Very wide right Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 I think I did just that. I show a graph that shows the earths temperature cycling warmer and cooler all on it's own. All you have are some models that have been wrong on all the projections to date, and a "mysterious" lack of warming. I call bull ****!!! Human activity is not causing and or adding to the planets natural cycle. Don't worry Gary,they can always fudge the numbers if they have to.Those who worship at the altar of liberalism never challenge what they are told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Just thought I'd check in to see if any of the "progressives" have come up with a plan to reverse the global population trend, since you know, "human impact" is probably pretty strongly correlated with the number of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Just thought I'd check in to see if any of the "progressives" have come up with a plan to reverse the global population trend, since you know, "human impact" is probably pretty strongly correlated with the number of humans. They have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 They have. The first paragraph alone was enough to make me sick: "One of my friends has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, “Thank you for not breeding.” Every time I read it, I feel a pang of guilt that I have two children. I know that children in developed countries, especially Americans, use up for more resources than children around the world. The statistics are staggering when comparing children’s footprints across the globe, which causes many environmentalists to suggest that not having children may be the single most important thing you do for the environment. As a mother of two, this is a hard pill to swallow, and I try to convince myself that my children will be part of the solution since they are raised with green family values." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The first paragraph alone was enough to make me sick: "One of my friends has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, “Thank you for not breeding.” Every time I read it, I feel a pang of guilt that I have two children. I know that children in developed countries, especially Americans, use up for more resources than children around the world. The statistics are staggering when comparing children’s footprints across the globe, which causes many environmentalists to suggest that not having children may be the single most important thing you do for the environment. As a mother of two, this is a hard pill to swallow, and I try to convince myself that my children will be part of the solution since they are raised with green family values." Actually I'm thrilled to know someone who is that !@#$ing gullible and easily manipulated has stopped procreating. But you gotta love Mother Jones and the usual lunatics for their highly predicable approach. So if the third world continues to breed like rats but we lose a few million Americans everything will be just fine. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Actually I'm thrilled to know someone who is that !@#$ing gullible and easily manipulated has stopped procreating. But you gotta love Mother Jones and the usual lunatics for their highly predicable approach. So if the third world continues to breed like rats but we lose a few million Americans everything will be just fine. Got it. I'm with you on principle, but it is sad that so many Americans are duped into thinking that way. The thing that I despise most about the people that propagate this nonsense is that they're taking advantage of what I consider to be noble character trait many people have - to preserve and protect the environment. They even have many Americans oblivious to how much we've done to clean up our rivers and air, how automobile emissions have been lowered drastically since the early 70's, and how much we've learned to conserve energy. If you listen to the modern-day environmentalists, they'll have you believing that the United States is the single greatest threat to the Earth, which is complete nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) The data indicates it's cyclical, the models your priests of AGW create are wrong and have been wrong all along. interestingly, i can't locate this data on the noaa or GISP2 sites which presumably were the sources for the "graph" you reproduced. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. see it all the time in the daily practice of medicine. but i know what a linear regression is. from the same data set, it's that line trending upward towards higher temps from the same data over a similar period or time. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/DATA/Obrien.html. perhaps we should leave the science to the scientists. PhD's http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2-prog_list2.html printed on dime store printers aren't worth the paper they're printed on (unlike these legitimate ones). would you seek out a medical doctor for a health problem with no degree or some degree from a vaguely related discipline but endorsed by some conservative propaganda group? don't feel bad. i see people ripped off by quacks all the time. just like medicine, this is some complex, difficult shite. pulling a graph here and a table there doesn't constitute analysis of the data. i wondering which side of the climate debate you guess the folks that actually did the science http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu come down on. as to the argument that the experts in the field are "inbred" - trained by the same few biased experts, look at the faculty list from u new hampshires program that was heavily involved in the science: http://www.eos.unh.edu/pdf/eosexperts.pdf while experts from as varied places as china russia and czechoslovakia might run into each other as often as yearly at conferences, they're not breathing down each others backs. Edited July 3, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 interestingly, i can't locate this data on the noaa or GISP2 sites which presumably were the sources for the "graph" you reproduced. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. see it all the time in the daily practice of medicine. but i know what a linear regression is. from the same data set, it's that line trending upward towards higher temps from the same data over a similar period or time. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/DATA/Obrien.html. perhaps we should leave the science to the scientists. PhD's http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2-prog_list2.html printed on dime store printers aren't worth the paper they're printed on (unlike these legitimate ones). would you seek out a medical doctor for a health problem with no degree or some degree from a vaguely related discipline but endorsed by some conservative propaganda group? don't feel bad. i see people ripped off by quacks all the time. just like medicine, this is some complex, difficult shite. pulling a graph here and a table there doesn't constitute analysis of the data. i wondering which side of the climate debate you guess the folks that actually did the science http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu come down on. as to the argument that the experts in the field are "inbred" - trained by the same few biased experts, look at the faculty list from u new hampshires program that was heavily involved in the science: http://www.eos.unh.edu/pdf/eosexperts.pdf while experts from as varied places as china russia and czechoslovakia might run into each other as often as yearly at conferences, they're not breathing down each others backs. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you understood what you were referencing. He throws up an image of a chart showing temperature fluctuations over time (with an arbitrary "present" of 1855 chosen) directly showing the current warming trend isn't atypical of pre-industrial "periodicity." You respond with a chart indirectly showing that the current warming is part of an 8000-year warming trend. And that's even if you read the chart properly, which I rather doubt. Clearly, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Stick to medicine, let the scientists handle the climate. Clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Your argument would be a lot stronger if you understood what you were referencing. He throws up an image of a chart showing temperature fluctuations over time (with an arbitrary "present" of 1855 chosen) directly showing the current warming trend isn't atypical of pre-industrial "periodicity." You respond with a chart indirectly showing that the current warming is part of an 8000-year warming trend. And that's even if you read the chart properly, which I rather doubt. Clearly, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Stick to medicine, let the scientists handle the climate. Clearly not surprising that you didn't get the point. i can make a reasonable guess at the trend illustrated by a simple linear regression analysis of data this complex. i can't fathom the significance of the raw data. and i doubt the poster knows what a linear regression is. did you miss this part intentionally or by mistake? "this is some complex, difficult shite. pulling a graph here and a table there doesn't constitute analysis of the data." Edited July 3, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 not surprising that you didn't get the point. i can make a reasonable guess at the trend illustrated by a simple linear regression analysis of data this complex. i can't fathom the significance of the raw data. and i doubt the poster knows what a linear regression is. did you miss this part intentionally or by mistake? "this is some complex, difficult shite. pulling a graph here and a table there doesn't constitute analysis of the data." No, I got that. I was then highly amused by your analysis that followed. In the meantime, I'm analyzing the raw data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 The first paragraph alone was enough to make me sick: "One of my friends has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, “Thank you for not breeding.” Every time I read it, I feel a pang of guilt that I have two children. I know that children in developed countries, especially Americans, use up for more resources than children around the world. The statistics are staggering when comparing children’s footprints across the globe, which causes many environmentalists to suggest that not having children may be the single most important thing you do for the environment. As a mother of two, this is a hard pill to swallow, and I try to convince myself that my children will be part of the solution since they are raised with green family values." They made a movie about this. BTW I agree the bumper sticker......on a car......about not having children.......so there will be fewer cars.....is weird. Unless of course the car is owned by someone who lives near the Canadian border. Then it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 interestingly, i can't locate this data on the noaa or GISP2 sites which presumably were the sources for the "graph" you reproduced. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. see it all the time in the daily practice of medicine. but i know what a linear regression is. from the same data set, it's that line trending upward towards higher temps from the same data over a similar period or time. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/DATA/Obrien.html. perhaps we should leave the science to the scientists. PhD's http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2-prog_list2.html printed on dime store printers aren't worth the paper they're printed on (unlike these legitimate ones). would you seek out a medical doctor for a health problem with no degree or some degree from a vaguely related discipline but endorsed by some conservative propaganda group? don't feel bad. i see people ripped off by quacks all the time. just like medicine, this is some complex, difficult shite. pulling a graph here and a table there doesn't constitute analysis of the data. i wondering which side of the climate debate you guess the folks that actually did the science http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu come down on. as to the argument that the experts in the field are "inbred" - trained by the same few biased experts, look at the faculty list from u new hampshires program that was heavily involved in the science: http://www.eos.unh.edu/pdf/eosexperts.pdf while experts from as varied places as china russia and czechoslovakia might run into each other as often as yearly at conferences, they're not breathing down each others backs. Stick to the key points. Has the temperatures been cyclical, Yes or no? Are we not in a current warming trend for the last TEN THOUSAND years? (Mostly prior to Industrial revolution) Is the 90% consensus a tiny portion of scientists (79) or not? Have the IPC models been wrong or not? Have the polar caps disappeared like ALgore said they would? Are our coastal cities under water yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 