Duffy is a lucky duck

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Or, I'm just basing my predictions on actual data from the past.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

are you trying to justify being a climate change denier? do you know that there is just about nothing that proves ignorance more than climate change denial?

i wouldn't mind climate change deniers, and those who believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, if they were consistent. but you and i know damned good and well that if 97 out of 100 researchers agreed that this particular drug is the most efficacious for a medical problem befalling mrs. duffy, you would react the same way that i would if a medical problem befell mrs. slowman.

i would be in favor of a law mandating that anyone who disagrees with a 97 percent scientific consensus be prohibited from enjoying the fruits of any other scientific certainty. that would wise you guys up quickly.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't deny that the climate changes.


I don't believe the earth was created 6000 years ago either.

I'm an atheist married to a woman with a graduate degree in paleobotany. I love science. Science is based, in part, on observation.

This thread is a statement of my observations. Is there anything I wrote in the op that is factually incorrect?


Are you still of the belief that "97% of scientists, blah blah blah, AGW"?

That's been debunked for years.


Oh, looks like you do still believe that.

So I ask again, what is in my op that is factually incorrect?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

"This thread is a statement of my observations. Is there anything I wrote in the op that is factually incorrect?"

no more factually incorrect than my saying that seat belts and motorcycle helmets are supposed be safer but look at what happened in these cases, and that tobacco is supposed to shorten life but look at this guy. the premise behind your post is that the science is unreliable. fine. just, then don't rely on science. for anything.

"Are you still of the belief that "97% of scientists, blah blah blah, AGW"? That's been debunked for years."

aha! you are a climate change denier! and no, that hasn't been debunked for years.

if you're a climate change denier, then you're a science denier... until you need some science. that's the most fraudulent kind of cynicism.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Why?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Whenever someone says El Nino/La Nina I think back to my geology teacher from high school, he always laughed at idea. Never believed it, I forget exactly why, I think it was just something The Weather Channel could run with and market. He did a lot of geological research work on the side, so I take some truth to his argument.

Again, I don't deny that the climate changes. I never have.

Do you deny that it was record rainfall year? Do you deny that it was predicted to be a dry year?

Is there an ideal global climate that you have in mind? What year if earth's existence had the ideal climate?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Yes, I've worked with quite a few geologists, and so did mrs Duffy when she was in grad school.

A lot of them told me the planet is in a cooling trend. They're just using a different time scale.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Who are the 97% and what do they agree on ?

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

"Do you deny that it was record rainfall year?"

no. well, yes, depending on where you are. where i am, this year wasn't close to the winter of 2004/2005, which also was not an el nino year. what really matters in the sierras, and in socal, is not the equatorial ocean temps, rather the coursing of the jet stream. if the jet stream dips, as it did in 04/05 (for whatever reason it chooses to course south) then we get the storms that the pac northwest was supposed to get. i'm in a desert, in socal, and i got exactly twice the rainfall as did seattle that winter.

nevertheless i look at wunderground every day and danged if they don't get it right a great majority of the time.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It's 97% of people this one guy decided to ask.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Yeah, Wunderground does a good job.

There is evidence that when storms come during El Niño they are wetter storms but there's no correlation between the amount and location of actual storms.

In other words, if this year was an El Niño it would have been even wetter. Supposedly.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I don't think he even asked them. I thought it was a study of studies. So lets say you are a scientist and since you mentioned here that you don't deny climate change then you are part of the 97 %. Regardless of what you actually think the effects are.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

"Who are the 97% and what do they agree on?"

stop it! look, here's what happens on the forum, just taking me as an example. i'll write something, about lifting this regulation or that, or getting rid of the estate tax, or reforming corporate taxes, or something in sympathy with banning 3rd trimester abortions, or saying that i don't believe in free college, or that i think every adult citizen should pay income tax, and some wiseacre will comment that, "i'm learning," or that, "there's hope for me." i've always been about 50/50 lefty/righty in the positions i hold.

but i overwhelmingly caucus with the democrats because of precisely this kind of thing. i can't possibly caucus with the republicans because they are intellectually dishonest! the christers are gun lovers not because christ loves guns, but because republicans love guns. the white supremacists are climate change deniers because the white supremacists vote republican and so do the climate change deniers, so it's all for one and one for all.

i think it was slowguy who wrote something a few days ago about this place becoming moribund because everyone runs to his side. what we don't have here are elastic minds. i'll know that someone here has an elastic mind when at least a third of what he believes is at odds with what his chosen party believes.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Give it up! The science is settled!!!
Now give your money to the goberment so they can fix it, before it is to late!!!
Bonus- You will also earn a good place in heaven for helping save the world!!!

