New Scientific Study Demolishes Liberal Climate Change Arguments

It doesn't matter what level of school someone has to post data you can't refute. Sixth graders can do research as well as you.
Why question someone else's education when you don't use yours? You look for stories to refute but there aren't many. The vast majority of studies show global warming is occurring. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Then let me refute it. I read a report about 8-10 years ago and posted on eraps...

About half the temperature recording stations at the Antarctic didn't work some of the time, so they "filled in the gaps." The one that did work all the time AND they could get to the data was the station at the end the tarmac. The black tarmac. At the end of the runaway that was cleared.

I was not the one speculating about ice melt in place where the highest recoreded temperature is 10 degrees! Originally Posted by WTF

You are unable to infer my assertion that you were using that data to prove itself.

We only think we know it never got below 10 degrees in the past, because we are using that data to prove it was always below that temperature.

It is circular reasoning!

It doesn't matter what level of school someone has to post data you can't refute. Sixth graders can do research as well as you.
Why question someone else's education when you don't use yours? You look for stories to refute but there aren't many. The vast majority of studies show global warming is occurring. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Any data that do not fit the liberal point of view are dismissed anyway.

Why bother providing links to you? I've got better things to do than educate a hard headed know it all & then argue with you over the credibility of internet links for the next 2-3 weeks.

So, in my opinion:

There are credible reports of data manipulation by global warming hypothesis advocates.

Comparing modern instrumentation to 100 year old devices, without any knowledge of their calibration records, is problematic. Hence, any alleged temperature rise, especially for such small differences and possibly within the repeatability error, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lack of temperature rise over the last 19 years, in spite of the recorded CO2 increase, is a problem.

The measured sun spot correlation with measured temperature oscillation is also problematic for the global warming hypothesis.

Then let me refute it. I read a report about 8-10 years ago and posted on eraps...

About half the temperature recording stations at the Antarctic didn't work some of the time, so they "filled in the gaps." The one that did work all the time AND they could get to the data was the station at the end the tarmac. The black tarmac. At the end of the runaway that was cleared. Originally Posted by gnadfly

That refuted nothing about "core samples" and the science behind it. God Damn some of you fuckers seem not to be able to read or comprehend what was written

Ice Cores

Antarctica has ice that is up to 4700m thick. This ice preserves a record of the conditions at the time it was frozen, of the amounts of gases in the atmosphere and an indication of the temperature. The deeper you drill, the further back in time you go.
Research into ice cores show that current atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane gas levels (both greenhouse gases) are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase of these gases is faster than any likely to have happened in the recent geological past. This 800,000 year record came from a 3km long ice core Originally Posted by WTF

Posted yet again for the really really dense fucks...


Greenhouse gases are higher than anytime in the last 800,000 years! EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS

Then let me refute it. I read a report about 8-10 years ago and posted on eraps...

About half the temperature recording stations at the Antarctic didn't work some of the time, so they "filled in the gaps." The one that did work all the time AND they could get to the data was the station at the end the tarmac. The black tarmac. At the end of the runaway that was cleared. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Refute away....with proof other than info remembered from long ago. Links are nice.
Oh, and please get the name of the place with the tarmac.
I looked for quite some time and couldn't find a single tarmac runway on the entire continent.
I can believe some of the intruemants were not always functioning but to record the temp all you need is a pencil and a thermometer. No moving parts.

Any data that do not fit the liberal point of view are dismissed anyway.

Why bother providing links to you? I've got better things to do than educate a hard headed know it all & then argue with you over the credibility of internet links for the next 2-3 weeks.
I don't know it all.
I look up what I don't know. The only part of my education you have had anything to do with is when you post. I learn the details when I check to see how you are wrong this time.
Like ball bugs in the above post. I didn't think paved runways could handle Antartica. It's not totally confirmed but I couldn't find mention of one. So whoever was writing the tale he remembers wasn't on Antartica. He plays fast and loose with the truth sometimes too.


So, in my opinion:

There are credible reports of data manipulation by global warming hypothesis advocates.

Comparing modern instrumentation to 100 year old devices, without any knowledge of their calibration records, is problematic. Hence, any alleged temperature rise, especially for such small differences and possibly within the repeatability error, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Wrong. It's easily done as well as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A sealed thermometer will read the same temp for any given condition, time after time after time after time....etc.

The lack of temperature rise over the last 19 years, in spite of the recorded CO2 increase, is a problem.

The measured sun spot correlation with measured temperature oscillation is also problematic for the global warming hypothesis. Originally Posted by DSK

Tough to have a scientific discussion using opinion. And sometimes the truth is tedious and can take time. Apparently, that's a reason for you to avoid it.
Since you won't show links (good chance they are bogus. I say that because this shit didn't come off the top off your head and you got it someplace), no point in wasting time punching holes in your opinions...which you won't change anyway.

Just one quick shot I'd love to see you try and get around though.

Mercury. It expands and contracts at a very, very, very well-known rate. Mercury thermometers require no calibration or maintenance other than not breaking them. A known quantity, a known volume, and certification when sealed.
Since the mid-1600s there has been a sealed thermometer and the Fahrenheit scale was adopted in 1724.

Which reminds me, here is something about Obama's energy position.

If I am President, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal — in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela. [Reader Comment 8] To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next ten years and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates five million new American jobs

The red part is true.

