Remember me
▼ Content

There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made



Page 1 of 3123>
There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made02-07-2019 05:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Here is southern Ontario this summer has been cooler than in the past, there hasn't been a single day temperature has reached 30 C, so I don't believe there is global warming, either natural or man made.
Edited on 02-07-2019 05:36
02-07-2019 06:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Here is southern Ontario this summer has been cooler than in the past, there hasn't been a single day temperature has reached 30 C, so I don't believe there is global warming, either natural or man made.

It's been a long wet spring here in Seattle too. We are finally getting regular nice days.

Unfortunately, California also had a cool wet spring, causing greater growth of the grasses so common there. Wildfire will be a big problem this year since they no longer cut it back or maintain it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-07-2019 06:24
02-07-2019 10:41
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
I think California deliberately allows those conditions any more. They know what causes a lot of the problems they have every year, but do nothing to reduce the potential damage. They want to spend lots of money showing how great socialism is for their state, which costs lots of money. They've already reach a point where people are getting taxed to the max, so need other sources of revenue. They take advantage of the federal disaster relief funds, best they can. They are pretty much free to use that money as they see fit. Insurance covers most of the personal property losses. Basically, the only money they have to spend on the natural event (usually helped), is cleaning up some of the mess. The get get a bonus, if they can blame it on a company, like PG&E, and get them to pay up too. PG&E doesn't care too much, since they aren't going to be put out of business, us it for an excuse to raise rates, get some subsidies to keep the electricity flowing for the millions of customers. It's tough enough keeping up with demand, and there are plenty enough failures to meet those demands during heat waves, or extreme cold winters.

Trump ought to send the border detainees to California, so they can earn their keep, while the democrats figure out how to sneak them past the immigration laws. It would be a money saver for everyone, and maybe help reduce the influx of fresh forestry workers at the borders, since I think the lure of free living would be as attractive, as potential actually having to do physical labor to earn it. Wouldn't be surprised a good portion of the detainees would choose deportation over employment either. It's really the promise of free stuff that makes coming to America so attractive.
02-07-2019 19:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think California deliberately allows those conditions any more. They know what causes a lot of the problems they have every year, but do nothing to reduce the potential damage. They want to spend lots of money showing how great socialism is for their state, which costs lots of money. They've already reach a point where people are getting taxed to the max, so need other sources of revenue. They take advantage of the federal disaster relief funds, best they can. They are pretty much free to use that money as they see fit. Insurance covers most of the personal property losses. Basically, the only money they have to spend on the natural event (usually helped), is cleaning up some of the mess. The get get a bonus, if they can blame it on a company, like PG&E, and get them to pay up too. PG&E doesn't care too much, since they aren't going to be put out of business, us it for an excuse to raise rates, get some subsidies to keep the electricity flowing for the millions of customers. It's tough enough keeping up with demand, and there are plenty enough failures to meet those demands during heat waves, or extreme cold winters.

Trump ought to send the border detainees to California, so they can earn their keep, while the democrats figure out how to sneak them past the immigration laws. It would be a money saver for everyone, and maybe help reduce the influx of fresh forestry workers at the borders, since I think the lure of free living would be as attractive, as potential actually having to do physical labor to earn it. Wouldn't be surprised a good portion of the detainees would choose deportation over employment either. It's really the promise of free stuff that makes coming to America so attractive.


I think Trump should build a Wall around California.


The Parrot Killer
03-07-2019 04:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think California deliberately allows those conditions any more. They know what causes a lot of the problems they have every year, but do nothing to reduce the potential damage. They want to spend lots of money showing how great socialism is for their state, which costs lots of money. They've already reach a point where people are getting taxed to the max, so need other sources of revenue. They take advantage of the federal disaster relief funds, best they can. They are pretty much free to use that money as they see fit. Insurance covers most of the personal property losses. Basically, the only money they have to spend on the natural event (usually helped), is cleaning up some of the mess. The get get a bonus, if they can blame it on a company, like PG&E, and get them to pay up too. PG&E doesn't care too much, since they aren't going to be put out of business, us it for an excuse to raise rates, get some subsidies to keep the electricity flowing for the millions of customers. It's tough enough keeping up with demand, and there are plenty enough failures to meet those demands during heat waves, or extreme cold winters.

Trump ought to send the border detainees to California, so they can earn their keep, while the democrats figure out how to sneak them past the immigration laws. It would be a money saver for everyone, and maybe help reduce the influx of fresh forestry workers at the borders, since I think the lure of free living would be as attractive, as potential actually having to do physical labor to earn it. Wouldn't be surprised a good portion of the detainees would choose deportation over employment either. It's really the promise of free stuff that makes coming to America so attractive.