So now it's wrong to question a blanket statement like 97% of scientist believe in climate change ?

Does that automatically make me a white supremacists or republican ?


I think you are right here. I am sounding like Duffy.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Yes it appears from an internet search that it is based on one guy taking about 100 papers about climate change and categorizing them as agree disagree that man made global warming is responsible for at least 50 percent of the warming we are seeing. Having said that it appears that if the papers stated that any warming was man made he put them in the 50 percent or above category. These statements get made and then have a life of their own for years. Early on in the debate about homosexuality the claim was made that 10 percent of the population was gay. Except it was not true but repeated enough it became a key argument in the debate.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

my mind is quite elastic. It bounces all over the place. pick any debatable topic and I most likely disagree with myself on it.

Uh, record storms and rainfall this year in the PNW. 139 days of measured precipitation since 10/1/2015. Record amount of snow and rainfall. Hell, it snowed last night in the local ski mountains.

There are more than one report creating the 97%.

Here yo have an article discussing the issue.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/...sus-intermediate.htm

Another way is to look at peer reviewed articles in scientific journals
https://skepticalscience.com/...cook-et-al-2013.html

so your position(s) are that 97% of the scientific community agree on climate change.
And that your positions are lefty/righty 50% of the time?

Thanks Halvard. Quickly skimming through all that it looks like the vast majority of climate scientists endorse man as a major component of global warming. How much is an open question but for my part I am acting on a precautionary principle for the time being of minimizing by contribution to it. I'm going to keep looking at this because it seems like it should be something most people with some scientific background can understand. The first place I am looking is at tidal monitoring stations as they should provide evidence of sea level rising if it is occurring. I figure they are the most important because the impact of sea level rise would be most important at the shore. Raw climate data is hard to find. Or maybe a more correct statement is not too hard to find but yearly averages etc for given stations not so easy to find.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I always heard there were people so hyper religious about their man made warming God that they would suggest people lose rights for even daring to speak their mind. I wrote it off as a myth or someone quoting some batshit crazy lefty but never really thought it came from anyone except "professional journalists" ready for jihad to defend their God, demand compliance and execute non believers. It seems ive spotted what i thought was the equivalent of a unicorn.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Who is the unicorn ?

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

NASA and NOAA both have a lot of data available.

One other thing that is good to do. Is to see that the skeptic are doing when it come to research. What kind of researchers are they using as references, do they have any research at all, do they finance research.

Of course the skeptics are not doing any research. Research is hard. Blogging, radio and TV is easy.

What are the scientific predictions for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years 50 years?

I firmly believe in climate change, to deny climate change is to deny history. We have oceans where there were once deserts and vice versa. I don't know if it was the climate that changed it or some shift in the earths crust. I do know, if it wasn't for some form of global warming (i'm guessing it wasn't man made) we'd still be in an ice age.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Not you

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Blashemy. You are destined for an eternity in the depths of hell for not stating the 97% obvious cause. You might as well be a Christian....err I mean Republican...wait thats not it, ummmm...War against women hating Trump lover with a small brain and no education and not nearly as smart as those who worship science but arent scientists and take "science" at its word because its pure as the driven snow even with all of those silly little hiccups in the data and those purely fictional emails.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

I vote for the person.

Right now I'm helping a liberal democrat to become mayor of city.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

We actually know a lot about why climate has changed up through the years. You need to understand the natural causes if you want to check of any new sources have arrived.

I will recommend NASA website https://climate.nasa.gov/
You will find a lot of useful information there. Best of all, it is based on science.

Also check out NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/climate

Good to see scandal free sources.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

I find this interesting.
Where are the sources from the skeptic side. Where is the science.

If the skeptic side has the data on their side, it should be easy to finance research and get articles in scientific journals.
But that is not how the skeptic side works.
Because the skeptic side is anti science.

The arguments are the same as used by creationists and pro tobacco.

If all the oil companies believed the consensus among climate researchers was wrong.
It would be easy to finance research around the globe.

Why do you think the oil companies are following the tactics of the tobacco industry, and giving money to conservative/free market think tanks and politicians??

You are dogma driven. Science is data driven.

its pure as the driven snow even with all of those silly little hiccups in the data and those purely fictional emails.


Why don't you educate us by showing us some of these hiccups and emails you're talking about? It'll help us put your statements in perspective.

Yes your God is data driven but his priests are not. Every time they fudge the numbers the response is "oh we had it wrong last time but this time we are 100% ( or 97%) positive weve got it and if you question us we will burn you at the stake. Stop pretending the system is infallible.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Youre smart, try Google. Are you seriously pretending they havent been caught with their hand in the data jar?

