Climate 'Science' fraudsters strike again

[ArlJim78]

This is getting old. Data is manipulated in order to support the narrative that man is in grave danger from climate change enabling governments around the world to raise taxes.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Xq7e4anB

[boxcar]

Trump will have to have his new EPA guy investigate climate fraud -- well..at least until Hcap shows up and drops clusters of graphs in living technicolor on us to enlighten us.

[davew]

shocker - agencies can be politicized and scientists can be crooks and commit fraud just like politicians.... who would have thought that possible?

[Inner Dirt]

All I need to realize that the prediction of doom is a joke is looking at some of the predictions the "experts" come up with that are all over the damn place.
One study predicts a 5 inch rise in sea level in 75 years while another one predicts a 15 feet in the same time period. If it wasn't junk science I think there would be more of a consensus of what was going to happen.

In the 70's it was an impending ice age was predicted. What is comical when that is brought up the climate alarmists say the science of that day was flawed because of lack of computer modeling. I say BS we sent a man to the moon back in the day when a computer as powerful as a calculator took up a whole room. You can do anything then you can do today calculation wise, it just takes a lot of people, time, pencils and paper instead of one guy using a computer.

[boxcar]

shocker - agencies can be politicized and scientists can be crooks and commit fraud just like politicians.... who would have thought that possible?

These scientists are granthogs. Probably more than half of them would be burger-flippers if it weren't for the government providing them a livelihood.

[chadk66]

is the ice age they promised going to come before this global warming they are trying to sell? I've had enough of this winter and wish that damn global warming would get here already. By the end of Trump's eight years there will be little to no talk of global warming or climate change or whatever they call it these days.

[tucker6]

is the ice age they promised going to come before this global warming they are trying to sell? I've had enough of this winter and wish that damn global warming would get here already. By the end of Trump's eight years there will be little to no talk of global warming or climate change or whatever they call it these days.
climate disruption is the new term. Please keep up.

[boxcar]

climate disruption is the new term. Please keep up.

Geesh...they keep moving the goal posts! Global warming became climate change, and now climate change has become climate disruption. It's hard to keep up with fickle people who don't know what they're talking about to begin with, which is why it's necessary for them to constantly revise their branding.

[ElKabong]

Trump will have to have his new EPA guy investigate climate fraud -- well..at least until Hcap shows up and drops clusters of graphs in living technicolor on us to enlighten us.

Still sucking his thumb in his safe place.

Good thing, because the butt hurt phase comes next. Plenty of trump haters and America haters are still in that phase here.

[boxcar]

Still sucking his thumb in his safe place.

Good thing, because the butt hurt phase comes next. Plenty of trump haters and America haters are still in that phase here.

Thumb sucking can be a very tough habit to kick. Poor guy.

[ElKabong]

This is getting old. Data is manipulated in order to support the narrative that man is in grave danger from climate change enabling governments around the world to raise taxes.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Xq7e4anB

So Barack Obama and David Cameron were duped.... The sun is hot, water is wet.

Thank goodness we don't have sheep in power anymore.

[Actor]

These scientists are granthogs. Probably more than half of them would be burger-flippers if it weren't for the government providing them a livelihood.
Is this just your opinion of do you have evidence?

[woodtoo]

Is this just your opinion of do you have evidence?
They just proved it, with their lies.

[Actor]

They just proved it, with their lies.Who are "they"?

[Dave Schwartz]

The two most important changes in "professional integrity:"

Journalists (remember when integrity was a requirement?)
Scientists (remember when objectivity was part of the "scientific method?")

I doubt that integrity was ever expected of politicians.

[LottaKash]

The two most important changes in "professional integrity:"

Journalists (remember when integrity was a requirement?)
Scientists (remember when objectivity was part of the "scientific method?")

I doubt that integrity was ever expected of politicians.

Well stated Dave... :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

I doubt that integrity was ever expected of politicians.

You are right in this. The Founders had a much better handle on the true nature of man, and this is why they drew up a Constitution that is "a charter of negative rights" to coin Obama's phrase. A Constitution that would limit the powers of government.

[classhandicapper]

Wait, someone is cooking the climate books?

Kind of like, I'm shocked... shocked to find that gambling is going on in there.

[chadk66]

Wait, someone is cooking the climate books?

