falls under "non-scientist". They hide their raw data. They make non-justifiable changes to the raw data. They make changes to data that actually changes the direction of slope of trends in data. They report data at a resolution that is orders of magnitude greater than their claimed error range. They create models that are repeatedly proven to be incorrect, and that produce the same output regardless of the data input. They extrapolate their data. They castigate and ostracize anyone who would dare criticize their work or who would present alternate conclusions. They engage in incestuous quid pro quo and call it "peer review".

Need I go on?

 

[Jludo]

The determining criterion for "scientist" or "non-scientist" is not "posts data that disrupts my worldview". Heller doesn't make up his data. He posts publicly available data, and shows how those data have been fraudulently manipulated.

On the other hand, nearly everything that the climate-change fraudsters do falls under "non-scientist". They hide their raw data. They make non-justifiable changes to the raw data. They make changes to data that actually changes the direction of slope of trends in data. They report data at a resolution that is orders of magnitude greater than their claimed error range. They create models that are repeatedly proven to be incorrect, and that produce the same output regardless of the data input. They extrapolate their data. They castigate and ostracize anyone who would dare criticize their work or who would present alternate conclusions. They engage in incestuous quid pro quo and call it "peer review".

Need I go on?

Youre talking out of both sides of your mouth, on the one hand he uses data made avaliable by scientists but on the other hand scientists manipulate, fabricate and hide their data.

Sounds like climate change skeptics need to launch their own satellites and launch their own antarctic expeditions to get the 'real' data, as the stuff made available is fake.

 

[david890]

Need I go on?

 

[david890]

Sounds like climate change skeptics need to launch their own satellites and launch their own antarctic expeditions to get the 'real' data, as the stuff made available is fake.

That's "INCESTUOUS climate change skeptics" to you, Bub....