Global Warming Update

PadawanBater said:

Luckily it's not "one scientist" gathering all the information. It's thousands of them corroborating on the data. But I guess I'll just take your word for it...

(it helps to cite sources when making claims, too!)

Click to expand...

hes the quote i did not show you yet

see its not hard

hes the quote i did not show you yet

MuyLocoNC said:

Why does he need to quote sources when it's currently being splashed all over the Lame Stream Media? Unless your ONLY source of news is MSNBC (which it most likely is) then you've already seen the story and are such a kook and lemming that you can't even admit to reality when it's slapping you in the face. Sheesh, I saw the story first on Yahoo News, and it's compiled by a pack of straight up Libs. Grow up and face reality, Fat Al is a liar... case in point... remember the spotted owl?

Click to expand...

fdd2blk said:

perfect answer.

i'm outta here, kids.

i'll take pics and start a new "lake thread' when i get back. i wanna shoot some onboard video this year. i just need a waterproof camera.

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

That would be a very kewl thread....

Yah know what would be awesome? get a R/C plane with a vid camera attached and have someone fly that puppy long with you and overhead....


==========================================================================================================================


Paddy has obviously stopped reading the latest articles.

Click to expand...

PadawanBater said:

dude the head guys who gather all the data from those billions of scietist you like to sight have been manipulating the data and shutting down opposing views to make it look like there is a concences!!!!

hes the quote i did not show you yet

said lieing scietist also said that there is infact "no consensus on climate change"

just google no consensus on climate change and you can find thousads, YES THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SO CALLED CONSENSUS

Dude, where are you getting this information? CITE YOUR SOURCES.

Look what I found;

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

(thousands huh!)

i know you dont wanna admit it but its a fact

cant you admit when your wrong?

here ill do it. i was wrong about a lot of stuff in the past and willbe in the future

see its not hard

You're the one getting information from the boys who dish out the propaganda. Show me one scientific paper, article or document with a legitimate dissenting opinion on the scientific consensus for climate change. You can't, but I bet you'll still sit here and claim you have them, there's thousands of them, or I need to go do my own research... Please man, put up or SHUT THE FUCK UP already. How bout that?



One source guys, that's all I ask. Right now it's every single scientific academy whose made a statement about climate change (that would include, ALL INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES) word against yours.

You're at the back of the bus if you're not taking it seriously by now.

Click to expand...

ill do it a lil bit or tomorrow im drinking right now

Big P said:

ill get all the sources for you proper but you gotta promise to actually consider them

ill do it a lil bit or tomorrow im drinking right now


promise ill get them

Click to expand...

PadawanBater said:

OK, and while you're at it, tell me what you would accept as proof of human activity playing a role in climate change?

Click to expand...

PadawanBater said:

human activity ofcoarse has an effect even an ant colony will have some

sort of effect

but is it 0.00001% or is it 1% is it 5% or is it 99%?

since global warming stopped in 1995 and have become colder since 2002

This is the stuff you need to source. We just experienced the second hottest recorded decade, with 09 being the hottest year. Fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

http://prorev.com/2010/01/past-decade-was-warmest-on-record-2009.html

im thinking our stuff i mean pollution will be bad when the earths natural cycles become hot again. our activity could take it over the top who knows

The cycle lasts thousands of years man. The last ice age was 15,000 years ago.

but when the earth is in a cool cycle seems it would be ok

Oh it "seems" like it'd be OK? Great!

we dont want everyone be say hey lets burn and fuck the environment up since its a hoax

but at the same time i dont want to fuck up our standard of living over bogus shit

Our standard of living is unacceptable.

this deception has set back the environmental movment so much

it used to be lead by good people,

read up on the guy who created greenpeace, he ended up leaving his own organization in disgust

This is another thing I was talking about. You won't trust ANYBODY in support of climate change. It doesn't matter who it is, with this mentality you'll simply mark all of them off as liars or con artists or whatever.

Click to expand...

PadawanBater said:

Our standard of living is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

There is a major problem with the NASA and NOAA numbers, according to skeptical researchers who have dissected the data: They are inaccurate, the result of cherry-picking, computer manipulation and “best guess” interpretation.
Veteran meteorologist Joe D’Aleo – a long-time critic of official global-warming statistics – says NASA and NOAA are manipulating the data, calling their actions the U.S. version of last year’s Climategate scandal.
“NOAA and NASA are complicit in the misrepresentation or manipulation of data to support the supposed [global warming] consensus,” says D’Aleo, who also heads ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.




It's .... GARBAGE science.... garbage in ... garbage out. it isn't any kind of science that credible ppl would endorse.


Wake up ppl.

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

The NASA/NOAA recipe
To cook temperature data and warm the earth artificially, NASA and NOAA have whipped up a nifty recipe. Here are the not-so-secret ingredients for global warming:
1) Reduce temperature reporting stations across the globe from nearly 6,000 in 1970 to 1,500 or less today.
2) Drop out reporting stations in higher latitudes (colder), higher elevations (colder) and mainly rural locations (colder).
3) Cool early temperature records through data “adjustments” to create the impression of a current warming trend.
4) Fail to compensate or under-compensate for urban growth and land-use changes that can produce localized warming known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect.
5) Cherry-pick thermometers from reporting stations sited at busy airports and other warm locales (e.g. near the coast or at lower elevations).
6) Fill gaps in the shrunk-down thermometer network by estimating temperatures using a system of global grid boxes. Then “populate” the grids with thermometers stationed at lower latitudes and altitudes, or near the coast and in other warm spots.
7) If there are no temperature stations inside the grid box, use the closest station in a nearby box (for example, at the bottom of a mountain plateau or on the coast).
Adjust the final temperature dataset using “homogenization,” a blending process that effectively spreads a warm bias to all surrounding stations.
9) Voila, global warming made easy!
Another bumper cherry-picking season
For example:
NOAA collects data from only 35 sites in Canada, down from 600 in the 1970s.
After 1990, NOAA tripled the number of Canadian reporting stations at lower elevations while reducing by half the number at elevations above 300 feet.
According to D'Aleo, “High-elevation stations have disappeared from the database. Stations in the Andes and Bolivia have vanished.
Only 25 percent of (Russia's) reporting stations were included in the (Hadley CRU's) global temperature calculations. (The same pruned dataset was used by NOAA.). The temperature stations that were removed often show no substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Anthony Watts of SurfaceStation.org says the U.S. temperature record can't be trusted.
Michael Smith, a California-based software engineer, who was instrumental, along with D'Aleo, in crunching the NOAA/NASA data and exposing the temperature tampering, says the historical climate data used by both agencies is obsolete by 20 years and is a mess.
“The ongoing maintenance of the data has been botched,” he says. “The warming isn’t global and isn’t from CO2. An extraordinary hatred of mountains and other cold locations shows up in the data.”
Global warming claims not credible

Click to expand...

CrackerJax said:

Lawdy son.... ur not up on the subject are you.... all those weather stations in the mountains... and rural areas.... you don't think there's some schlub walking up there and recording the data do you? Those stations are all read via SATELLITE.

The articles have always been about the satellites.... holey moley...

Click to expand...