I think Trump should build a Wall around California.

Yes!! 30ft high. Lock them IN! Cut off all federal funding...everything. Hell I don't care if there's 49 states. They have resources and ports. No reason they can't survive on their own with a little fiscal responsibility and common sense. As of now they are the infection that will spread and eventually kill us. Yes! "Build a wall and California will pay for it".


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
06-07-2019 03:47
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think California deliberately allows those conditions any more. They know what causes a lot of the problems they have every year, but do nothing to reduce the potential damage. They want to spend lots of money showing how great socialism is for their state, which costs lots of money.



The Dutch look at things differently. Americans only really care about their own households. Americans however are good when it comes to responding to natural disasters.
They were discussing their dykes and how they benefit the average Dane. It prevents flooding such as the Mississippi River has been experiencing. Something Americans wouldn't care for because preventing or lessening the effects of natural disaster requires tax money to be spent.
With a natural disaster, Americans can feel good about how their tax money is being spent. They are aware of the damage or threat that exists as a result of a natural event. Tangible results.
Edited on 06-07-2019 03:49
06-07-2019 04:27
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
Are your Dutch socialists, like you? Unfortunately, we Americans have been fighting a war within our own borders for a long time, the enemy is socialism. Charity is a great thing, but it's an individual thing, not something the government should be deciding for us. Helping out is temporary, short term assistance, not a lifestyle choice. Socialism is the expectation, that somebody else pays for everything, fixes all the problem, no responsibilities, other than sit around a complain, when nothing gets done.
06-07-2019 04:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
James___ wrote:The Dutch look at things differently.

Would that be because they are typically smoking pot?

James___ wrote: Americans only really care about their own households.

You are back to speaking for all Americans I see. You should go for the bonus irony points and assert that all Americans make stupid generalizations.

James___ wrote: Americans however are good when it comes to responding to natural disasters.

You mean to say that Americans as a group are the most charitable of all groups, whether in response to natural disasters, terrorist events, ... you name it.

James___ wrote:Something Americans wouldn't care for because preventing or lessening the effects of natural disaster requires tax money to be spent.

Typical Marxist misrepresentation. You probably still wonder why you are never correct.

James___ wrote: With a natural disaster, Americans can feel good about how their tax money is being spent.

Typical Marxist misunderstanding of charity. You are probably still trying to blame everyone else for your cognitive shortcomings.

James___ wrote: They are aware of the damage or threat that exists as a result of a natural event. Tangible results.

Yes. Americans aren't the only ones who like to see tangible results. Pretty much everyone does, ... and all businesses do as well. Marxists on the other hand, and Climate Conferences, and Democrat voters apparently do NOT want results or solutions. They apparently just want to hate, to make everyone poor and miserable, and to destroy as many lives as possible.

Would you care to guess why Trump has already been reelected?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-07-2019 05:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Are your Dutch socialists, like you? Unfortunately, we Americans have been fighting a war within our own borders for a long time, the enemy is socialism. Charity is a great thing, but it's an individual thing, not something the government should be deciding for us. Helping out is temporary, short term assistance, not a lifestyle choice. Socialism is the expectation, that somebody else pays for everything, fixes all the problem, no responsibilities, other than sit around a complain, when nothing gets done.



You need to learn more. If you're patriotic then shouldn't you care about America and Americans instead of just caring about yourself?
You don't care that we easily have the most expensive health care in the world. Yet the quality of care lags behind too many countries.
You find that acceptable because paying top dollar for average health care is acceptable to you because it's not socialism.
BTW, people say they don't discriminate against me because of my service connected hearing loss. They call it exploitation and tell me that is what capitalism is about. If you can't exploit someone, then screw them over.
Edited on 06-07-2019 05:12
06-07-2019 05:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
James___ wrote: You need to learn more.

You like to lead with this kind of quip. The dumbass in the equation is on your end.

James___ wrote: If you're patriotic then shouldn't you care about America and Americans instead of just caring about yourself?

Patriotic Americans accept responsibility for themselves and don't try to make others responsible for taking care of them. This means that other Americans appreciate him taking care of himself so that we can concentrate on accepting responsibility for taking care of ourselves and our families.

James___ wrote: You don't care that we easily have the most expensive health care in the world.

He cares enough to prevent you from having to pay for his healthcare as well as your own. I think you owe him a bit of thanks.

James___ wrote: Yet the quality of care lags behind too many countries.

No country has better quality of care than the US. Apparently you allowed someone to ream some medical misinformation into you.

James___ wrote: BTW, people say they don't discriminate against me because of my service connected hearing loss. They call it exploitation and tell me that is what capitalism is about.

Typical Marxist flailing to blame everyone else for his abject confusion in life.

James___ wrote: If you can't exploit someone, then screw them over.

The Democrat motto. You can hear it if you press your ear to the Communist Manifesto and listen carefully.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-07-2019 19:16
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Are your Dutch socialists, like you? Unfortunately, we Americans have been fighting a war within our own borders for a long time, the enemy is socialism. Charity is a great thing, but it's an individual thing, not something the government should be deciding for us. Helping out is temporary, short term assistance, not a lifestyle choice. Socialism is the expectation, that somebody else pays for everything, fixes all the problem, no responsibilities, other than sit around a complain, when nothing gets done.



You need to learn more. If you're patriotic then shouldn't you care about America and Americans instead of just caring about yourself?
You don't care that we easily have the most expensive health care in the world. Yet the quality of care lags behind too many countries.
You find that acceptable because paying top dollar for average health care is acceptable to you because it's not socialism.
BTW, people say they don't discriminate against me because of my service connected hearing loss. They call it exploitation and tell me that is what capitalism is about. If you can't exploit someone, then screw them over.


If everyone made an effort to take of their own, we would need so much government, which is also likely one of the most expensive in the world. My surgery last summer cost me about $3,700, not too bad, and I still got 2/3 my wages while was out on short-term disability. I survived my surgery, and I'm not feeling or functioning any different, so no complaints. Now, the actual cost... Well, I've paid for insurance through work, for over 27 years. I probably could go through, add up what I paid in, and see if I actually saved money. Insurance paid a little over $78,000, probably paid in quite a bit of that. Quality of my care... Well, many complaints, but the important part is that I survived the ordeal, intact, well minus an appendix.

Fortunately, I don't have worldwide medical issues, so can't compare the care I've received, with other countries. I did break a toe yesterday, purple and swollen, not much pain, unless I bump it something. Didn't go to a doctor, learn as a kid, there isn't much they can do, tape it to the toe next to it, maybe. Hurts some for a couple weeks, a month or so, of being careful not to re-injure it, and it will be fine. Sometimes the heal a little crooked, but who notices, shoes cover it. And I need to learn... Never stop learning, never forget what I learn. Big difference between you and me. You seem to be all talk, a bullshit artist, and expect everything to be done for you, and complain when you can't get what you want. I learn what I need to know, and do what I can, with what is available to me. I don't expect anyone to do anything, that I can't do myself.

You talk about a climate project, that you think will make you famous, but so far, you only seem to have an idea. You can't get anyone to pay for it, you don't seem to know the details, someone else needs to work those out for you, and you blame your disability for not being able to do any of the work yourself. I don't live like that, and don't really understand why someone would choose to be that way. I really enjoy doing my own work, and getting something done, at a small fraction it would have cost to hire someone to do it for me. It's not just that I'm poor and cheap, I link feeling of accomplishment. It confirms that I'm just as good, and capable as anyone else. I don't feel a need to tear down other people, to prove I'm equal or better. Don't really feel a need to prove myself at all, I know what I can do.
27-07-2019 10:55
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Here is southern Ontario this summer has been cooler than in the past, there hasn't been a single day temperature has reached 30 C, so I don't believe there is global warming, either natural or man made.


LOL. So because the weather in your own back yard hasn't changed, everything is OK. Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem, and take Ontario as the best example. Thanks for you input, you have totally changed my mind.
27-07-2019 13:31
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem,


Mrs Wiggles, the deniers on this board are too scared to even bring on the >1% of scientist who express any doubts about the conventional opinion on global warming being a real phenomenon. Because there is 0% that will actually back up what they are saying which is truly wacky stuff.


27-07-2019 13:54
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
tmiddles wrote:
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem,


Mrs Wiggles, the deniers on this board are too scared to even bring on the >1% of scientist who express any doubts about the conventional opinion on global warming being a real phenomenon. Because there is 0% that will actually back up what they are saying which is truly wacky stuff.


I very much respect the opinions of others, but like you say making sweeping statements without any proper fact is a bit daft. According to the person who started the thread, all is well in the world as long Ontario is OK, how very strange


Don't argue, I'm always right
27-07-2019 13:56
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Sorry, just wanted to tick the box that stops me getting emails when a reply is made.
27-07-2019 14:32
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:According to the person who started the thread, all is well in the world as long Ontario is OK, how very strange


Yeah it's very very off.

It's important to know what is being debated here. It's a small change in temperature that could happen far too quickly and have a lot of very real consequences.

None of which related to your plans for a picnic this month or your sense of the weather lately.


27-07-2019 17:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
tmiddles wrote:
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem,


Mrs Wiggles, the deniers on this board are too scared to even bring on the >1% of scientist who express any doubts about the conventional opinion on global warming being a real phenomenon. Because there is 0% that will actually back up what they are saying which is truly wacky stuff.