Kind of like, I'm shocked... shocked to find that gambling is going on in there.it's them damn Russians.

[boxcar]

it's them damn Russians.

I'd bet the farm that the environmental whackos would all cut off their right hand if they could make a case that a Russian hacker was the whistle blower on this latest scandal. Instead...it was one of their own -- a very prestigious scientist.

[boxcar]

EXCLUSIVE: George Soros Invested In 11 Fossil Fuel Firms In 2016

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/exclusive-george-soros-invested-in-11-fossil-fuel-firms-in-2016/#ixzz4Xviga67Q

And to add insult to hypocritical injury...Soros made far more profit off these firms (44 Mil) than what he has donated in the last 9 years or so to Greenie projects.

I guess in Soros' mind, fossil fuels are perfectly fine just as long as you can make a profit from your investments in them.

[davew]

is the ice age they promised going to come before this global warming they are trying to sell? I've had enough of this winter and wish that damn global warming would get here already. By the end of Trump's eight years there will be little to no talk of global warming or climate change or whatever they call it these days.


Good thing is, after all the ice at both poles, all the glaciers melt and the ocean rises 800 feet, you will be rather close to the ocean.


It seems that not only was data manipulated, some was also FABRICATED to help get their increase of 0.07 degrees over previous year.

[buzzy]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=time+lapse+photo+glacier+national+park+gl obal+warming&&view=detail&mid=3012782FD515F0C0F1373012782FD515F0C0F137&FORM=VRDGAR

[boxcar]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=time+lapse+photo+glacier+national+park+gl obal+warming&&view=detail&mid=3012782FD515F0C0F1373012782FD515F0C0F137&FORM=VRDGAR

It's called Climate Cycling. The whole universe is filled with examples of natural cycling phenomena.

[davew]

It's called Climate Cycling. The whole universe is filled with examples of natural cycling phenomena.


The videos and 'climate scientists' also do not have data from 600 years ago, although they could probably make them up.

[buzzy]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[davew]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

[chadk66]

Good thing is, after all the ice at both poles, all the glaciers melt and the ocean rises 800 feet, you will be rather close to the ocean.


It seems that not only was data manipulated, some was also FABRICATED to help get their increase of 0.07 degrees over previous year.wow ocean front property in ND. I'm gonna be rich.

[zico20]

That 97 percent study has been discredited. Numerous scientists who were put in that group have come out and said their views were distorted and should not have been put in the 97 percent. It is all a fraud.

[buzzy]

http://www.ecowatch.com/confirmed-oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking-1882034344.html

[buzzy]

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/oklahoma-california-earthquakes-m

[davew]

I always like the articles ssaying if the ice at the south pool melts, the sea level will raise 200 feet.

It makes me laugh because I do not know if the authors are laughing or if they are so gullible they believe it....

[buzzy]

earthquakes in oklahoma????

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oklahome-earthquake-20170301-story.html

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I always like the articles ssaying if the ice at the south pool melts, the sea level will raise 200 feet.

It makes me laugh because I do not know if the authors are laughing or if they are so gullible they believe it....

What do you think would happen if the ice at the south pole melted? Forget whether or not you think it could ever happen. Hypothetically, what do you figure would be the result?

[tucker6]

What do you think would happen if the ice at the south pole melted? Forget whether or not you think it could ever happen. Hypothetically, what do you figure would be the result?

His point is that you can't forget that the south pole melting is unlikely in the extreme, so why discuss its impacts to such minutia. Similar to asking what effects there would be if the Earth's core spilled onto the surface. Gosh, we should spend some money preventing such a catastrophe. At the very least, we should fund some research scietists' nest eggs

[HalvOnHorseracing]

His point is that you can't forget that the south pole melting is unlikely in the extreme, so why discuss its impacts to such minutia. Similar to asking what effects there would be if the Earth's core spilled onto the surface. Gosh, we should spend some money preventing such a catastrophe. At the very least, we should fund some research scietists' nest eggs

Even if the entire ice cap melting is an extreme not worth speculation, it's not inconceivable that some portion of the ice could recede if the earth warmed for whatever reason. We're already seeing that in the north - open water during the winter where there used to be none.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to know that melting ice would lead to sea level rise.