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Seriously, that is your argument.

You are saying the science is bad. Then it should be easy for the skeptics to finance research and come up with new and better data.
But no, that will never happen.


Where are the data supporting the skeptics, where is the science. Nowhere.
All you have are blogs and ranting.

Do you consider Heartland Institute to be a good place to get science information??

/yawn

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Even the website name is misleading


http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

What specifically has changed with the climate and how much over what # of years and what were the causes?

Is there a prediction of what will change and how much on the data points I mentioned earlier?

Every time I hear people speaking in what sound like absolutes, I remember how science told us over my life time how evil and how good eggs are for you, for one example.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Meteorologists? C'mon do better than that.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I'm not pretending anything. I'm asking you to back up your hyperbolic statements ("hand in the data jar") with something that's a little more concrete. Is that too much to ask?

no, you remeber what unsceintific media prematurely reports on. this is an ongoing problem and leads to unscientific people to conclude that science cant make up its mind.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

On the NASA site they have a nice write up
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

I stopped reading after this. So much bullshit here.

The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Unbelievable...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

You mean, exactly what you just attempted to do?

You didn't think to do some research yourself before forming an opinion? What year was that?

it will always be unbelievable if you refuse to read

You don't seriously believe that old earth bullshit, do you?

#whitepride

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I believe analysis of glacial cores can give us important information from many millenia ago. I also believe that you are smarter than you're making out in this thread and in part you're just trying to be provocative.

Btw, I have a Wunderground weather station in my backyard.

Raw data, baby.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

great. i'm getting one as well. i think i'm getting a davis 6152.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Well, according to slowman, my stating of the facts, and my observations of the failed predictions by "experts" in my op (facts and observations that are not in dispute) I am a "climate denier" and also a white supremacist and young earth believer.

So, white power! Praise the lord!

88

What's really crazy here is that nothing in my op is false. Predictions were made and those predictions were based in part on what should have occurred due to AGW. I point out that it didn't turn out as predicted and I get called anti-science.

So are we now of the mindset that observing reality is anti-science? Is presenting evidence no longer part of the scientific process?

#whitepride

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm ready to upgrade. I'll check that one out.

#whitepride

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Well, according to slowman, my stating of the facts, and my observations of the failed predictions by "experts" in my op (facts and observations that are not in dispute) I am a "climate denier" //

Well your(and my observations by the way which align with yours) were about local weather, not the planets climate. I don't know how many times it has to be said, but apparently one more. Local weather is not the planets climate. Of course the climate is going to affect many local areas, but that is something that is magnitudes harder to understand than the overall situation of the planet in general. Ice grows in one spot, but melts in another, but these two things don't in any way mean their is a status quo on the planet. More ice is melting overall than is growing, and it is being sped up by humans. Very simple really...


By the way, CA real estate is on fire right now generally, but my old sea level home has dropped $50k since I sold it about 9 months ago. Probably a coincidence but perhaps the trend for these low lying communities is beginning it long eventual decline?? In the same time my 3 mile inland new house has appreciated about $40k, think I'll just wait here until all those people that can afford beach front in the millions to have to move back a bit...(-;

By that time you will be closer to the sea ie 6 feet under. I've been waiting to take advantage of the crash in real estate prices in Ontario for 10 years. Although it is getting closer in Toronto prices up 33 percent in the last year. Yikes! My brother bought a place in a suburb that has doubled in 5 years. His crummy duplex is worth more than my house.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Well, a prediction about our local weather was made (continued drought) using AGW as the cause and that prediction (that was made based on the belief in AGW) was wrong.

I'm not conflating weather and climate. I'm pointing out that weather predictions based on a supposed changing climate were colossally wrong.

And I'm additionally pointing out that there is no correlation between El Niño and wet socal winters.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Lots and lots of chatter about Toronto real estate. If my property had gained that much value I would sell. I feel a dip coming.

I don't really want to interfere with your schtick here, but I'm getting bored of waiting for Redrum to post his evidence of climate data diddling.

So I'd ask that you please indulge me, and show where you "predicted a high rainfall total for this year just based on historical patterns." Because I must've missed it when you first announced this to the world.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ing=drought#p6081012

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

As Monty says, predicting specific local weather effects from El Ninos is not easy, and few forecasters would try to do so. For example, from October 2015:

"The NASA lab has been observing El Nino and other ocean trends for decades. In 1992, JPL, in collaboration with France, launched the first in a series of satellites capable of observing the phenomena on a global basis.

Still, El Ninos can be unpredictable. Some have produced little rain, and some of the most damaging storms have come in non-El Nino years.