Wow. This from the chicken shit that is so scared to discuss science that he has an ignore list for the 2 guys that have dealt him more science in 2 weeks than he ever got in school. Unbelievable hypocrite.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
27-07-2019 22:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Here is southern Ontario this summer has been cooler than in the past, there hasn't been a single day temperature has reached 30 C, so I don't believe there is global warming, either natural or man made.


LOL. So because the weather in your own back yard hasn't changed, everything is OK. Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem, and take Ontario as the best example. Thanks for you input, you have totally changed my mind.


Argument from randU fallacy. Science isn't scientists either. Science doesn't use consensus, even if your number DID have some validity.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem,


Mrs Wiggles, the deniers on this board are too scared to even bring on the >1% of scientist who express any doubts about the conventional opinion on global warming being a real phenomenon. Because there is 0% that will actually back up what they are saying which is truly wacky stuff.


Argument from randU fallacy.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.

What scientist disagrees with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Only climate 'scientists' do. They deny science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
[/quote]
tmiddles wrote:
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Let's just forget the 99% of scientists who say we have a big problem,


Mrs Wiggles, the deniers on this board are too scared to even bring on the >1% of scientist who express any doubts about the conventional opinion on global warming being a real phenomenon. Because there is 0% that will actually back up what they are saying which is truly wacky stuff.


I very much respect the opinions of others, but like you say making sweeping statements without any proper fact is a bit daft. According to the person who started the thread, all is well in the world as long Ontario is OK, how very strange
[/quote]

Paradox. You say you respect the opinions of others, and then you don't.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Sorry, just wanted to tick the box that stops me getting emails when a reply is made.


I've talked with Branner about this, unfortunately, there is no global box this purpose. You have to do it for each thread.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
Mrs Wiggles wrote:According to the person who started the thread, all is well in the world as long Ontario is OK, how very strange


Yeah it's very very off.

It's important to know what is being debated here. It's a small change in temperature that could happen far too quickly and have a lot of very real consequences.

None of which related to your plans for a picnic this month or your sense of the weather lately.


So seasonal changes from winter to summer have already killed is all off, eh?


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:I very much respect the opinions of others,

Do you?

Do you respect opinions that disagree with yours or do you only respect the opinions of others if they agree with yours. tmiddles will converse with you because he apparently agrees with you. I responded to a couple of his posts with science and he promptly began ignoring me.

Do you accept science? Always? ... or do you only accept science when it appears to support your beliefs?

Do you generally favor sound economics or do you have mostly contempt for the global economy?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 10:38
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
GasGuzzler wrote:scared to discuss science


Come on GasGuzzler make a real argument. There aren't any scientists on this board that's painfully clear. Find someone, ANYONE, in the whole wide world, with anything resembling a scientific credential of any kind, that will back up wackado claims like we don't know the temperature of our own planet, or that Venus is hotter than Mercury, or that CO2 behaves no differently than O2 when exposed to infrared radiation, or the long long list of insane shit that has been spouted on this board by TROLLS.

ANYONE

I dare you.

If you're not a scientist and want to deny the current "Global Warming" craze it's a little scary I get that, but choosing to make shit up isn't the only option.


28-07-2019 16:27
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:scared to discuss science


Come on GasGuzzler make a real argument. There aren't any scientists on this board that's painfully clear. Find someone, ANYONE, in the whole wide world, with anything resembling a scientific credential of any kind, that will back up wackado claims like we don't know the temperature of our own planet, or that Venus is hotter than Mercury, or that CO2 behaves no differently than O2 when exposed to infrared radiation, or the long long list of insane shit that has been spouted on this board by TROLLS.

ANYONE

I dare you.

If you're not a scientist and want to deny the current "Global Warming" craze it's a little scary I get that, but choosing to make shit up isn't the only option.


Even people with a lot of schooling, long list of credentials, make mistakes, sometimes commit fraud. A piece of paper does mean they stop being human. A piece of paper, doesn't prevent others to learn and study the same things independently either. The internet is unanimous, for the most part, people can make any sort of claim they want, very difficult to prove otherwise.

We have a rough estimate of global temperature, I don't dispute that. It's the accuracy and precision of that estimate, the way it's misrepresented, misused. Huge margin of error, but Climatology, works in hundredth of degrees. They stay within the margin of error, to stay valid, but they have a huge range to play in, which they seldom mention, or provide that information.

A isolated gas, in lab container, isn't going to behave exactly the same out in the atmosphere. CO2 doesn't make up a large significant portion of the total atmosphere. A lot of other things going on, that can't be simulated in a lab. Computer simulation is flawed, nothing physical to compare the results with. A very small sample isn't a reasonable representation for the entire planet, when everything is in constant motion. In this case, lab results and real world, are two very different things.

