| So is record cold clear evidence of global warming22-01-2019 01:34 |
Zloppino☆☆☆☆☆
(17) |
Nyuk nyuk nyuk, time to grow up girls |
| 22-01-2019 19:21 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
This people actually think that this is logical. Making stupid comments instead of scientific study isn't going to change the minds of people who have been propagandized to believe that the sky is falling. |
| 24-01-2019 06:57 |
littleendian★☆☆☆☆
(53) |
That's why the more accurate term is "climate change" rather than "global warming".
I don't understand how airplanes work, so I turn to the airplane engineers. Looks too heavy for me to fly, but I'm wrong, it flies.
I don't understand how the climate works, so I turn to to climate scientists. Looks weird to me that increased cold in some places at some times is a consequence of an atmosphere with more energy, but I'm wrong, that's how it works. |
| 24-01-2019 12:14 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
littleendian wrote:
That's why the more accurate term is "climate change" rather than "global warming".
The phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. It is a buzzword. So is 'global warming'. These two phrases can only be defined by themselves.
littleendian wrote:
I don't understand how airplanes work, so I turn to the airplane engineers. Looks too heavy for me to fly, but I'm wrong, it flies.
Yup. They fly very well. I happen to understand why as well. I fly, fix, and build airplanes.
littleendian wrote:
I don't understand how the climate works, so I turn to to climate scientists.
Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A scientist creates these theories and tests them. There is no theory about 'global warming' or 'climate change'. No theory is possible based on a void argument. You must first define these phrases as something other than themselves.
littleendian wrote:
Looks weird to me that increased cold in some places at some times is a consequence of an atmosphere with more energy, but I'm wrong, that's how it works.
It doesn't Colder air has less thermal energy (assuming the same air pressure).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-01-2019 13:15 |
littleendian★☆☆☆☆
(53) |
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda. |
|
| 24-01-2019 16:38 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
Nightmare is a moron of the first class. You can only define it by itself? This stupid ass doesn't seem to realize that you can only define WEATHER by itself. You can only define the depth of water by itself! The vile ignorance is overwhelming.
But that doesn't mean diddly squat. You admit you know nothing about the science but will resort to choosing your authorities of whom to believe and not believe. NASA is handing out absolute rubbish by using lunatic ground based temperatures that there totally doctored in 1998. And the "corrections" have absolutely NO BEARING whatsoever on reality. Since the majority of weather stations they were using suffered from Urban Heat Island Effect they should have corrected the temperatures downward but instead corrected them upwards. NASA's own weather satellite program has said precisely the opposite of what their present claim is. Instead of the temperature moving upwards it hasn't moved at all in 40 years.
None of the glaciers that have been retreating existed before the Little Ice Age. Under these retreating glaciers are farms that were worked prior to 1650.
The measured temperatures in the 40's and 50's were much warmer than today and that no longer shows on the record. But I was alive at that time and I used to play around San Francisco bay in a short sleeve T-shirt. You can't do that today except on very rare occasions.
The tidal marks on the San Fancisco Bay docks are exactly the same as they were in the 1920's when these piers were built. The king tides still flood the same spots to the same depths. |
| 24-01-2019 19:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
Nightmare is a moron of the first class.
Starting off with your usual insults, eh, Wake?
Wake wrote:
You can only define it by itself?
That is what I said.
Wake wrote:
This stupid ass doesn't seem to realize that you can only define WEATHER by itself. You can only define the depth of water by itself! The vile ignorance is overwhelming.
Yes you can in both cases. 'Weather' is a combination of temperature, cloud cover, humidity, and possible precipitation or lightning in an area. The area is undefined.
The depth of water is the measured distance (in whatever units you wish to use) from the average surface of water to the land mass below.
Neither is a circular definition, Wake.
Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean diddly squat.
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
You admit you know nothing about the science but will resort to choosing your authorities of whom to believe and not believe. Everyone does, Wake. Even me. My authority stems from existing theories of science and the rules of mathematics.
Wake wrote:
NASA is handing out absolute rubbish by using lunatic ground based temperatures that there totally doctored in 1998. They are completely fake. They are not doctored. They are MANUFACTURED.
Wake wrote:
And the "corrections" have absolutely NO BEARING whatsoever on reality. Correcting data for use in statistical summaries is not allowed, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Since the majority of weather stations they were using suffered from Urban Heat Island Effect they should have corrected the temperatures downward but instead corrected them upwards.
You don't correct anything for 'urban heat island' effect. You use the raw data. However, you do confirm the point I made earlier about location grouping causing bias in the result, and therefore must be eliminated by spreading thermometers uniformly across the surface of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
NASA's own weather satellite program has said precisely the opposite of what their present claim is.
Satellites do not measure absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light. Weather satellites do not measure absolute temperature. Indeed, weather satellites do not measure even relative temperature.
Wake wrote:
Instead of the temperature moving upwards it hasn't moved at all in 40 years. There is no data. It is manufactured, just like every other temperature record of the Earth that NASA has.
Wake wrote:
None of the glaciers that have been retreating existed before the Little Ice Age.
How do you know? Were you there?
Wake wrote:
Under these retreating glaciers are farms that were worked prior to 1650. One or two did have farms under the tail edge of them. Many glaciers are high in the mountains and the land under them were never farmed.
Wake wrote:
The measured temperatures in the 40's and 50's were much warmer than today
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and that no longer shows on the record. There is no record. There never was.
Wake wrote:
But I was alive at that time and I used to play around San Francisco bay in a short sleeve T-shirt. You can't do that today except on very rare occasions.
Really? Perhaps you had better watch the kids around the Bay Area, Wake. They play around the bay in T-shirts, just like you used to. Did you know you can't retain body heat as well when you get older, Wake?
Wake wrote:
The tidal marks on the San Fancisco Bay docks are exactly the same as they were in the 1920's when these piers were built. The same is true in Seattle.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-01-2019 20:45 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
littleendian wrote:
That's why the more accurate term is "climate change" rather than "global warming".
I don't understand how airplanes work, so I turn to the airplane engineers. Looks too heavy for me to fly, but I'm wrong, it flies.
I don't understand how the climate works, so I turn to to climate scientists. Looks weird to me that increased cold in some places at some times is a consequence of an atmosphere with more energy, but I'm wrong, that's how it works.
Would you mind telling us why we should worry about the natural rewarming of the Earth after the Little Ice Age? |
| 25-01-2019 20:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
During the mid-1800's the globe was so cold that they held Ice Fairs on a frozen over Thames River. Is this the climate that you believe has to be protected?
Make all the ad hominins you like if it will get you addressing the real issues rather than quoting who you believe to be "experts" and ignoring the vast majority of scientists that strongly disagree and can even show proof of the falsehoods that NASA and people like Mr. Michael Mann have handed out. |
| 26-01-2019 00:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
During the mid-1800's the globe was so cold that they held Ice Fairs on a frozen over Thames River. Is this the climate that you believe has to be protected?
Make all the ad hominins you like if it will get you addressing the real issues rather than quoting who you believe to be "experts" and ignoring the vast majority of scientists that strongly disagree and can even show proof of the falsehoods that NASA and people like Mr. Michael Mann have handed out.
He really hasn't made any insults, Wake. He's actually been intelligently discussing his view of the debate. YOU, on the other hand, insult people all the time.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 26-01-2019 00:08 |
| 26-01-2019 17:39 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
During the mid-1800's the globe was so cold that they held Ice Fairs on a frozen over Thames River. Is this the climate that you believe has to be protected?
Make all the ad hominins you like if it will get you addressing the real issues rather than quoting who you believe to be "experts" and ignoring the vast majority of scientists that strongly disagree and can even show proof of the falsehoods that NASA and people like Mr. Michael Mann have handed out.
He really hasn't made any insults, Wake. He's actually been intelligently discussing his view of the debate. YOU, on the other hand, insult people all the time.
Showing us again that you're a moron? Apparently you now are unable to understand English and what "littleendian" meant. But it is no surprise that you think that I was insulting him rather than inviting him to insult anyone as long as he is willing to hold a real conversation rather than your sort where all you have on your side is a level of ignorance that is rather unbelieveable. |
| 26-01-2019 20:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
During the mid-1800's the globe was so cold that they held Ice Fairs on a frozen over Thames River. Is this the climate that you believe has to be protected?
Make all the ad hominins you like if it will get you addressing the real issues rather than quoting who you believe to be "experts" and ignoring the vast majority of scientists that strongly disagree and can even show proof of the falsehoods that NASA and people like Mr. Michael Mann have handed out.
He really hasn't made any insults, Wake. He's actually been intelligently discussing his view of the debate. YOU, on the other hand, insult people all the time.
Showing us again that you're a moron?
Insulting people is not an argument, Wake.
jørgen petersen wrote:
Apparently you now are unable to understand English and what "littleendian" meant. I understand completely what he means.
jørgen petersen wrote:
But it is no surprise that you think that I was insulting him
You didn't. You accused him of insulting you. Pay attention, Wake.
jørgen petersen wrote:
as long as he is willing to hold a real conversation rather than your sort where all you have on your side is a level of ignorance that is rather unbelieveable.
