[stevenj]

Or some might say, 'whenever they open their mouths'.


What they really mean is, '(we're going to change things so you have to do it -- or stop doing it) 'for the children/planet/future' (whether you agree with us or not)'.

That is of course democracy in action.

[RCWorks.com]

Which means nothing to cooked up data. NEXT!

[shaggy53]

Resident warmist stevenj says:"That is of course democracy in action."

You gotta keep up RC! It's the New Democracy! Better than the old democracy! Don't you care about the chilluns??

[RCWorks.com]

Yes, I care a great deal about the children. Mine is learning how to build a gun in my shop, we start him off with an AR15. My daughter likes hers store bought. Gun ownership is the first step in protecting yourself from a lawless demockracy.

[jcarpenter2]

Seen this whole series (Arithmetic, Population, and Energy by Dr. Bartlett) a couple of years ago. I think its very eye opening.

[RCWorks.com]

It might have been if there was no data fudging... Once the data was edited to someone's liking it is no longer fact but fiction.

[ifixcnc]

Just look at the ancient sea ports, the sea level has stayed put for many, many years. Simple logic not distorted data.

[ifixcnc]

[QUOTE=stevenj;1820328]ad hominem attack, shows a failure of logic and the ability to argue to the point so resort to attack the poster.

meanwhile 2015 was the hottest on record,

Just look at the ancient sea ports, the sea level has stayed put for many, many years. Simple logic not distorted data.

[jcarpenter2]

I understand the "data fudging" as every expert seems to do this in order to match the data with their way of thinking. Dr. Bartlett was definitely a big climate change type of guy, however, you need to listen to his presentation.
We are in a finite world.
We are consuming resources faster than ever before.
We do have an impact on our world.
Our population is coming to a breaking point.
Can the earth hold more people - of course, but at what cost? Many of the "negatives" that Dr. Bartlett mentioned we may never see, but what about future generations. Do it for the children is such a cliché, but we must think about what we are leaving to these future generations. There are repercussions of our actions and inactions.

[ifixcnc]

Of course we should do our level headed best not to make more of a mess then we need to. But the alarmist mentality is just as harmful as not doing anything. Over correct or under correct, and still you have the same outcome. This old planet has been around a long time, and been thru a lot of things. To think that man can upset her natural balance is preposterous. George Carlin had a timeless rant on the subject.

[shaggy53]

I understand the "data fudging" as every expert seems to do this in order to match the data with their way of thinking. Dr. Bartlett was definitely a big climate change type of guy, however, you need to listen to his presentation.
We are in a finite world.
We are consuming resources faster than ever before.
We do have an impact on our world.
Our population is coming to a breaking point.
Can the earth hold more people - of course, but at what cost? Many of the "negatives" that Dr. Bartlett mentioned we may never see, but what about future generations. Do it for the children is such a cliché, but we must think about what we are leaving to these future generations. There are repercussions of our actions and inactions.

Agreed, but the Global Warming scam is something else entirely.

[stevenj]

Of course we should do our level headed best not to make more of a mess then we need to. But the alarmist mentality is just as harmful as not doing anything. Over correct or under correct, and still you have the same outcome. This old planet has been around a long time, and been thru a lot of things. To think that man can upset her natural balance is preposterous. George Carlin had a timeless rant on the subject.

When 7billion of us consume fossil based energy we release C02 which does the work of altering the planet by trapping the sun's energy. So its like "mechanical advantage" for want of a better word.

George Carlin while great, is a comedian and not a climate scientist. So the Q is if you feel ill do you go see your doctor or go down the local bar and ask a few random drunks for their opinions? Me I go see my doctor and if I am not happy I go see a specialist for a second opinion.

[stevenj]

This is weather and not climate. What they can say from observations is just like 1997~98's record El Nino on top of global warming == way worse and more frequent storms, floods and droughts.

Link between global warming and snowstorms - Business Insider

100 years from now? well if you dont have any children and grandchildren and hence dont care about our species going extinct, yeah sure why worry.

[ifixcnc]

ad hominem attack, shows a failure of logic and the ability to argue to the point so resort to attack the poster." if you feel ill do you go see your doctor or go down the local bar and ask a few random drunks for their opinions?" REALLY?
George Carlin was great MIND, your field of specialty is not all that relevant, just like your opinion. Its a free country you are free to believe what ever you want, but real science doesn't support you. Check CFACT - for some real facts, or just keep spewing BS.

[stevenj]

ad hominem attack, shows a failure of logic and the ability to argue to the point so resort to attack the poster." if you feel ill do you go see your doctor or go down the local bar and ask a few random drunks for their opinions?" REALLY?
George Carlin was great MIND, your field of specialty is not all that relevant, just like your opinion. Its a free country you are free to believe what ever you want, but real science doesn't support you. Check CFACT - for some real facts, or just keep spewing BS.

I have no issue with ppl holding opinions. What I do have issue with is when they try and attack others for having opinions based on Science and Math, ie attack those people personally and not the message.

Yes science and math does support me on climate change. 2015 was a clear world record surpassing 2014 and 1998, and 2016 will probably beat it. (see below)

cfact is not facts, it is nothing more than a web site showing the denialist message. It is simple, if you want to make a decision you base it on the best information you can and cross correlate/check it preferably 3 times. So the first thing is determine the quality of the information and cfacts does not stack up, as it has none.

Lets look at just one post,

Not so hot

So the author complains that 2015 was not the hottest on record but at the very top shows a graph to only 2013, hiding 2014 and 2015. Hmmm, does not bode well.

Then there is the actual temperature records derived by 4~5 independent scientific sources.

Graphs of the Day: The Pause no More | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

The sources are also not just satellite data, but ground stations, weather balloons and sea bouys all used to give a high confidence. The denialists like Ted Cruz use one source, satellite and it seems dont even correct the instrument by calibrating it.

So when you use a micrometer do you calibrate it for zero and its max accuracy using gauges? I do and its an annual quality assurance thing.

Lets take another comment "“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations."

In terms of models v actual if you look at "blended model-observations comparisons" in the above link we can see that the models actually do a pretty good job but if anything under report. So the above comment on cfacts is a clear un-truth.

The graphs also show 4~5 different sources for results all showing warming, so its high confidence, cfacts? not one source.

So I suggest you use facts and not propaganda to base your life decisions on, but yes since its a free country that is up to you.

[ifixcnc]

Did you ever think we'd see the day when NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, would choose ground-based thermometers in little boxes over satellites?

In science, "cherry picking" has been defined as "suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

That appears to be what NASA and NOAA were up to when they relied exclusively on ground-based measurements to proclaim 2015 the "hottest" year ever, adjusted that data to make it warmer, and ignored data from satellites and weather balloons.

Dr. Roy Spencer manages temperature satellites at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He explains in a CFACT.org exclusive:

"Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures."

Dr. Spencer reminds us that, "No matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems."

Take a look at Dr. Spencer's full explanation.

Satellites measure the entire Earth, pole to pole, without gaps. Thermometers are located sporadically. Researchers are forced to make assumptions about huge areas of the Earth to fill in the gaps.

Nothing is perfect, but the data from satellites is the best we have.

Warming campaigners ignore what the satellites tell us, and now are attacking them as inaccurate!

[stevenj]

Did you ever think we'd see the day when NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, would choose ground-based thermometers in little boxes over satellites?

In science, "cherry picking" has been defined as "suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

That appears to be what NASA and NOAA were up to when they relied exclusively on ground-based measurements to proclaim 2015 the "hottest" year ever, adjusted that data to make it warmer, and ignored data from satellites and weather balloons.

Dr. Roy Spencer manages temperature satellites at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He explains in a CFACT.org exclusive:

"Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures."

Dr. Spencer reminds us that, "No matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems."

Take a look at Dr. Spencer's full explanation.

Satellites measure the entire Earth, pole to pole, without gaps. Thermometers are located sporadically. Researchers are forced to make assumptions about huge areas of the Earth to fill in the gaps.

Nothing is perfect, but the data from satellites is the best we have.

Warming campaigners ignore what the satellites tell us, and now are attacking them as inaccurate!

==========
Dr Spencer has been repeatedly called out on his erroneous calculations and in fact his work is so bad its negative and not positive and even with 3? attempts he cannot get it right and hence he has no reputable peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject.

So when initially put up the satellites measured the effect at 2pm or so (may have been 3pm) but now measure the eftect at 6pm. Surely even you can understand that 6pm is cooler than 2~3pm?

Researchers note that we have indeed few temperature measuring instruments in some areas. Areas that it seem are the ones most effected by global change increases and hence the global average. So in the last decade or so they have improved those readings and have used Math and not "assumptions".

Satellites do not record temperature directly, as more most electronic sensors they give a voltage output (probably 5volts) they also do not measure temperature they measure of an effect. This its "voltage" then put though a model to get a temperature.

Climate scientists do not ignore what the satellites are saying, they do not ignore weather balloons in fact use them a lot plus sea bouys. Climate scientists also do not consider the satellites the best they have but another tool.

Dr Spencer is in-correct on the models, they have been under reporting compared to the observations and this is well documented as I posted above.

On top of that we can see the climate is changing, producing more frequent and severe weather events ergo the mountian of supporting evidence that we have a problem and its us causing it is over-whelming.

[RCWorks.com]

"For the children!" The hallmark phrase of the charlatan.

[stevenj]

8><------

Nothing is perfect, but the data from satellites is the best we have.

Warming campaigners ignore what the satellites tell us, and now are attacking them as inaccurate!

Um no as per climate scientists,

"Mainstream scientists, including some that run satellites similar to the ones Michaels cites, are quick to point out that the surface temperature record is much more robust than satellite data, and other points of evidence (Arctic sea ice melt, glacier melt, ocean heat, sea level rise, etc.) contradict the satellites."

Over-reliance on satellite data alone criticized - Yale Climate Connections

further,

"Climate scientists Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer, David Titley, and others voice what they see as limitations or shortcomings of the satellite data. They point to a history of documented errors and mistakes that have often caused satellites to underestimate climate warming.

Among these errors are a failure to account for “orbital decay,” changes measuring in the diurnal cycle, and faulty calibration of satellite sensors. Most of all, they discourage over-reliance on any single set of data and instead urge consideration of numerous authoritative data sets."

"Ben Santer, of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. discusses the many sources of information that climate scientists use to evaluate global change, including measures of sea level, ocean heat, atmospheric moisture, rainfall, sea ice decline, and changes in the cryosphere. Scientists he said, look at many independent data sets, over “long sweeps of time.”

Mears underscores that the best practice is to “look at all the different data sets, you don’t want to trust only the satellite temperatures.”

Cumulatively, the scientific data are telling “an internally and physically consistent story,” Santer says – the planet is warming, and natural causes can’t explain that warming."

[stevenj]

"For the children!" The hallmark phrase of the charlatan.

how so?