Is your opinion that sea level rising five feet is hardly worth worrying about? When should we worry about it?

[rastajenk]

Maybe a warmer atmosphere has greater water carrying capacity. Maybe higher humidities are responsible for transporting the moisture over other continents, replenishing water tables or making higher latitude, or higher altitude, regions more productive. I doubt if it's a linear cause-and-easily measured effect. Maybe a period of warming will be followed by 5000 years of cooling. Who knows? But let's follow the advice of grifters like Al Gore, just in case they're right, right?

[woodtoo]

If the sky is falling can anyone see it?

[tucker6]

Even if the entire ice cap melting is an extreme not worth speculation, it's not inconceivable that some portion of the ice could recede if the earth warmed for whatever reason. We're already seeing that in the north - open water during the winter where there used to be none.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to know that melting ice would lead to sea level rise.

Is your opinion that sea level rising five feet is hardly worth worrying about? When should we worry about it?
In the 1920's and 30's, there were equal to or lower sea ice levels than now, so please read more and post less on subjects you know nothing about.

I don't worry about five feet of sea level rise. At the current rate of 8-9" per century, it will be 700 years before we reach five feet. And that's if we continue to warm. The past tells us that will not be the case.

[davew]

What do you think would happen if the ice at the south pole melted? Forget whether or not you think it could ever happen. Hypothetically, what do you figure would be the result?

It is exaggeration of biased/faulty science to begin with. As far as I can tell, the 200 feet number comes from this paper ->

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/375/2013/tc-7-375-2013.pdf


it basically says there is a potential for 58m if all ice melts due to the average ice thickness of 7000 ft

a rough calculation with 139.7 million square miles of ocean and 5.4 million square miles of antartica.

easy to punch holes in this estimate if you critically look at it.

I see bedrock - where is the 1.2 miles of ice over it?
https://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/paradise-bay-antarctica.jpg

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In the 1920's and 30's, there were equal to or lower sea ice levels than now, so please read more and post less on subjects you know nothing about.

I don't worry about five feet of sea level rise. At the current rate of 8-9" per century, it will be 700 years before we reach five feet. And that's if we continue to warm. The past tells us that will not be the case.

Get serious. You have no clue how much I know about climate change and why. As it turns out it is you who bought the alt-right version of climate cycles and doesn't know what you are talking about. First your statement that ice levels were equivalent in the 20's and 30's is demonstrably false.

The arctic ice melt extent noted by the IPCC, was supplemented in an interview by Dr Walt Meier of The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder:

“Analysis of the temperatures does not support a cyclic explanation for the recent warming. The warming during the 1920s and 1930s was more regional in nature and focused on the Atlantic side of the Arctic (though there was warming in some other regions as well) and was most pronounced during winter. In contrast, the current warming as observed is amplified over almost the entire Arctic and is seen in all seasons. Another thing that is clear is that, the warming during the 1920s and 1930s was limited to the Arctic and lower latitude temperatures were not unusually warm.”

When you allow politics to trump science, you come to some poor conclusions. Check out this chart on Arctic ice.

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744530698970d-pi

Perhaps you are buying the bunk served up by John Christy from the University of Alabama:

“Christy has become very reliable for arguing that anything and everything related to climate change probably just boils down to natural variability, as he recently told US Congress was the case with regards to the frequency of extreme weather events, contrary to the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Or perhaps you made the mistaken assumption that we had equivalent data in the 20's and 30's. We didn't have satellites, we barely had accurate maps.

No, it is you who are the ignorant one. My advice - read more and stop trying to talk about things you know little about.

[PaceAdvantage]

Or perhaps you made the mistaken assumption that we had equivalent data in the 20's and 30's. We didn't have satellites, we barely had accurate maps.Interesting point, on a whole host of levels.

[boxcar]

No, it is you who are the ignorant one. My advice - read more and stop trying to talk about things you know little about.

Someone, please, hold a mirror up to Halv's face!

[tucker6]

Interesting point, on a whole host of levels.

Haha, exactly.

[tucker6]

First your statement that ice levels were equivalent in the 20's and 30's is demonstrably false.

No, it is you who are the ignorant one. My advice - read more and stop trying to talk about things you know little about.


https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Is that a story from 2016? No, from October 10th, 1922.

