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

[rhino]

Hmm... this one is persistent.

 

[Jludo]

I have to ask so I have got this straight....

You don't believe in a Higher power but you do believe in man made Global Warming???? I am blown away...Please come by the shop if you ever make it south...As long as you can handle my tobacco and can tolerate a ice cold Dr. Pepper (with real sugar) I would love to hear how you came to these conclusions...I often make the comparison that Global Warming Alarmists are folks without a Religion looking for one and they find it in the Church of Climate Change...I.E. "The worlds going to end unless you pay up on these carbon credits" always sounded suspiciously similar to the Pre-Reformation Church ideology of buying one's way into Heaven through indulgences...This is interesting...I enjoy your posts and total belief that you are always right...You kind of remind me of myself in my mid twenties and I always feel like I am talking to my 25 year ago self when I am chatting with you on here...I enjoy it and I try not to be an jerk to you..If I ever am I will apologize and it will be sincere...

How do you stand on the moon landing....Really happen or perhaps Stanley Kubrick's greatest work????

9/11...Religious extremists or W and Cheney padding their 401 K's by a couple hundred grand?

Do you think that blog makes a compelling case against global warming?

 

[Jludo]

I'll ask you the same, is that blogger putting forth good arguments?

 

[Jludo]

I think it's a case of dissenting opinions sound amplified in this thread. Im not a huge global warming champion by any means. I don't think it'll be the end of the world, I think we'll adapt just fine and personally like the warm weather. I like the idea of green energy, led bulbs, etc. But there definitely shouldn't be govt. Bans on incandescents. I don't see it being a green energy conspiracy I tend to believe scientific consensus until it's proven otherwise.
It's not an issue I'm even moderately passionate about it but if someone posted moon landing hoax blogs and said the author makes good arguments I'd just as plainly say they were wrong.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes you can see for yourself how obviously wrong it is. As pointed out.
Do you think the author of this blog had done a good job laying out the case against global warming? That his points accurately reflect how you view the data?

So, no comments on the data he cites?

 

[chipbennett]

I think it's a case of dissenting opinions sound amplified in this thread. Im not a huge global warming champion by any means. I don't think it'll be the end of the world, I think we'll adapt just fine and personally like the warm weather. I like the idea of green energy, led bulbs, etc. But there definitely shouldn't be govt. Bans on incandescents. I don't see it being a green energy conspiracy I tend to believe scientific consensus until it's proven otherwise.
It's not an issue I'm even moderately passionate about it but if someone posted moon landing hoax blogs and said the author makes good arguments I'd just as plainly say they were wrong.

Any comments on the data cited?

 

[rob63]

FWIW, I fall into the camp of those unconvinced that AGW is something to be concerned about, however, I agree with Jludo that Steven Goddard is not a source I would use when arguing climate change. Some of his stuff has some pretty basic errors and he is prone to spouting conspiracies he can't prove. The data that the NOAA and other government agencies issue is enough to show that it is not unreasonable to question the predictions of future catastrophe. It's unfortunate that it has all become so politicized (with plenty of blame for that to go around), most of us probably agree that we would like to see further development of renewable energies regardless of whether we believe in AGW. There really isn't a need for everything having to be a witch hunt, but that seems to be the world we live in.

 

[chipbennett]

FWIW, I fall into the camp of those unconvinced that AGW is something to be concerned about, however, I agree with Jludo that Steven Goddard is not a source I would use when arguing climate change. Some of his stuff has some pretty basic errors and he is prone to spouting conspiracies he can't prove. The data that the NOAA and other government agencies issue is enough to show that it is not unreasonable to question the predictions of future catastrophe. It's unfortunate that it has all become so politicized (with plenty of blame for that to go around), most of us probably agree that we would like to see further development of renewable energies regardless of whether we believe in AGW. There really isn't a need for everything having to be a witch hunt, but that seems to be the world we live in.

The data he cites is NOAA data.

I'm not interested in addressing ad hominem fallacy arguments.

 

[rob63]

The data he cites is NOAA data.

I'm not interested in addressing ad hominem fallacy arguments.

That is the problem you will always face by linking to Goddard.

 

[chipbennett]

That is the problem you will always face by linking to Goddard.

I'll take that to indicate that you also have nothing to say about the data he cites?

 

[Jludo]

9-11 truthers cite sources.
He's a no name blogger. I can find a blogger to say anything under the sun and who 'cites sources'.
It's laughable how gullible anyone who believes these blog posts must be.
Those links are absolutely a joke, NASA pictures of glaciers growing? Just one example of this bloggers complete dishonesty. It shows Sep of 2013,2014 and 2015. Look at the images from aug 2013 2014 and 2015, tells a completely different story, as if 3 satellite pictures could possibly prove anything anyway.

I guess you missed this one.
Citing data and interpreting the data correctly aren't the same thing

 

[chipbennett]

I guess you missed this one.
Citing data and interpreting the data correctly aren't the same thing

I'll wait for your response to specific data cited - in particular, regarding Greenland ice sheet extent, growth, and loss.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

NOAA Data/Articles from the NOAA Website:

This NOAA Article:
Is sea level rising?
states the following, ""Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.


This NOAA Article demonstrated data showing ocean levels rising ("Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea Level Rise"):
Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea Level Rise

Doing the math for you roughly 36 years and about 60mm rise averages (they use linear line fitting) 0.07"/Year.



So. Two NOAA articles about sea level rising since 1992 both citing Satellite Altimetry Data. One article says oceans are rising at 0.12"/year, the other 0.07"/year. Article #1 also states, "Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900", which according to the same data presented in article #2 puts us at 0.07"/ year - right on the average since about 1900.

Someone please point out my error?

 

[rob63]

I'll take that to indicate that you also have nothing to say about the data he cites?

I'm not trying to argue his points one way or the other, just pointing out that you will never win anyone over from the other side by linking yourself to him.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not trying to argue his points one way or the other, just pointing out that you will never win anyone over from the other side by linking yourself to him.

Come back when you have something other than ad hominem fallacy.

 

[SSGSAD]

WISH, TV Indy, just reported that 2015, was the HOTTEST year, in history .....

They blamed El Nino, and MAN MADE Global Warming .....

Fox, 59, just reported the same thing .....

 

[IndyDave1776]

WISH, TV Indy, just reported that 2015, was the HOTTEST year, in history .....

They blamed El Nino, and MAN MADE Global Warming .....

Fox, 59, just reported the same thing .....

They apparently flunked history.

 

[Leadeye]

Alternative energy, carbon trading, learned leadership.

Always follow the money.

 

[printcraft]

Hmm... this one is persistent.

Floater?

 

[pudly]

WISH, TV Indy, just reported that 2015, was the HOTTEST year, in history .....

They blamed El Nino, and MAN MADE Global Warming .....

Fox, 59, just reported the same thing .....

Not a shock to those who actually are paying attention, but the NOAA lied about the numbers again and those lies have been widely shared already. In fact, according to their own numbers, 1997 was at least 3.8 degrees hotter. Wattsupwiththat pays attention and catches the inconsistencies in their claims to identify the manipulations.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever | MRCTV