Comparing modern instrumentation to 100 year old devices, without any knowledge of their calibration records, is problematic. Hence, any alleged temperature rise, especially for such small differences and possibly within the repeatability error, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lack of temperature rise over the last 19 years, in spite of the recorded CO2 increase, is a problem.

. Originally Posted by DSK

If your nitwit cheap pussy loving ass had bothered to read the middle of the road link I had provided, you would not be repeating such nonsense.

Which reminds me, here is something about Obama's energy position.

If I am President, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal — in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela. [Reader Comment 8] To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next ten years and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates five million new American jobs

The red part is true. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

This is why the Saudis hated Obama. They know their real demise is electric cars and green energy.

Trump and the retards who support him have put oil back front and center. Which is the only thing that hives that region relevance.

We should be at the forefront of green energy just like we were on the Internet. Be a huge payoff longterm.

Refute away....with proof other than info remembered from long ago. Links are nice.
Oh, and please get the name of the place with the tarmac.
I looked for quite some time and couldn't find a single tarmac runway on the entire continent.
I can believe some of the intruemants were not always functioning but to record the temp all you need is a pencil and a thermometer. No moving parts.




Tough to have a scientific discussion using opinion. And sometimes the truth is tedious and can take time. Apparently, that's a reason for you to avoid it.
Since you won't show links (good chance they are bogus. I say that because this shit didn't come off the top off your head and you got it someplace), no point in wasting time punching holes in your opinions...which you won't change anyway.

Just one quick shot I'd love to see you try and get around though.

Mercury. It expands and contracts at a very, very, very well-known rate. Mercury thermometers require no calibration or maintenance other than not breaking them. A known quantity, a known volume, and certification when sealed.
Since the mid-1600s there has been a sealed thermometer and the Fahrenheit scale was adopted in 1724.

Which reminds me, here is something about Obama's energy position.

If I am President, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal — in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela. [Reader Comment 8] To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next ten years and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates five million new American jobs

The red part is true. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Glass is a liquid which flows over time. You need to calibrate the external markings of a mercury thermometer from time to time.

I'm delighted we do not need Middle Eastern oil anymore. I do not give Obama much of the credithe increased US oil production was from fracking. He opposed US oil interests in favor of what are so far unprofitable green schemes.

Now we should remove our armed forces from the area, if not everywhere else. We have missiles and drones if we need to bomb them anymore.

If your nitwit cheap pussy loving ass had bothered to read the middle of the road link I had provided, you would not be repeating such nonsense. Originally Posted by WTF

The only thing your dumb ass comprehends is that if you hire cheap foreign labor you can undercut the prices of loyal American builders who use American workers and treat them fairly.

The only thing your dumb ass comprehends is that if you hire cheap foreign labor you can undercut the prices of loyal American builders who use American workers and treat them fairly. Originally Posted by DSK

That is your scientific response to ice core sampling and you being called out about 'ice melt' in a place whose highest recorded temp is 10 degrees!

Damn, did some Mexican free some of your asian sex slaves? Why you always Mexican hating?

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
UPDATED: 12:46 EDT, 13 April 2017

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 Odumbo and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Read more: (Daily Mail)

/

/ Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IB, both sides present bs to advocate their agendas.

What one can not argue with is core sampling. ...

Now one damn sure can argue if there is in fact anything man can do about rising temperatures.

One can not argue they have not risen on a long term trend. And I'm not talking 15 years.

The real science is in 500 plus year trends.

This is why it is pointless to do anything other than point out your apparent lack of an education.

No. You don't calibrate the markings.

If you think glass, "is a liquid which flows over time", then it really doesn't matter how far you went in school. If you're stuck on this little detail then how can you understand global warming?

Glass is a liquid which flows over time. You need to calibrate the external markings of a mercury thermometer from time to time.

I'm delighted we do not need Middle Eastern oil anymore. I do not give Obama much of the credithe increased US oil production was from fracking. He opposed US oil interests in favor of what are so far unprofitable green schemes.

Now we should remove our armed forces from the area, if not everywhere else. We have missiles and drones if we need to bomb them anymore. Originally Posted by DSK

IB, both sides present bs to advocate their agendas.

What one can not argue with is core sampling. ...

Now one damn sure can argue if there is in fact anything man can do about rising temperatures.

One can not argue they have not risen on a long term trend. And I'm not talking 15 years.

The real science is in 500 plus year trends. Originally Posted by WTF

You are talking about the other ones, right WTF?

Looks like a convenient truth to me!

Ice from the Canadian Arctic has completely melted, leaving puddles of water in its place and scientists devastated.

O.K., this is what actually happened: Ice cores, millennia-old ice samples extracted by scientists from locations across the Canadian Arctic, melted because of a freezer malfunction in a lab at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. The loss of these ice cores could hinder scientific research into how changes in the atmosphere have shaped Earth’s climate history, and how they could affect its future.

On April 2, the temperature of a storage freezer in the Canadian Ice Core Archive rose to about 100 degrees — some part of the cooling system failed, “then tried to get itself back into action and in the process, piped hot air back into the room,” according to Martin Sharp, the director of the archive. The freezer became so hot that it tripped the fire alarm, Dr. Sharp said, and partially or fully melted 180 ice cores collected by government scientists since the mid-1970s from the snowy expanse of the Canadian Arctic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/c...ta-canada.html