Rather than use tortured "data" from recent times, why not read what the people of the time had to say. Or were they Alarmists back in 1922?

[boxcar]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Is that a story from 2016? No, from October 10th, 1922.

Rather than use tortured "data" from recent times, why not read what the people of the time had to say. Or were they Alarmists back in 1922?

Not like Gore, they weren't. If he had been alive back in '22, he would have predicted this planet's demise by late 20th century the latest.

[incoming]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Is that a story from 2016? No, from October 10th, 1922.

Rather than use tortured "data" from recent times, why not read what the people of the time had to say. Or were they Alarmists back in 1922?

A tribute for tucker6:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=penn+st+fight+song&view=detail&mid=7474D7423AE37A356B787474D7423AE37A356B78&FORM=VIRE

[chadk66]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Is that a story from 2016? No, from October 10th, 1922.

Rather than use tortured "data" from recent times, why not read what the people of the time had to say. Or were they Alarmists back in 1922?and that was 50 years before the impending ice age:lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Is that a story from 2016? No, from October 10th, 1922.

Rather than use tortured "data" from recent times, why not read what the people of the time had to say. Or were they Alarmists back in 1922?

They probably used their iPads to document the changes too. We all know there was a regional warming period in the Arctic. Would you like me to explain the phenomenon again or do you think you can look at the previous post and figure it out? We know what happened, and we know it was NOT part of a global phenomenon, since the temperate regions of the earth did not similarly warm.

The great thing about providing evidence from the past is that we have a much better idea of what really happened 100 years later. We can also chart the pattern both before and since then. I provided that chart to you as well.

I never met so many people skeptical about the thermometer and the chemical characteristics of CO2 until climate change became a thing. The earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, whatever you think the cause. It's not just one of those cycles.

What else do you have up your sleeve from the olden days? Perhaps the benefits of bloodletting?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

and that was 50 years before the impending ice age:lol:
There was no impending ice age and you know it.

[davew]

There was no impending ice age and you know it.


http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif

[tucker6]

A tribute for tucker6:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=penn+st+fight+song&view=detail&mid=7474D7423AE37A356B787474D7423AE37A356B78&FORM=VIRE

How'd you know that was my alma mater? :ThmbUp:

[tucker6]

They probably used their iPads to document the changes too. We all know there was a regional warming period in the Arctic. Would you like me to explain the phenomenon again or do you think you can look at the previous post and figure it out? We know what happened, and we know it was NOT part of a global phenomenon, since the temperate regions of the earth did not similarly warm.

The great thing about providing evidence from the past is that we have a much better idea of what really happened 100 years later. We can also chart the pattern both before and since then. I provided that chart to you as well.

I never met so many people skeptical about the thermometer and the chemical characteristics of CO2 until climate change became a thing. The earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, whatever you think the cause. It's not just one of those cycles.

What else do you have up your sleeve from the olden days? Perhaps the benefits of bloodletting?
What is amazing is that on the one hand, people like you faithfully believe that the "climate scientists" are correct to change past data to make the warming curve steeper since modern data is so reliable, yet rely on an algorithm of past ship readings and throw out the much more accurate ARGOS temp readings from the modern era. So which is it? Do you believe in modern equipment or don't you? You haven't the slightest clue as to how tortured the science is in the climate realm. It stinks like the dead fish head it is.

[tucker6]

and let me say this about your Antarctica melting meme.

From Wiki:

The lowest reliably measured temperature of a continuously occupied station on Earth of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) was on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[3][4] For comparison, this is 10.7 °C (19.3 °F) colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The altitude of the location is 3,900 meters (12,800 feet).

The lowest recorded temperature of any location on Earth's surface was −93.2 °C (−135.8 °F) at 81.8°S 63.5°E, which is on an unnamed Antarctic plateau between Dome A and Dome F, on August 10, 2010. The temperature was deduced from radiance measured by the Landsat 8 satellite, and discovered during a National Snow and Ice Data Center review of stored data in December, 2013.[5][6] This temperature is not directly comparable to the -89.2 quoted above, since it is a skin temperature deduced from satellite-measured upwelling radiance, rather than a thermometer-measured temperature of the air 1.5 m (4.9 ft) above the ground surface.