Mercury, Venus, don't know a whole lot, never much interest. They are to different planets, the difference extend well beyond just the atmosphere. The share nothing else, except being planets in our solar system. They aren't the same size, shape, share the same orbit, or even spin at the same rate. You can't just focus one one detail, and ignore everything else, that isn't convenient.
28-07-2019 16:43
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
tmiddles wrote:Come on GasGuzzler make a real argument.

So far YOUR only argument is "a scientist told me so". You have explained no science.

tmiddles wrote:There aren't any scientists on this board that's painfully clear. Find someone, ANYONE, in the whole wide world, with anything resembling a scientific credential of any kind,

Back to credentials again eh? They are meaningless, especially on an anonymous forum. All we can have here are your explanations of the theories/laws of science and their applications to the subject being debated, or in your case discussed.

tmiddles wrote:that will back up wackado claims like we don't know the temperature of our own planet

Not a wacko claim. If all the ''official'' thermometers were spaced evenly around the world, they would be a distance apart something close to the distance from Seattle to Orlando...and they would all need to be read at the same time every day.
THAT would be a wacko claim to say we know the Earth's temp from that.

Also note that we are to believe that they are using these reading to discern a .1 temp increase per decade. There is no way these readings are accurate to .1 even on an hourly basis.

...And what are we attempting to measure? Just the surface temp? Why is that so important? What about the 10 meter temp? the 100 meter temp? the 10,000 meter temp? 20,000 meter temp? Are those altitudes' temperatures not important? They are certainly part of the atmosphere, and they greatly affect conditions at the surface.

How many thermometers would it take to accurately average the temperature in your home? Within what margin of error?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-07-2019 17:35
28-07-2019 17:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
tmiddles wrote:Come on GasGuzzler make a real argument.

The "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

You only classify arguments with which you agree as "real" arguments ... even when you have to deny science, or in this case, deny math.

tmiddles, find a peer-reviewed document on the internet, by someone with a "real credential" that agrees that 7,242 + 2,631 = 9,873. Go on.

tmiddles wrote:There aren't any scientists on this board that's painfully clear.

The "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

You only classify people with whom you agree as "scientists" ... and you hope they don't bring up science, or in this case, math. You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent and will have to drop out of the conversation because you can't participate and you will look like a dumbass.

tmiddles wrote: Find someone, ANYONE, in the whole wide world, with anything resembling a scientific credential of any kind, that will back up wackado claims like we don't know the temperature of our own planet,

I found them. Lots of them ... at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). They have lots of credentials amongst them and they have all the information about the earth.

tmiddles wrote: ... on this board by TROLLS.

What is a TROLL? A scientist or mathematician or economist with whom you disagree.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 21:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:scared to discuss science


Come on GasGuzzler make a real argument.

He IS making valid arguments. True Scotsman fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
There aren't any scientists on this board that's painfully clear.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Find someone, ANYONE, in the whole wide world, with anything resembling a scientific credential of any kind, that will back up wackado claims like we don't know the temperature of our own planet,

Not a science question. A mathematical one. You deny mathematics as well.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
* You don't have enough thermometers.
* They aren't being read at the same time by the same authority.
* They aren't uniformly spaced.
* A simple average is NOT statistical math. A simple average by itself is meaningless.

Raw data MUST be available. Variance MUST be declared and justified. Raw data MUST not be biased. Selection MUST be by randN. Cooked data is useless. You MUST use raw data only. Margin of error MUST be calculate and published along with the rest of the summary.

You cannot just declare the results of a summary you have never performed. You can't just make up numbers.


It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.
* raw data MUST be available. You cannot use cooked data.
* the variance MUST be declared and justified.
* The margin of error MUST be calculated and published along with the rest of the summary.

CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. A couple dozen stations scattered in or near cities or volcanoes is NOT a good source of data. It is biased. Worse, some of it is cooked.
tmiddles wrote:
or that Venus is hotter than Mercury,

The temperature of neither planet is known. It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet.
tmiddles wrote:
or that CO2 behaves no differently than O2 when exposed to infrared radiation,

It does, of course. Absorption of surface infrared does not warm the Earth or any other planet.
tmiddles wrote:
or the long long list of insane shit that has been spouted on this board by TROLLS.

YALIF. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
ANYONE

You want someone to show you are wrong?
Okay. John Tydall. Josef Stefan. Adolfo Bartoli. Ludwig Boltzmann. Nicolas Carnot. Rudolf Clausius. Max Planck. James Prescott Joule. Leo Slizard. James Maxwell. William Rankine. Max Born. Hermann Heimholtz.

