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

[Leadeye]

There was a Democratic Debate? Huh. Missed it.

I don't watch it, her shrill voice is hard on my ears and the speakers.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science

 

[actaeon277]

I suppose everyone was glued to their chairs during the Dem Debate, but Hillary claims to have “most comprehensive plan to combat climate change.”

Sanders turns up attacks on Clinton at feisty debate, Dem front-runner fights back | Fox News

Not that it's any surprise, but get ready for a whole new wave of Climate Change (human induced of course) legislation and perhaps EO's should the Repubs fail to put forth anyone who can beat her. She also slammed Bernie the Socialist for his soft stance on gun control - the bad black gun ban will be back...you know...the failed one her husband championed?...

She gonna eliminate hot air and emissions by sewing politicians mouths shut and swallow her own head?

 

[IndyDave1776]

She gonna eliminate hot air and emissions by sewing politicians mouths shut and swallow her own head?

 

[Dockem]

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science

So...to recap...surface warming due to urban warming zones pollutes the surface data, that's why troposphere temperature is more reliable, and the two do not agree...?

 

[chipbennett]

So...to recap...surface warming due to urban warming zones pollutes the surface data, that's why troposphere temperature is more reliable, and the two do not agree...?

For all intents and purposes, 100% of observed "warming" is due to rural stations going offline, and their data being in-filled/extrapolated/"estimated" using UHI station data.

 

[rhino]

For all intents and purposes, 100% of observed "warming" is due to rural stations going offline, and their data being in-filled/extrapolated/"estimated" using UHI station data.

SCIENCE DENIER!!!

What do YOU know about science anyway? You can't have an opinion since you're uneducated and intellectually deficient (translation: you don't believe tenuous assertions made by people with financial and political agendae that are completely unsupported by either empirical evidence or analytical tools that have a proven track record and are actually refuted by actual data, so I am attempting to marginalize you in the Alinsky Way).

 

[chipbennett]

SCIENCE DENIER!!!

What do YOU know about science anyway? You can't have an opinion since you're uneducated and intellectually deficient (translation: you don't believe tenuous assertions made by people with financial and political agendae that are completely unsupported by either empirical evidence or analytical tools that have a proven track record and are actually refuted by actual data, so I am attempting to marginalize you in the Alinsky Way).

I know, right?

But seriously: when the Church of Climate Change violates the Cardinal Rule of data analysis (thou shalt not extrapolate data), how can they claim that anyone else is a "science denier"?

 

[Amishman44]

I hope you weren't teaching chemistry or physics. Atoms most certainly do break down, and the particles you get break down further. Different elemental and compound chemicals and mixtures do have many different interactions and responses, and those include acoustics. It does leave the door open, but to make a declaration regarding the formation of these things is presumptuous.

I also take issue with people "understand[ing] that nothing this complex just 'happened' without a reason". It's still a belief. It's filling in one of the blanks with an unfalsifiable statement. Until you can show me the ruler by which you can "measure" it to be true, I can't sign off on it. By statistics and probability, the likelihood of "just happening" may be vanishingly small, but rejecting it for that reason is taking the easy way out.

Anyway, back on track: "AGW cultists are poopyheads". Discuss.

Atoms break down into protons + neutrons + electrons...which seemed like fundamental particles before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks each...and no explanation is given for what makes up quarks. However, the original question still stands...who instructed the atoms to work together in such complex ways such as that involved in physiology...and for example the human Krebs Cycle? (There are some answers most people don't even try to get!)

From the article "What is the smallest thing on the planet?" by Clara Moskowitz (found here: What Is the Smallest Thing in the Universe?)

"This time we haven't been able to see any evidence at all that there's anything inside quarks," said physicist Andy Parker. "Have we reached the most fundamental layer of matter?" And even if quarks and electrons are indivisible, Parker said, scientists don't know if they are the smallest bits of matter in existence, or if the universe contains objects that are even more minute.

 

[Expat]

Finally some good news...err I mean bad news....
Winter Warmer-Land: US Breaks Record for Hottest Winter - ABC News

Hottest winter on record. I think it is officially time to panic

 

[Dockem]

Finally some good news...err I mean bad news....
Winter Warmer-Land: US Breaks Record for Hottest Winter - ABC News

Hottest winter on record. I think it is officially time to panic

You KNEW this report was coming out!

 

[chipbennett]

Finally some good news...err I mean bad news....
Winter Warmer-Land: US Breaks Record for Hottest Winter - ABC News

Hottest winter on record. I think it is officially time to panic

PDO? El Nino? What are those?

 

[rhino]

I know, right?

But seriously: when the Church of Climate Change violates the Cardinal Rule of data analysis (thou shalt not extrapolate data), how can they claim that anyone else is a "science denier"?

The sound you're hearing is crickets chirping.

 

[chipbennett]

The sound you're hearing is crickets chirping.

Music to my ears.

 

[Expat]

PDO? El Nino? What are those?

Obviously the result of global warming. Sheesh. You don't understand science at all.

 

[BogWalker]

Finally some good news...err I mean bad news....
Winter Warmer-Land: US Breaks Record for Hottest Winter - ABC News

Hottest winter on record. I think it is officially time to panic

I could get used to these non-winters. Idle those engines boys!

 

[printcraft]

Sounds like a bunch of sexists in this thread. Not enough gender equality in the science.

 

[rhino]

Sounds like a bunch of sexists in this thread. Not enough gender equality in the science.

MICROAGGRESSION!

REPORTED!

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Atoms break down into protons + neutrons + electrons...which seemed like fundamental particles before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks each...and no explanation is given for what makes up quarks. However, the original question still stands...who instructed the atoms to work together in such complex ways such as that involved in physiology...and for example the human Krebs Cycle? (There are some answers most people don't even try to get!)

From the article "What is the smallest thing on the planet?" by Clara Moskowitz (found here: What Is the Smallest Thing in the Universe?)

"This time we haven't been able to see any evidence at all that there's anything inside quarks," said physicist Andy Parker. "Have we reached the most fundamental layer of matter?" And even if quarks and electrons are indivisible, Parker said, scientists don't know if they are the smallest bits of matter in existence, or if the universe contains objects that are even more minute.

Ok, here's the thing, and if it sounds like I'm reducing the arguments like the physicists are reducing the particles, I am. Are there particles beneath the bottom of what we've figured out and understand? I. Don't. Know. I don't follow it closely enough to know whether anyone else has any ideas, and believe it or not, that doesn't matter to me. I don't know, and I can't know, at least so far. I won't stress myself out over that, because it won't add anything useful.

It's what you are calling the original question that I do have a problem with. The very asking of "who told them to do that" presumes not only that they were indeed told, but that there was someone that told them, and this takes us up the ladder a couple of steps, when we have absolutely no justification for making those steps. In other words, you take the first step by assuming that there is "someone" and use the fact that you made the step as proof that the assumption was correct, then you take the next step by assuming that this someone told the atoms, and use the taking of that step as proof that the atoms were told. You can't do that. Just like we can't make the same assumptions regarding the bottom layer of matter. We may find out you're right, I can't prove you're not, but what you're doing is not proving you are. It's not logically rigorous.