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

[david890]

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

You're supposed to be an engineer in the pharma industry. Do you not understand using multiple sources for your claims?

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

What? It's never snowed in June?

Ever heard of changes to those glaciers in years prior to 1979?

Changes? Yes. Disappearance? No.

 

[actaeon277]

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

 

[ATM]

I am a climate denier. I don't believe climate exists.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

He proves their fraud with their own data. He shows how they fraudulently manipulate the data, using their own data. It's really not difficult, for anyone who understands data, and basic scientific principles.

 

[chipbennett]

You're supposed to be an engineer in the pharma industry. Do you not understand using multiple sources for your claims?

If you can't even be bothered to challenge the data and analysis presented by one source, I'm not going to waste my time finding others. Given your record, you'll simply employ the same logical fallacy.

What? It's never snowed in June?

It's simple, really. Anything that supports the climate-change fraudsters is climate. Anything that refutes their fraud is merely weather. Nice work, if you can get it.

Changes? Yes. Disappearance? No.

You're sure about that? The glaciers have never been reduced further that the climate fraudsters claim that they will be - or even more than they are currently? Remember: time - and climate - didn't begin in 1979.

 

[david890]

For Chip.

 

[poptab]

climate change zealots come off as pompous *******s. Is it any wonder why some don't take to kindly to them. They also tend to be hypocrites. Al gore anyone.

And then there is the whole making **** up and getting caught with your pants down. Climate gate 1 2.

If they would just stop preaching at people and crying wolf then people might start taking them more seriously.

 

[Thor]

climate change zealots come off as pompous *******s. Is it any wonder why some don't take to kindly to them. They also tend to be hypocrites. Al gore anyone.

And then there is the whole making **** up and getting caught with your pants down. Climate gate 1 2.

If they would just stop preaching at people and crying wolf then people might start taking them more seriously.

Not preaching does not fit the agenda...now boarding climate zealots through climate gate 12 for a planetoid with no climate change. We always wanted another moon base. Even Mars has climate change; probably caused by pre-capitalism and that they have no 'green' energy.

 

[rob63]

For david890: As our resident progressive, I am curious regarding your thoughts about nuclear energy as a possible solution to global warming?

 

[Jludo]

For david890: As our resident progressive, I am curious regarding your thoughts about nuclear energy as a possible solution to global warming?

This is very curious to me as well, how did climate change become political? When was it Republicans and Democrats decided they'd part ways on this particular science.

Also nuclear is clearly the best option for the foreseeable future.

 

[jamil]

The biggest problem with nuclear is no one wants it in their back yard. Well, also the earth worshippers don't like it.

 

[david890]

This is very curious to me as well, how did climate change become political? When was it Republicans and Democrats decided they'd part ways on this particular science.

My post (#2246) answers your question.

Also nuclear is clearly the best option for the foreseeable future.

Not really. We still haven't adequately addressed disposal of low-level and high-level nuclear waste (and there's a LOT of it out there). Other countries, such as Germany and Japan, will transition away from nukes to green energy (Germany completely by 2020). The short-term costs are higher, but the long-term consequences are much lower.

Hanford, WA is a dead town at this point, and the Fukushima, Japan and Pripyat, Ukraine exclusion zones won't be safe for 500 years.

I'm not suggesting that nuclear power is completely dead. There are proponents of thorium-based reactors, which appear to be far safer than current designs. I've also heard of one thorium-based design that can make use of all that low- and high-level waste sitting around as fuel. However, there's no economic or political incentive to pursue research at this time; we're happy to suck up all the fossil fuel we can right now. We can simply let our grandkids worry about their power needs when their time comes.

 

[david890]

The biggest problem with nuclear is no one wants it in their back yard. Well, also the earth worshippers don't like it.

No one "likes" it; it's a cost/benefit issue. The costs of digging up coal or drilling for oil are pretty obvious, as is the burning of fossil fuel (from environmental and health standpoints). The benefit? They're fairly cheap to get at....right now.

There's a huge up-front cost for building a nuke plant ($3-5B, and a decade in the planning), and, as noted above, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste. Right now, we seem content to just sit on it until a solution comes along, but that isn't a viable plan in the long run. We'll run out of space, or storage sites will begin to leak (which is happening as I type this).

Jesus, Mohammed and Siddhatha could appear, hand-in-hand, and proclaim nuclear power (or green energy) to be "the best choice for all mankind", yet there are people who would still ignore them and drill for oil.

/A "chip" off the old block...

 

[Ericpwp]

My post (#2246) answers your question.

It's funny liberals not only like to tell you you're wrong, but why you think that way.

 

[david890]

It's funny liberals not only like to tell you you're wrong, but why you think that way.

Now, rob63 thinks I'm progressive, but you think I'm a liberal. Which is it?

Perhaps you should go back and read that article again; your post confirms the authors points.

 

[Ericpwp]

Who said I was talking about you and not about the author?

[video=youtube;j13oJajXx0M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j13oJajXx0M[/video]

 

[Leadeye]

She was never pretty.

 

[Ericpwp]

No argument there.

your post confirms the authors points.

See how easy it is for you guys to "confirm" "facts" based on not enough information?

 

[jamil]

Now, rob63 thinks I'm progressive, but you think I'm a liberal. Which is it?

Perhaps you should go back and read that article again; your post confirms the authors points.

A liberal can be progressive and progressives can be liberal. You could be both.

But I think he was referring to the author of the article. And what he said is true enough. Liberals/progressives do like to tell us we're wrong, and then try to tell us why we think the way we do. Obama did that with his bitter clinger speech.

But conservatives do it too. And moderates. Basically people.

 

[rhino]

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?

Your patience impresses me.