not surprising that you didn't get the point. i can make a reasonable guess at the trend illustrated by a simple linear regression analysis of data this complex. i can't fathom the significance of the raw data. and i doubt the poster knows what a linear regression is. did you miss this part intentionally or by mistake? "this is some complex, difficult shite. pulling a graph here and a table there doesn't constitute analysis of the data." Were you born a pompous ass or was it just acquired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) Stick to the key points. Has the temperatures been cyclical, Yes or no? Are we not in a current warming trend for the last TEN THOUSAND years? (Mostly prior to Industrial revolution) Is the 90% consensus a tiny portion of scientists (79) or not? Have the IPC models been wrong or not? Have the polar caps disappeared like ALgore said they would? Are our coastal cities under water yet? 79? there are 50 faculty members at unh alone. so assuming the 90%, that's 45 there. how many scientists involved in climate study do you think are in the big ten? the ivy league? MIT? pac 10? top tier liberal arts schools with research programs. etc, etc, etc… a few more than 79. type in some school i just mentioned and check their faculty rosters. if it were football you would. this is wayyyyyy more important. here's a head start: http://environment.harvard.edu/about/directory/faculty/all?taxonomy_vocabulary_2_tid%5B%5D=8&combine= Edited July 5, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 When taking into account the Global Warming consensus poll, you also have to consider the fact that they are asking Climatologists. If polled, how many Scientologists believe in the power of Tom Cruise? 99% of Alchemists believed it was possible to turn lead into gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) When taking into account the Global Warming consensus poll, you also have to consider the fact that they are asking Climatologists. If polled, how many Scientologists believe in the power of Tom Cruise? 99% of Alchemists believed it was possible to turn lead into gold. untrue. look at the Harvard link I provided. there are scientists from multiple disciplines included: chemists, geologists, environmental studies, law, statistics, climate scientists, oceanographers etc. and they trained at a diverse group of institutions. oh yeah and engineers: http://cgcs.mit.edu/people/faculty Edited July 6, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I will ask you again: WHY does an 18-year "hiatus" in global warming need an explanation if it doesn't exist? WHY are half the theory's supporters denying the hiatus, and the other half explaining it, at the same time? WHY is this guy, who created the AGW "story" 26 years ago, when he was the Chief Science Editor at The Economist, now calling himself a "lukewarmer"? Yeah, these questions are based on "ignorance"? No. These questions are based 100% on the words of the AGW cultists. I didn't say any of this. We aren't comparing and contrasting different POVs here. I am literally using ONLY the words of the AGW cultists. They can't get their story straight. I am merely pointing out the obvious logical flaws in what AGW supporters, and only AGW supporters, are saying. New question: Why all the dissembling, disagreement, and backpedaling, amongst AGW supporters, not amongst skeptics, on something that ALL of them have sworn was "settled" 10 years ago? I'm going to repost this every damn week until somebody answers theses questions. And, I'm counting the weeks going forward. Calling us ignorant? Answer the damn questions and prove it, clowns. Edited July 6, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 79? there are 50 faculty members at unh alone. so assuming the 90%, that's 45 there. how many scientists involved in climate study do you think are in the big ten? the ivy league? MIT? pac 10? top tier liberal arts schools with research programs. etc, etc, etc… a few more than 79. type in some school i just mentioned and check their faculty rosters. if it were football you would. this is wayyyyyy more important. here's a head start: http://environment.harvard.edu/about/directory/faculty/all?taxonomy_vocabulary_2_tid%5B%5D=8&combine= You address 1 out of 7 and didn't even get that right. The 97% quote comes from a single study that had 79 respondents, Link previously provided). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I will ask you again: WHY does an 18-year "hiatus" in global warming need an explanation if it doesn't exist? WHY are half the theory's supporters denying the hiatus, and the other half explaining it, at the same time? WHY is this guy, who created the AGW "story" 26 years ago, when he was the Chief Science Editor at The Economist, now calling himself a "lukewarmer"? Yeah, these questions are based on "ignorance"? No. These questions are based 100% on the words of the AGW cultists. I didn't say any of this. We aren't comparing and contrasting different POVs here. I am literally using ONLY the words of the AGW cultists. They can't get their story straight. I am merely pointing out the obvious logical flaws in what AGW supporters, and only AGW supporters, are saying. New question: Why all the dissembling, disagreement, and backpedaling, amongst AGW supporters, not amongst skeptics, on something that ALL of them have sworn was "settled" 10 years ago? I'm going to repost this every damn week until somebody answers theses questions. And, I'm counting the weeks going forward. Calling us ignorant? Answer the damn questions and prove it, clowns. "this guy"? the viscount with a ba in zoology? any time someone uses the word "all" it is cause for skepticism. however in this case there really is a none. as in the number of scientific societies that reject the idea of manmade climate change. from wiki: Dissenting[edit] See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[13] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[12][14] included here is a substantial list of scientific groups that do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change . also included are a number of studies re scientist polling. not just the cherry picked one that included 79 scientists. it's amazing to me that y'all can be swayed with such weak argumentys and evidence. i don't need to refute the flimsy arguments here. they've been debunked repeatedly by the worlds experts in peer reviewed studies, books, symposia etc. it's a constant battle against a few bought and paid for hacks. Edited July 6, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts