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

[JeremiahJohnson]

Alright we're back at it, where is this evidence that the earth hasn't warmed in 15 years? A Republican aides blog?

Too many sources to site, but here's a couple that state a pause of at least 14 years:

Forbes Welcome

New theory may help explain global warming pause - CBS News


You can use google too, there are literally thousands of articles citing all the sources of data you've mentioned, they all concede there's a pause - to the title of the thread.

Now - two pages ago - there's a source saying 2014 is the hottest year globally EVER (in recorded history in small print).

Back to my question - How? If there's a pause, and much of that data includes 2014, then how can 2014 be the hottest year on record?

 

[rhino]

I know that's what I'm saying, it's a green energy plot to destroy our economy. Clearly most all climate experts and organizations are in on it. I'm just glad we have the experts here to parse the raw data and tell us what it really means.

Actually, if the raw data were made available, there are people who participate in this topic who are at least as qualified to interpret it as the alleged experts who never release their raw data.

 

[printcraft]

How can you guys argue with this?!??

Poor guy.

 

[chipbennett]

You just posted a senate minority report that was just that, using climate change as a political weapon.
So far as it's being used as a political weapon, you're saying green energy is using it as a weapon and fossil fuel industry is just laying out the truth?
I'm making absolutely no claims about what to do about climate change but I don't understand where anyone is getting the idea that it's not happening.

Because 100% of of "measured" warming comes from "estimated" - i.e. "infilled", i.e. completely made-up - data from rural stations that are no longer reporting:

All US Warming, And Almost Half Of The Data, Is Fake | Real Science

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Another example. How do I reconcile graphs like this (RSS and NOAA):

With graphs like this (also NOAA):

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

This one's actually more recent and shows the 2014 data from NOAA:

 

[eldirector]

Those look to be plotting 2 completely different things. The bottom doesn't even have a Y axis, so hard to tell.

Is the top left really in Kelvin? That is unusual.

Need more context.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Those look to be plotting 2 completely different things. The bottom doesn't even have a Y axis, so hard to tell.

Is the top left really in Kelvin? That is unusual.

Need more context.

The second post shows a Y axis in degrees F...the first is a departure delta for a short period of time, but it does not reconcile with the same time period on the last graph - both by the same source.

 

[chipbennett]

This one's actually more recent and shows the 2014 data from NOAA:

Massive data tampering.

Changing the direction of the slope of a trend line (data analysis 101 fail):

Result: Pause? What Pause?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Those look to be plotting 2 completely different things. The bottom doesn't even have a Y axis, so hard to tell.

Is the top left really in Kelvin? That is unusual.

Need more context.

And more to the point regarding 2014, graph number 1 from NOAA shows no significant change from 2013 to 2014 if anything a downward trend. Graph number 3 shows a huge difference with 2014 being extremely positive (also from NOAA).

 

[rhino]

Massive data tampering.

C'mon, Bro! What's a little "normalization" among friends?

At this juncture I must remind gentle readers that were were overdue for the next in the long line of our superiors to arrive and expose our educational deficiencies, intellectual limitations, and our inability to comprehend much less apply scientific principles, math, and statistics. We needed a reminder, I say. A REMINDER.

 

[chipbennett]

C'mon, Bro! What's a little "normalization" among friends?

At this juncture I must remind gentle readers that were were overdue for the next in the long line of our superiors to arrive and expose our educational deficiencies, intellectual limitations, and our inability to comprehend much less apply scientific principles, math, and statistics. We needed a reminder, I say. A REMINDER.

Indeed. Once again, we have been graced by The Vision of the Anointed.

 

[rhino]

Indeed. Once again, we have been graced by The Vision of the Anointed.

Sir, I say to you, you do not understand science or math.

Sir, I say to you, you are a science denier!

Sir, I say to you . . . eh, I can't type it without laughing.

 

[chipbennett]

Sir, I say to you, you do not understand science or math.

Sir, I say to you, you are a science denier!

Sir, I say to you . . . eh, I can't type it without laughing.

I'm picturing a rhino rolling its eyes.

 

[rhino]

I'm picturing a rhino rolling its eyes.

Correct!

 

[printcraft]

Of course not, science is above politics.

I have to keep coming back to this.......... NASA could not be involved in politics. They're MF'n rocket surgeons.

NASA Chief Bolden's Muslim Remark to Al-Jazeera Causes Stir

Oops.

 

[rhino]

I used to be a rocket scientist.

 

[BogWalker]

It's getting cold guys. If I idle my car will it make winter stay away for a bit longer?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hey I can find a blog post that says the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe, that'd be as much evidence as anyone here has come up with. You think if Galileo was alive today he'd be on your side? The Catholic church tried and condemned Galileo so climate change isn't real?
Who are the scientists who we trust and read as a collective to further our own personal knowledge on this website? You aren't going out and colliding particles yourselves so at some point we have to trust the scientists, and the ones that I trust say global warming is happening, and if they are wrong they will admit it and update their predictions, as scientists do when new evidence comes to light.

It's OK. I understand that we are attacking your personal religion--and yes, you are treating this as religious faith more so than evaluation of evidence. I mentioned Galileo as an example of someone who challenged the establishment who just happened to be right. Today, the establishment is selling us a political bill of goods, condemning anyone who applies anything approaching skepticism, which is supposed to be part and parcel of science, and ostracizing them just as Galileo experienced. My point is that whether you have one dumbass or a train full of dumbasses, the quality of their dumbassery does not improve. Be reasonable for just a minute. We are being approached by a group of people with degrees relevant to environmental science and their financiers who stand to gain from propagating unquestioning belief in Global Warming/Climate Change (which was coined WHEN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR WARMING BECAME APPARENT) who shout down anyone who disagrees and labels them 'deniers'. In case you missed the memo, this label is cut from the same cloth as 'heretic', and anyone who disagrees with the prevailing establishment orthodoxy is quite clearly treated as a heretic.

You have signally failed to account for their behavior. They have a narrative and they are sticking to it. When they are demonstrated wrong, they change the data and fabricate data from whole cloth. They have been caught red-handed more than once. LET ME REITERATE. WHEN THEY ARE DEMONSTRATED WRONG, THEY DO NOT UPDATE OR CHANGE ANYTHING, THEY MANUFACTURE NEW "EVIDENCE" AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU ACCEPT IT FOR HOLY WRIT.

Now, having been subjected to falsehoods which could (but I doubt) be honest mistakes backed up with falsehoods which are proven deliberate fraud, why the Hell would I trust these people, especially taking the blindly at their word?

Now, you are free to accept anything you like as a religion, but please be honest enough to admit that it is in fact a religion based on the fact that you accept it on faith in people in lab coats, given that quality evidence seems quite lacking.

 

[actaeon277]

Blog: If it's freezing, it must be warming