Paradox. Which is it, dude?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 27-01-2019 01:23 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
During the mid-1800's the globe was so cold that they held Ice Fairs on a frozen over Thames River. Is this the climate that you believe has to be protected?
Make all the ad hominins you like if it will get you addressing the real issues rather than quoting who you believe to be "experts" and ignoring the vast majority of scientists that strongly disagree and can even show proof of the falsehoods that NASA and people like Mr. Michael Mann have handed out.
He really hasn't made any insults, Wake. He's actually been intelligently discussing his view of the debate. YOU, on the other hand, insult people all the time.
Showing us again that you're a moron?
Insulting people is not an argument, Wake.
jørgen petersen wrote:
Apparently you now are unable to understand English and what "littleendian" meant. I understand completely what he means.
jørgen petersen wrote:
But it is no surprise that you think that I was insulting him
You didn't. You accused him of insulting you. Pay attention, Wake.
jørgen petersen wrote:
as long as he is willing to hold a real conversation rather than your sort where all you have on your side is a level of ignorance that is rather unbelieveable.
Paradox. Which is it, dude?
I'm still waiting for you to explain what I could see by looking at a map of Oakland. Apparently you think that east Oakland doesn't exist. |
| 27-01-2019 19:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Now, I got to tread careful here lest you accuse me of ad-hominem next.
If I have the choice between all those various scientists with respected credentials telling us the threat is real and an airplane mechanic like yourself, I will trust the bigger group with the more relevant credentials.
It might be that you're a modern day Galilei and soon you will be awarded a Nobel Price for realizing that all those experts are wrong. Each one of them has the incentive to disprove climate change and receive a Nobel Price for it. Hasn't happened. But you know what? It seems much more likely to me that you simply don't like the idea that maybe we need to change fundamental things about how our societies work and how we live. I could relate to that, I detest attempts from the left to use this thing for their political agenda.
During the mid-1800's the globe was so cold that they held Ice Fairs on a frozen over Thames River. Is this the climate that you believe has to be protected?
Make all the ad hominins you like if it will get you addressing the real issues rather than quoting who you believe to be "experts" and ignoring the vast majority of scientists that strongly disagree and can even show proof of the falsehoods that NASA and people like Mr. Michael Mann have handed out.
He really hasn't made any insults, Wake. He's actually been intelligently discussing his view of the debate. YOU, on the other hand, insult people all the time.
Showing us again that you're a moron?
Insulting people is not an argument, Wake.
jørgen petersen wrote:
Apparently you now are unable to understand English and what "littleendian" meant. I understand completely what he means.
jørgen petersen wrote:
But it is no surprise that you think that I was insulting him
You didn't. You accused him of insulting you. Pay attention, Wake.
jørgen petersen wrote:
as long as he is willing to hold a real conversation rather than your sort where all you have on your side is a level of ignorance that is rather unbelieveable.
Paradox. Which is it, dude?
I'm still waiting for you to explain what I could see by looking at a map of Oakland. Apparently you think that east Oakland doesn't exist.
No, YOU said THAT, Wake.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 27-01-2019 20:11 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
littleendian wrote:
That's why the more accurate term is "climate change" rather than "global warming".
I don't understand how airplanes work, so I turn to the airplane engineers. Looks too heavy for me to fly, but I'm wrong, it flies.
I don't understand how the climate works, so I turn to to climate scientists. Looks weird to me that increased cold in some places at some times is a consequence of an atmosphere with more energy, but I'm wrong, that's how it works.
Again you become political. The term became "Climate Change" when 1. The coming Ice Age failed to appear and hence, 2. they then changed it to be global warming which has also failed to appear but you couldn't tell that from the twenty million postings of people like you who have no real knowledge of the climate and get your information from real propaganda sheets.
There was no 97% at any time. Cook wrote that totally false paper as a postgrad term paper. It was from the "study" of 12,000 papers from which he counted only FORTY as pertinent because they reached a strong conclusion one way or the other. So of 12,000 papers his 97% was 37 papers. And even the authors of those papers said that he misrepresented their papers.
There is no reason for me to again show the charts of the supposed NASA plot in Wikipedia's "Global Warming" and the actual NASA satellite measurements from Dr. Roy Spencer's site under "latest global temperature".
In short "Climate Change" was a fall-back position from complete and total failure to show any significant mean glocal temperature changes. |