That enough for you?
tmiddles wrote:
I dare you.

I'll take the dare. Done.
tmiddles wrote:
If you're not a scientist and want to deny the current "Global Warming" craze it's a little scary I get that, but choosing to make shit up isn't the only option.

It is YOU that is making up shit.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. What, actually, ARE they? The ONLY one to come up with any definition at all is IBdaMann, who uses a mythical definition.

Your entire religion of the Church of Global Warming is based on these phrases. Define them!

Do not link to anyone. Define them yourself!

Use of an undefined word or phrase in an argument is a void argument fallacy. Define 'global warming' and 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 21:29
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
We have a rough estimate of global temperature, I don't dispute that. It's the accuracy and precision of that estimate, the way it's misrepresented, misused. ...... You can't just focus one one detail, and ignore everything else, that isn't convenient.


OK !!!! Now that is rational and fair. Yes there is a margin of error.

I think we can agree that there are those trained and competent in the discipline of measuring and evaluating these things with real research. None of whom are here today.

I think it's also true that the "anti-global warming" side includes some very smart and wealthy parties.

So there is no reason contrary evidence can't be presented.

I put Hoffman up and it was ignored.

We aren't talking about UFOs or Bigfoot. This is very reliable data available for our purposes.


28-07-2019 21:37
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
GasGuzzler wrote:
How many thermometers would it take to accurately average the temperature in your home? Within what margin of error?


So again it's doubting the human ability to know things based on research.

Faulty studies can be exposed. But with better studies.

I'm not saying you can only have an opinion if an expert backs it up in all cases. But in this case why wouldn't there be an expert who's real work we could look at?

It's just cheating not to present the work you do find credible, a sneaky way of not having to deal with it being critiqued


28-07-2019 22:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We have a rough estimate of global temperature, I don't dispute that. It's the accuracy and precision of that estimate, the way it's misrepresented, misused. ...... You can't just focus one one detail, and ignore everything else, that isn't convenient.


OK !!!! Now that is rational and fair. Yes there is a margin of error.

Okay. What is it? Please show all your work.
tmiddles wrote:
I think we can agree that there are those trained and competent in the discipline of measuring and evaluating these things with real research. None of whom are here today.

Research is not mathematics. You are denying mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
I think it's also true that the "anti-global warming" side includes some very smart and wealthy parties.

Thank you.
tmiddles wrote:
So there is no reason contrary evidence can't be presented.

It has been presented. You ignored it. Indeed, you are bulveristic about it.
tmiddles wrote:
I put Hoffman up and it was ignored.

Hoffman who?
tmiddles wrote:
We aren't talking about UFOs or Bigfoot.

Correct. You are talking about 'global warming' and 'climate change', neither of which you have even defined.

At least Bigfoot is defined. So are UFO's.

tmiddles wrote:
This is very reliable data available for our purposes.

Where? What data?


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
How many thermometers would it take to accurately average the temperature in your home? Within what margin of error?


So again it's doubting the human ability to know things based on research.

Research isn't mathematics. It does not change what mathematics is.
tmiddles wrote:
Faulty studies can be exposed. But with better studies.

They've been exposed.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not saying you can only have an opinion if an expert backs it up in all cases. But in this case why wouldn't there be an expert who's real work we could look at?

Mathematics is not an 'expert'. It is mathematics. You are simply denying it.
tmiddles wrote:
It's just cheating not to present the work you do find credible, a sneaky way of not having to deal with it being critiqued

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. He does not need to prove a negative. YOU have to show your data, your math, your science. He has to do NOTHING.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 22:41
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We have a rough estimate of global temperature, I don't dispute that. It's the accuracy and precision of that estimate, the way it's misrepresented, misused. ...... You can't just focus one one detail, and ignore everything else, that isn't convenient.


OK !!!! Now that is rational and fair. Yes there is a margin of error.

I think we can agree that there are those trained and competent in the discipline of measuring and evaluating these things with real research. None of whom are here today.

I think it's also true that the "anti-global warming" side includes some very smart and wealthy parties.

So there is no reason contrary evidence can't be presented.

I put Hoffman up and it was ignored.

We aren't talking about UFOs or Bigfoot. This is very reliable data available for our purposes.


You still aren't getting the point. We can get a rough estimate of global temperature, and good enough for some purposes. It's not okay to math-magically transform that data, to claim a one degree rise in global temperate, stretch over a 300 year period. Let say the margin of error is +/-3 degrees, how is a few hundreds of one degree going to look on that Hockey-stick graph? Pretty meaningless, for the purpose it's being used. It goes the same way for all the historic data being used to sell this product. The proxies and analogs, are guesses, not really measured in any meaningful way, as their are being used. Most everything being used, can be off by several full units, but climate change is looking a small fractional parts of a unit. It's something that doesn't actually exist, but they think making-do, with what's available, is close enough.