On the coast Antarctic average temperatures are around -10c (in the warmest parts of Antarctica) and in the elevated inland they average about -55c in Vostok.[7][8][9]

The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 °C (63.5 °F) at Esperanza Base, on the Antarctic Peninsula, on 24 March 2015.[10] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57 °C (−70.6 °F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −26 °C (−14.8 °F) in August to −3 °C (26.6 °F) in January.[11] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 °C (9.9 °F) on 25 December 2011.[12] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 °C (59 °F) have been recorded,[clarification needed] though the summer temperature is below 0 °C (32 °F) most of the time. Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation.[citation needed] The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.

So having read all that, where the interior highest temperature ever recorded at the South Pole was 9.9F, please tell me how soon we'll lose the nearly two miles of ice at that location? Talk about a non issue and made up crisis.

Thanks for playing.

[incoming]

How'd you know that was my alma mater? :ThmbUp:

Not sure....I think you mentioned it during one of the debates you had with hcap on this same subject, for some reason it stuck.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif

First of all, the cover on the left is fake. There never was a cover story in 1977. That is verifiable. However, the cover on the left actually DID appear - in 2007 - and the actual headline was "The Global Warming Survival Guide." Ultimately it was photoshopped to read as you presented it. The actual Time coverage on cooling was a short article on the inside of the magazine.

The scientists who were quoted on global cooling have long since admitted they misinterpreted the data. As I said, there was never an impending ice age.

By the way, those scientists are now part of the global warming scientists.

Using the same debunked BS to make your case is really pathetic. If you want to debate global warming, at least use accurate information from credible scientists writing in the present.

Like they used to say on the X-files, the truth is out there.

[thaskalos]

Not sure....I think you mentioned it during one of the debates you had with hcap on this same subject, for some reason it stuck.

I think it was during some Joe Paterno controversy a couple of years ago.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What is amazing is that on the one hand, people like you faithfully believe that the "climate scientists" are correct to change past data to make the warming curve steeper since modern data is so reliable, yet rely on an algorithm of past ship readings and throw out the much more accurate ARGOS temp readings from the modern era. So which is it? Do you believe in modern equipment or don't you? You haven't the slightest clue as to how tortured the science is in the climate realm. It stinks like the dead fish head it is.

No it doesn't, but once you've erected a blockade in your mind, there is no penetrating it. Even Exxon-Mobil, long famous for funding climate change deniers believes that global warming is real. As I said, unless you can debunk the thermometer, it's pretty easy to verify temperature rise. And unless you can rewrite the laws of chemistry, we know what causes atmospheric warming. The so-called greenhouse effect is the reason there is even life on earth. And the more greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere, the more they will absorb heat. That isn't voodoo. That's 3rd grade science.

You can believe whatever you want. The facts ultimately will prevail.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

and let me say this about your Antarctica melting meme.

From Wiki:

The lowest reliably measured temperature of a continuously occupied station on Earth of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) was on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[3][4] For comparison, this is 10.7 °C (19.3 °F) colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The altitude of the location is 3,900 meters (12,800 feet).

The lowest recorded temperature of any location on Earth's surface was −93.2 °C (−135.8 °F) at 81.8°S 63.5°E, which is on an unnamed Antarctic plateau between Dome A and Dome F, on August 10, 2010. The temperature was deduced from radiance measured by the Landsat 8 satellite, and discovered during a National Snow and Ice Data Center review of stored data in December, 2013.[5][6] This temperature is not directly comparable to the -89.2 quoted above, since it is a skin temperature deduced from satellite-measured upwelling radiance, rather than a thermometer-measured temperature of the air 1.5 m (4.9 ft) above the ground surface.

On the coast Antarctic average temperatures are around -10c (in the warmest parts of Antarctica) and in the elevated inland they average about -55c in Vostok.[7][8][9]

The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 °C (63.5 °F) at Esperanza Base, on the Antarctic Peninsula, on 24 March 2015.[10] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57 °C (−70.6 °F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −26 °C (−14.8 °F) in August to −3 °C (26.6 °F) in January.[11] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 °C (9.9 °F) on 25 December 2011.[12] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 °C (59 °F) have been recorded,[clarification needed] though the summer temperature is below 0 °C (32 °F) most of the time. Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation.[citation needed] The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.

So having read all that, where the interior highest temperature ever recorded at the South Pole was 9.9F, please tell me how soon we'll lose the nearly two miles of ice at that location? Talk about a non issue and made up crisis.

Thanks for playing.

I never said the ice caps would melt in any period of time. I asked a simple question. What happens if the ice caps melt? Hypothetically. If you believe that can't happen, good for you. Time will prove someone right.

[Clocker]

Using the same debunked BS to make your case is really pathetic.

What about using it to troll? Is that acceptable? :p

[tucker6]

No it doesn't, but once you've erected a blockade in your mind, there is no penetrating it. Even Exxon-Mobil, long famous for funding climate change deniers believes that global warming is real. As I said, unless you can debunk the thermometer, it's pretty easy to verify temperature rise. And unless you can rewrite the laws of chemistry, we know what causes atmospheric warming. The so-called greenhouse effect is the reason there is even life on earth. And the more greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere, the more they will absorb heat. That isn't voodoo. That's 3rd grade science.

You can believe whatever you want. The facts ultimately will prevail.

You mean it's okay to side with evil oil if they support you. Good to know.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What about using it to troll? Is that acceptable? :p

So anyone who uses facts to point out you have an argument that blurs the lines between fantasy and reality is a troll? You post a fake Time cover as if it was real and I'm the troll? You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you blame mom for baking the cookies in the first place.

When you wonder why liberals trot out the "stupid" argument, go back to posting something that is verifiably fake and ask yourself what kind of person does that as a serious argument. The fact that there are plenty here to validate making up alternative facts doesn't make the arguments any more credible.

There is a guy trying to be President who can't tell the difference between fake and real. Many people questioned how such a guy managed to get elected. I now can say unequivocally that I know.

[Clocker]

You post a fake Time cover as if it was real and I'm the troll?



When you wonder why liberals trot out the "stupid" argument

Says the guy who clearly doesn't know what a troll is, or when he is being trolled. :D

[chadk66]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gifput Halvy on suicide watch now :pound:

[chadk66]

First of all, the cover on the left is fake. There never was a cover story in 1977. That is verifiable. However, the cover on the left actually DID appear - in 2007 - and the actual headline was "The Global Warming Survival Guide." Ultimately it was photoshopped to read as you presented it. The actual Time coverage on cooling was a short article on the inside of the magazine.

The scientists who were quoted on global cooling have long since admitted they misinterpreted the data. As I said, there was never an impending ice age.

By the way, those scientists are now part of the global warming scientists.

Using the same debunked BS to make your case is really pathetic. If you want to debate global warming, at least use accurate information from credible scientists writing in the present.

Like they used to say on the X-files, the truth is out there.they're part of it because that's where their income comes from:lol:

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

they're part of it because that's where their income comes from:lol:

Fortunately, we now have a PRESIDENT who won't ignore serious events in this country (like the San Bernardino massacre) to fly half way around the world for some silly global warming kumbaya.

Hasn't Al Gore made enough money on this yet?

[davew]

First of all, the cover on the left is fake. There never was a cover story in 1977. That is verifiable. However, the cover on the left actually DID appear - in 2007 - and the actual headline was "The Global Warming Survival Guide." Ultimately it was photoshopped to read as you presented it. The actual Time coverage on cooling was a short article on the inside of the magazine.

The scientists who were quoted on global cooling have long since admitted they misinterpreted the data. As I said, there was never an impending ice age.

By the way, those scientists are now part of the global warming scientists.

Using the same debunked BS to make your case is really pathetic. If you want to debate global warming, at least use accurate information from credible scientists writing in the present.

Like they used to say on the X-files, the truth is out there.


TIME did actually have an article published in the June 24, 1974 issue that was titled "Another Ice Age?"

[chadk66]

Fortunately, we now have a PRESIDENT who won't ignore serious events in this country (like the San Bernardino massacre) to fly half way around the world for some silly global warming kumbaya.

Hasn't Al Gore made enough money on this yet?Have you seen him lately? Looks like he's done making money off anything. I think he's on top of the death pool list

[chadk66]

TIME did actually have an article published in the June 24, 1974 issue that was titled "Another Ice Age?"I lived through the seventies. There were numerous articles in different magazines spouting the same thing. Popular science was one of them I recall besides the Time article.