In the last 65 years, there have been just six strong El Ninos and only two produced major precipitation statewide, according to the California Department of Water Resources.

Weather models this year show a 60 percent chance of above-average rainfall in Southern California, but that figure declines farther north, Boldt said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/...-ease-calif-drought/

Did you not read my op?


This is from a 2015 article. In 2015 we had an El Niño year. It was one of the driest on record in southern and Northern California.

2016/2017 was/is a La Niña year, was predicted to be dry and we had record rain in southern and northern CA, and near record Sierra snowpack.

Thanks for posting links that bolster the exact point I'm trying to make.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

yes I realised that after I posted. the wider point is that 60% is not 100%. weather is unpredictable. I would also say a distinction should be made between El Nino produced weather anomalies and long term climate changes.

Ah, but predictions I've heard about drought in CA is that we woul;d have continued drought because of AGW.

2015 (when it was dry)...

https://www.nytimes.com/...ntists-say.html?_r=0

I've also heard that we'd experience more El Niños and therefore more massive storms, costal flooding, etc.

(2016 when we had tons of rain)...

https://psmag.com/...-storms-b7947175998e

This blamed on "Pineapple Express" type storms (cute name) but if it were an El Niño year (instead of La Niña) the story would have blamed the wet on El Niño (exacerbated by AGW).

It seems many of these predictions are based on what people fear the most at any given time than anything else.

Can you see what I'm getting at here?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No, the first article you cited says the drought was likely made worse by global warming, NOT that it would continue for longer.

“This would be a drought no matter what,” said A. Park Williams, a climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and the lead author of a paper published by the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what. But it’s definitely made worse by global warming.”

And the second article is referring to very long term predictions of average numbers and intensities of storms and droughts, so again, how do you try to discount that by citing short term weather patterns?

So honestly, no, I don't see what you're getting at. It seems you are cherry picking short term weather events to disprove forecasters who... a) admit predicting the exact local effects of El Ninos is still hard, even though there are some statistically relevant patterns associated with them, and b) are suggesting that global warming will affect long term weather patterns (no-one can say at this time they are wrong).

Let me chime in.

On one hand they are saying "El Nino is hard to predict"

On the other hand they are saying “But it’s definitely made worse by global warming."



You can't have it both ways. It's either hard to predict or it's definite. Which one is it?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Let me help. I paraphrase:

"the localised effects of El Nino are hard to predict accurately" (eg 60% confidence in a wetter SoCal winter etc)

"the severity of the drought (not to do with El Nino) has likely been made worse by global warming"

The two are not mutually exclusive and refer to different things. One is talking about the likely local short term weather effects of an El Nino pattern. The other is referring to the impact of global warming on the severity of a major drought.

If I punch you in the nose it's definitely going to bleed. How much it's going to bleed is hard to predict.

It's definitely going to bleed or it's hard to predict. which is it? Obviously both are true. It's a silly false dichotomy.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

That's fine. But that not what the quoted science guy said. He said it's definite. Not likely. Definite.

They aren't related... except for when they are.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Can you seriously not understand that it's possible to know something is definitely going to cause a problem but not know exactly how big a problem it's going to cause?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You're a pussy, if you punch me in the nose it probably won't bleed. Let's put the chances at 25% of it bleeding.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I am comfortable saying that it's possible that the drought was made worse by AGW. I am not comfortable with saying that we don't know all the effects of AGW but that this was definitely made worse by AGW.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Do you use this line of reasoning for everything or just global warming?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Well generally when I say that I am not sure about something I don't also say that I am definite about it.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You're conflating two different things. Once more they're saying they are definitely sure about the cause but unsure about the scope.

This isn't a difficult concept.

We can know x without knowing y. You are insisting that if we don't know both we can not know either.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You'll have to take it up with him. Yes he said the drought was definitely made worse by global warming. I can see where someone may have a problem with that, but to better understand him you should want to find out more, not, as Duffy said earlier "stop reading". He is not alone in saying that global warming is causing adverse weather patterns to worsen, whether they are storms or droughts.

But we've had worse droughts on the past.

If you look at historical rainfall totals and snowpack it's quite clear that our last drought was nothing special.

To say "well it wouldn't have been this dry but for AGW" is pure conjecture.

And now people are saying AGW will make it wetter.

Meanwhile the 150 year historical pattern of wet/dry hasn't really changed at all

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Where did I say to stop reading.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

When you predict or point out weather events to further the AGW religion it's science.

When you point out that the predictions didn't pan out you're conflating weather with climate and are a science denier.

When bad weather happens (drought or floods) its evidence of AGW. When good weather happens (drought is over and wild mustard flowers are blooming everywhere) it's just weather.

You're such an idiot.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Can you really not see that all your doing above is making blind statements (aka blather)? That's not having an intelligent discussion about global warming.

Post #46

"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data."
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...al-warming-data.html

Nope, I'm looking at actual measurements of rainfall and snowpack.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I assuming you checked Snopes before you trusted a tabloid??


http://www.snopes.com/...climate-change-data/

Do you know that the NOAA findings from Karl et al has been independently verified?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/...bal-temperature-rise

Ha ha. Wow. You think that post was serious?

Do you really believe that I think the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Here's the post for those who didn't see it...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

You're missing my point. Your statements may be correct (though I'm not sure about the scientific robustness of "hasn't really changed at all"), but they are not a discussion about global warming. You're just throwing stuff about.

Here is a more sensible discussion:

https://phys.org/...dy-oceans-years.html

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.
After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
This eliminated much of the global warming hiatus, an apparent slowdown in rising surface temperatures between 1998 and 2012. Many scientists, including the International Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged the puzzling hiatus, while those dubious about global warming pointed to it as evidence that climate change is a hoax.
Climate change skeptics attacked the NOAA researchers and a House of Representatives committee subpoenaed the scientists' emails. NOAA agreed to provide data and respond to any scientific questions but refused to comply with the subpoena, a decision supported by scientists who feared the "chilling effect" of political inquisitions.
The new study, which uses independent data from satellites and robotic floats as well as buoys, concludes that the NOAA results were correct. The paper will be published Jan. 4 in the online, open-access journal Science Advances.
"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said lead author Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group."

oh jeez... I guess I have to do this. ok then... Yes, I know you were being sarcastic when you wrote "The earth is only 6,000 years old" But you said you stopped reading when there was mention of cycles of glacial advance over the last 650,000 years, adding "so much BS here". In other words, you admitted that you chose to stop reading rather than better understand some scientific study.

Try reading this if you can get past all the BS:

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/...res/ice-core-basics/

"Ice core records allow us to generate continuous reconstructions of past climate, going back at least 800,000 years[2]."

Is there anything in my op (or any other post on this thread) that says anything about buoys and ships and ocean temps?

Is there anything in my op that is factually incorrect?

Really weird response.

It's like if I said, "your dog shit on my lawn", and you respond with "you're missing the point, my roof is made of tile".

For while here you were sounding pretty smart but maybe that's just because you're copying and pasting things written by smart people. Unfortunately for you, none of what you've copied and pasted contradicts anything in my original post.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

What does any of this have to do with what I wrote in the op?

You need to go back and read this thread from the beginning. Pay close attention to what I wrote in the op and also look at what slowman wrote, my responses to him and my hashtags.

You're completely fucking lost here.

Start over.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

ok good luck. already wasted too much time here.

Typical.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ok last one (I've promised myself)... why are you referring back to your OP here? We're discussing the bit where you said you'd stopped reading. Why did you stop reading? Presumably b/c you think it's BS to discuss climate over the last 650,000 years. But the point is, it's not. So how have I lost it? You're just trolling and I'm clearly falling for it.

Ok. It's official. You're not very bright v

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm def not at your level.

To bad Bates had to put his neck out to get the scientist of the "Karl study" to follow protocol when it comes to archiving and making data available. Very sloppy when we are talking 100's of billions in economic impact.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the AAAS and Science are trying to downplay the conflict. Bates says that Science violated its own policy for archiving and making data available when it published the Karl study. The policy states that “climate data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases.” Bates maintains that there is an urgent need for a “systematic change . . . to scientific publishing.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...al-warming-advocates

Well, you clearly seem hung up on a post that was obviously a joke. I even told you it was a joke and you insist on responding to it as if it were a serious post.

So let me help you. Slowman (sort of) equated "climate deniers" to young earthers and white supremacists.

When you brought up "650,000 years" I quipped that you were full of shit because the earth is 6,000 years old.

You see, because I'm a "climate denier" I must also be a religious fanatic young earth believer (I've also been told that I'm not a believer in evolution as well).

I was tweaking slowman. It was pretty obvious.

#whitepride

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ive mentioned it a few times here. Search function sucks. That's the only one spot could find.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not to you but I've asked a number of times for what the negative affects will be at some point in time but haven't got one answer, just referred to some web sites to do some research. If you are going to predict the sky is falling, it would be nice to know some sort of time frame. I think it's safe to say at some point the world will come to an end as far as humans being able to inhabit it. How long will it be before the earths core cools? What will those affects be?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012