I don't know the actual specs on the temperature monitoring stations, but suspect few read to the one-hundredth of a degree. But then again, it's bought with taxpayer money, and we deserve the best available...
29-07-2019 02:38
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
. It's not okay to math-magically transform ... error is +/-3 degrees, how is a few hundreds of one degree..


So why not? Are you a professional in this field?

Why would you not look at what experts say?
I know why many on this board won't: because they'd have to deal with a real debate

So here's an example:
Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford

He is qualified in the area with the skills needed


Article mentioning him
temp measurements innacurrate

Him speaking for himself:
pod cast
youtube

"Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized."

See??? It's much more sensible,

Problem with doing it this way??? Oh yeah. If you're a head in the sand zealot don't go believing what a real Stanford scientist says. If you don't dismiss all of academia as Fake News you'll actually have to acknowledge reality.

Not saying that's you Harvey
Just speculating on the Sorry state of this board



Edited on 29-07-2019 03:33
29-07-2019 05:45
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
. It's not okay to math-magically transform ... error is +/-3 degrees, how is a few hundreds of one degree..


So why not? Are you a professional in this field?

Why would you not look at what experts say?
I know why many on this board won't: because they'd have to deal with a real debate

So here's an example:
Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford

He is qualified in the area with the skills needed


Article mentioning him
temp measurements innacurrate

Him speaking for himself:
pod cast
youtube

"Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized."

See??? It's much more sensible,

Problem with doing it this way??? Oh yeah. If you're a head in the sand zealot don't go believing what a real Stanford scientist says. If you don't dismiss all of academia as Fake News you'll actually have to acknowledge reality.

Not saying that's you Harvey
Just speculating on the Sorry state of this board


So basically, you are saying Dr. Pat is validating what I believe about temperature readings? Why don't I spend hours watching Youtube videos, or trying to determine if someone's views are accurate, or just another wack-job. Yeah, there are fanatics on both sides, trying to sell a bad product. Mostly, I work for a living, so don't have a lot of leisure time, and a lot of other interests/hobbies.

Climate Change has a wrong feel to it. I don't know all the details, but the numbers just don't add up for me. The way it's presented, the urgency to leap, before you learn. It's obviously going to cost everyone a huge amount of money, if the government buys the product, and go all in, to battle CO2 demons. Con artist rush you into making a snap decision, to get at the contents of your wallet. If they let you think to long, you'll probably catch on that it's a scam. I just don't like being push into agree to things, that make little sense. I've read quite a few technical papers, mostly related to electronics, but quite a few scientific write ups as well. Climate Change doesn't follow that style of writing at all.
29-07-2019 08:36
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying Dr. Pat is validating what I believe about temperature readings?
...
Climate Change has a wrong feel to it.


He does here:
uncertainty of 1σ = ±0.5°C in the global average of surface air temperatures prior to 1980, descending to about ±0.36°C by 2010 with the gradual introduction of modern instrumentation. At the 95% confidence interval, the rate or magnitude of the global rise in surface air temperature since 1850 is unknowable.

We know we can't know exactly, down to 0.000001C but he's saying it's pretty bad. Our measurement of temperature for the planet could be off by 0.36C today so anyone claiming that the temperature went up by 0.01C since last year if full of it. It does not mean we don't know that the temp has gone up, it's about claims to know precisely to the 1/10th of a degree year to year. The question is about how precise you can be. I think I never have seen an honest headline about this type of thing which would say:
"Scientist estimate temperatures have risen between 0.2 and 0.9 C in the last 300 years", it's always misleading in it's precision because they just pick a number "Temperatures go up by 0.45 degrees in the last x years".

In what I'd linked to he critiques the climate modeling into the future. The "If CO2 gets to this level the weather will do this" stuff. It undercuts even asking about the impact of CO2 because we just can't model weather into the future accurately enough to say. Again that's a computer simulation of weather.

No one really doubts the ability to know the weather in the past tense. It's how precisely can we make comparisons year to year.

The point is that there is well founded support out there for a critique of Climate Change Mania. It's totally missing from this board. It's a real shame.

Dr. Pat sums up his talk by saying that basically there is no scientific credibility to the computer modeling that tells us humans have influenced the temperature so far.

He does not question that we know what the weather has been recently.

I'd really recommend watching that video of him. I'm going to watch more.



Edited on 29-07-2019 08:38
29-07-2019 19:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We have a rough estimate of global temperature, I don't dispute that. It's the accuracy and precision of that estimate, the way it's misrepresented, misused. ...... You can't just focus one one detail, and ignore everything else, that isn't convenient.


OK !!!! Now that is rational and fair. Yes there is a margin of error.

I think we can agree that there are those trained and competent in the discipline of measuring and evaluating these things with real research. None of whom are here today.

I think it's also true that the "anti-global warming" side includes some very smart and wealthy parties.

So there is no reason contrary evidence can't be presented.

I put Hoffman up and it was ignored.

We aren't talking about UFOs or Bigfoot. This is very reliable data available for our purposes.


You still aren't getting the point. We can get a rough estimate of global temperature, and good enough for some purposes. It's not okay to math-magically transform that data, to claim a one degree rise in global temperate, stretch over a 300 year period. Let say the margin of error is +/-3 degrees, how is a few hundreds of one degree going to look on that Hockey-stick graph? Pretty meaningless, for the purpose it's being used. It goes the same way for all the historic data being used to sell this product. The proxies and analogs, are guesses, not really measured in any meaningful way, as their are being used. Most everything being used, can be off by several full units, but climate change is looking a small fractional parts of a unit. It's something that doesn't actually exist, but they think making-do, with what's available, is close enough.

I don't know the actual specs on the temperature monitoring stations, but suspect few read to the one-hundredth of a degree. But then again, it's bought with taxpayer money, and we deserve the best available...

Most manned weather stations use thermometers with a tolerance of +- 0.3 deg F. Automated weather stations are calibrated to a tolerance of +- 1 deg F.

The problem is, there aren't enough of them. The margin of error is not based on tolerances of the equipment, but on the variance between them. Gradients of 20 deg F per mile is not uncommon.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 19:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
. It's not okay to math-magically transform ... error is +/-3 degrees, how is a few hundreds of one degree..


So why not? Are you a professional in this field?

Why would you not look at what experts say?
I know why many on this board won't: because they'd have to deal with a real debate

So here's an example:
Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford

He is qualified in the area with the skills needed


Article mentioning him
temp measurements innacurrate

Him speaking for himself:
pod cast
youtube

"Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized."

See??? It's much more sensible,

Problem with doing it this way??? Oh yeah. If you're a head in the sand zealot don't go believing what a real Stanford scientist says. If you don't dismiss all of academia as Fake News you'll actually have to acknowledge reality.

Not saying that's you Harvey
Just speculating on the Sorry state of this board


I am a professional in this field. I make sensors for industrial control, medical, and aerospace uses.

Most manned weather stations have a temperature tolerance +- 0.3 deg F. Most automated weather stations are calibrated to a tolerance of +- 1 deg F.

The problem is that there is not enough of them, they are not being read at the same time, and they are grouped in cities or at least where there is a road (they need to be serviced and calibrated from time to time).


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2019 00:01
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
This is a good link for his work on the reliability of temperature data:
systematic-error-in-climate-measurements

Really a topic of it's own.

tmiddles wrote:
Dr. Pat sums up his talk by saying that basically there is no scientific credibility to the computer modeling that tells us humans have influenced the temperature so far.


He does not say we can't conclude anything. I think the question of what we can know with how much confidence is key. There are a lot of things that stem from temperature. He mentions looking at how far forests are able to grow into the north as an indicator. Apparently trees were able to grow further during the midevil warming than today which would be evidence it was warmer then.

What's sad is to see two extremes:
A. Lie and say you know everything with 100% certainty
B. Lie and say you know nothing with 100% certainty

In his talk he is pretty exasperated to be dealing with such a politicized issue.



Edited on 30-07-2019 00:13
30-07-2019 01:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
This is a good link for his work on the reliability of temperature data:
systematic-error-in-climate-measurements

Really a topic of it's own.

tmiddles wrote:
Dr. Pat sums up his talk by saying that basically there is no scientific credibility to the computer modeling that tells us humans have influenced the temperature so far.


He does not say we can't conclude anything. I think the question of what we can know with how much confidence is key. There are a lot of things that stem from temperature. He mentions looking at how far forests are able to grow into the north as an indicator. Apparently trees were able to grow further during the midevil warming than today which would be evidence it was warmer then.

What's sad is to see two extremes:
A. Lie and say you know everything with 100% certainty
B. Lie and say you know nothing with 100% certainty

In his talk he is pretty exasperated to be dealing with such a politicized issue.


Still denying science I see.

Science isn't measurements or data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No supporting evidence is used. If a test against a theory is conducted, it must be direct measurements only. No proxies are allowed in science.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
Man-Made CO2?2630-08-2019 22:36
Florida Man...121-08-2019 20:51
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature128-06-2019 05:22
No man can fool god.028-04-2019 18:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact