Using new data, US finds no pause in global warming

June 4, 2015
Using updated data on the Earth's surface temperatures worldwide, US government scientists have found no evidence of a pause in
Using updated data on the Earth's surface temperatures worldwide, US government scientists have found no evidence of a pause in global warming in recent years

Using updated data on the Earth's surface temperatures worldwide, US government scientists have found no evidence of a pause in global warming in recent years, according to research published on Thursday.

The report by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was published in the journal Science.

It had been thought that temperatures in the 21st century plateaued.

"The new analysis suggests no discernible decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century, a period marked by manmade warming, and the first fifteen years of the 21st century, a period dubbed a global warming 'hiatus,'" the report said.

The study uses "updated and corrected observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea," it said.

With that data, there is no evidence that temperatures in the 21st century have in fact plateaued.

"Instead, the rate of warming during the first fifteen years of the is at least as great as that in the last half of the 20th century, suggesting warming is continuing apace," said the study.

Rising temperatures across the planet have set new records, and NOAA has declared 2014 was the hottest year in modern history.

The globe experienced its hottest month of March since record-keeping began in 1880, and the period of January to March was also the warmest on record, NOAA has said.

A NOAA analysis using updated global surface temperature data disputes the existence of a 21st century global warming slowdown. The new analysis suggests no discernable decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century, a period marked by manmade warming, and the first fifteen years of the 21st century, a period dubbed a global warming “hiatus.” According to the researchers, the hiatus was an illusion, an artifact of earlier analyses. Credit: NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information

Scientists warn that fossil fuel burning is pushing more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, leading to increased temperatures, melting of polar ice and glaciers and rising seas.

Experts said the latest study should address some key uncertainties in global warming projections, which are at the heart of major world climate talks in Paris later this year.

"A whole cottage industry has been built by climate skeptics on the false premise that there is currently a hiatus in global warming," said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.

"This important reanalysis suggests there never was a global warming hiatus; if anything, temperatures are warming faster in the last 15 years than in the last 65 years."

Some experts hailed the Science article for using better quality data than the figures used to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 report, which found some evidence of a pause in in recent years.

But others, like Piers Forster, professor of at the University of Leeds, pointed out that the IPCC report relies on numerous sets of data, not just NOAA's.

"Even with the corrections in this study, the observed warming has not been as large as predicted by models. Other global datasets, even when corrected for missing Arctic data, still show a decreased trend since 1998," he said.

"I still don't think this study will be the last word on this complex subject."

Explore further: Last month was hottest March worldwide since 1880: US

More information: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, Science, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aaa5632

Related Stories

Heat still on despite warming slowdown

April 23, 2015

The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.

Recommended for you

352 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Grallen
3.5 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2015
Well... That sucks.

I suppose the "bright side" will be a stronger reaction by governments.
Eddy Courant
2.6 / 5 (31) Jun 04, 2015
Desperate aren't they! So DC and NYC are underwater after all. Someone should apprise them. And snow is now a thing of the past. Woohoo. I can get behind that one.
syndicate_51
2.2 / 5 (22) Jun 04, 2015
Grab the point of the data that best serves your narrative and bend it to fit in and you could claim that we are about to enter an ice age if you wanted to.
RichTheEngineer
2.6 / 5 (35) Jun 04, 2015
"updated and corrected" is synonym for fudged for political reasons.

Can't trust U.S. government to give us accurate temperature measurements anymore.

Everything is politicized. US is turning into USSSA (Union of Soviet Socialist States of America).
gkam
2.6 / 5 (50) Jun 04, 2015
Deniers are deniers for political reasons.
maxwell_bean
3.3 / 5 (30) Jun 04, 2015
Of course the hiatus is over, even if there ever was one - last year hit new peaks.

Also, the arctic ice extent is back to hitting new lows - no it's not recovering.

And even yes, the earth is still not flat and is still over 4 billion years old...

But some questions can never be answered like Why do deniers go to a science site to trash science?
Tom_Andersen
2.4 / 5 (25) Jun 04, 2015
Its actually funny - you can see the desperation in the wording.

How can this not be called cherry picking when two satellite datasets and other land based sets available on wood for trees all clearly show a slowing of warming or no warming for 20 years? Piers Forster uses nicer words to say the same thing, but apparently its all about fear, not facts.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (43) Jun 04, 2015
Tom, do you think this is a game? Did you choose up sides? Using what criteria? I find most deniers are uneducated on the environmental sciences. Political prejudice is tough to reason with.
johnwbales
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 04, 2015
Government sponsored research which legitimizes an increase in government power is every bit as unbiased as tobacco company research showing that tobacco is not harmful to ones health.
Code_Warrior
3.1 / 5 (21) Jun 04, 2015
Tom, do you think this is a game? Did you choose up sides? Using what criteria? I find most deniers are uneducated on the environmental sciences. Political prejudice is tough to reason with.

Your credibility was lost when you pointed to political prejudice as being tough to reason with while at the same time demonstrating your own political prejudice with your repeated use of the word denier. The fact is that you're just as much of a political zealot as him and neither of you have any credibility.

I think I'll just listen to the actual scientists debate the issue and listen to them critique each other's positions and hope that I learn something in the process. In the meantime, I think I'll stop reading the comment sections of every article on climate since there doesn't appear to be anything but hypocritical political zealots saying nothing worth reading.
antigoracle
2.8 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2015
Well, after 18 years of pause and lies upon lies of where the CO2 manufactured heat is hiding, they have come up with the best of them all. What a surprise this happened when they "corrected".. er..excuse me.."cooked" the temperature.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (38) Jun 04, 2015
"Your credibility was lost when you pointed to political prejudice as being tough to reason with while at the same time demonstrating your own political prejudice with your repeated use of the word denier."
--------------------------------------

Yup, we are polarized. I got my own biases from earning a Master of Science in the fields of the Environment and energy use.

I actually urge you to read the science. Look at examples such as Stumpy, who takes the time and effort (and cost), to dig up the actual studies. Do not get synopses of them only, but refer to and read the original works if necessary. Otherwise, good synopses can be found at sciencenews.org and sciencedaily.com as well as others.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (35) Jun 04, 2015
"I could just as much label you a denier because you don't agree with God's Word or don't agree with some of my personal viewpoints."
-------------------------------

Yup, and you would be correct. Put it in big letters.

I also have to admit you are correct, and I got carried away. I got too used to dealing with the crank otto.

I apologize.

ps - which god?

maxwell_bean
3.3 / 5 (24) Jun 05, 2015
oh the humanity! somebody got called a denier; how awful. You can call me a denier all you want as well if you are taking about so called "God's word". If you have no interest in Science, what are you doing here?
maxwell_bean
3.1 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
gkam, "denier" is not a dirty word, no need to apologize -its just part of the game of faux outrage they teach on right wing media.

Verkle apparently thinks oil is just modern day manna from heaven and forgets that others Christians like the Omish and Quakers took one look at that stuff pumped from deep underground and smelling of sulfur and deemed it the work of the devil. We should of listened to them.
cjones1
2 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
Delay the long term trend of the ice age coming does not seem a bad thing. I read about the Panama Hypothesis which states that the ice on the North Pole and the Arctic did not appear until after the formation of the isthmus rose changing the salinity of the Atlantic causing fresher Arctic waters that froze at lower temperatures.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (23) Jun 05, 2015
Delay the long term trend of the ice age coming does not seem a bad thing. I read about the Panama Hypothesis which states that the ice on the North Pole and the Arctic did not appear until after the formation of the isthmus rose changing the salinity of the Atlantic causing fresher Arctic waters that froze at lower temperatures.


.........but the problem is a book called Revelation that the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick congregants actually believe in. They're right up front about their theism with their high priest, DarkLordKelvin standing dead in the center of their Pentagram. You'd think he'd have the common sense to dump that handle & find a better way to form public relations.
AGreatWhopper
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2015
Is there a big difference in cred between NOAA and the EPA? Funny how those that think NOAA is spot on contradict the EPA's findings on oil pollution http://phys.org/n...ing.html . Cherry picking data again.

But I'm glad to hear all those that are calling it pure toxins have given up driving. No? Oh, then I guess you're saying NOAA is right, EPA is wrong, and you're pouring toxins into my environment that I should really learn to live without.

I cannot imagine why the cognitively challenged find that confusing. EVERYONE is a denier (pardon the noun fraud- the word isn't offensive; turning a verb phrase into a noun that is coded language for behavioral conformity is). Most all either deny AGW or they deny that they need to act on their beliefs. How much has the trend changed since the first Earth Day? Zero. You've had zero effect in nearly 50 years of "environmental activism". Bigger diff between your parents and you vs you and "deniers".
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (22) Jun 05, 2015
I got my own biases from earning a Master of Science in the fields of the Environment and energy use.


Liar liar, pants on fire.

Which college/university?
Sigh
4.5 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
Government sponsored research which legitimizes an increase in government power

That can only apply to global warming if you assume that government power is the only way to solve that problem. In other words, you have declared that global warming is the kind of problem that markets can't deal with.
Sigh
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2015
From antigoracle:
Well, after 18 years of pause

I think it was last year that I offered here a $1000 dollar bet that the average temperature of 2015-2029 would be higher than 1998-2014. No takers from the believers in the pause. I offer the same bet again. Money from both parties in an escrow account or invested such that only the winner can take it in 2030. Will you take it? I want to increase my retirement fund.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2015
Well, after 18 years of pause and lies upon lies of where the CO2 manufactured heat is hiding, they have come up with the best of them all. What a surprise this happened when they "corrected".. er..excuse me.."cooked" the temperature.


Naaa Emperical evidence shows that the globe is warming (something gorilla monkey is unable to comprehend) his 3 braincells however overcooks everytime he thinks :D
Returners
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2015
The study uses "updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea," it said.


The new age of science and reason: Got data that disagrees with your theory? No problem. Just change the data!!
LariAnn
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2015
And if the scientists just kept all their findings to themselves, when the climate problems become so bad that no one could deny something is wrong, those in the pockets of Big Oil would be crying "why didn't they tell us this was happening? It's a conspiracy!" It's a no-win situation for the scientists when the opposition is nothing but whiners.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2015
Since the measured temperatures do not match our projections, we have adjusted the measured temperatures. Isn't that better?

Is there even the appearance of legitimacy in the AGW declarations any more?

Will the emperor's new clothes sell?
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2015
dogfart just can't seem to get any evidence supporting his thumbsucked opinions, aaahh but his good at manning waterprophetclowny and antiscienacgoracle gorilla's puppet accounts creating a 3 tier hustle to prove to the world how dumb they and their superiors are... atta monkey :D
Stevepidge
2 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015

Your credibility was lost when you pointed to political prejudice as being tough to reason with while at the same time demonstrating your own political prejudice with your repeated use of the word denier. The fact is that you're just as much of a political zealot as him and neither of you have any credibility.

I think I'll just listen to the actual scientists debate the issue and listen to them critique each other's positions and hope that I learn something in the process. In the meantime, I think I'll stop reading the comment sections of every article on climate since there doesn't appear to be anything but hypocritical political zealots saying nothing worth reading.


Wait. you think "scientists" can't be compromised by political factions? Disciplined Minds? ring a bell?
Ultron
2 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2015
I just wonder, if they will publish the temperature data and methods how they corrected it, or it will be marked as top secret as usual to avoid disturbances in cashing in grants for research of Global warming.
Stevepidge
2 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
The study uses "updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea," it said.


The new age of science and reason: Got data that disagrees with your theory? No problem. Just change the data!!


This is 100% true science sold out to the devil. I would guess that 50% of all peer reviewed studies are JUNK.
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (19) Jun 05, 2015
Naaa big oil will just run another campaign bribing to fake scientific results, the usual and only way of business they know.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
Yup, we are polarized. I got my own biases from earning a Master of Science in the fields of the Environment and energy use
.........you must be one of those "scientists" that master DarkLordKelvin must be referring to?

Look at examples such as Stumpy
.......another one of DarkLordKelvin's scientists who's never seen a Differential Equation he could solve.
Do not get synopses of them only, but refer to and read the original works if necessary. Otherwise, good synopses can be found at sciencenews.org and sciencedaily.com as well as others.
Ok then, go to Nature & read this if you think 400ppm of CO2 is such an evil commodity:

http://www.nature...664.html
Forestgnome
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
"Deniers are deniers for political reasons". Proponents have a profit motive. Which motive is dominant in humankind?
xstos
4.8 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2015
Personally I think humans have the right to burn hundreds of millions of years worth of fossil fuel in the span of 100 years and expect that nothing bad will happen. It's just irrational to assume a paltry 7B people, and 100B cattle, can mess anything up. Where did all the forests go you say? Well you don't need that much forest anyway, the plankton will make up for it. Oh wait all that CO2 is turning the ocean into vinegar? That's ok we'll just invent some machines that produce oxygen for us. Who needs bees when we have tiny little drones to fertilize plants. We set off a few volcanic eruptions using nukes to increase the ash content in the atmosphere to cool things down if things get really ugly. No need to worry...
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (19) Jun 05, 2015
Tiny minds think the planet is too huge to contemplate, and that human activity is too insignificant to affect it. "The tide comes in, the tide goes out; you can't explain it" -- billo
xstos
5 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
Tiny minds indeed,
denglish
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2015
AGW = Intellectual Dishonesty

It will be a great day when this fraud is finally exposed in such a way that it can't wriggle out.
Protoplasmix
4.8 / 5 (17) Jun 05, 2015
It will be a great day when this fraud is finally exposed in such a way that it can't wriggle out.
If only the global temperature would cooperate, huh?
denglish
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
A First Look at 'Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus' by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

http://wattsupwit...ne-2015/

"It ain't what you don't know that'll hurt you- it's what you know that ain't so."
gkam
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 05, 2015

"It ain't what you don't know that'll hurt you- it's what you know that ain't so."

That is a quotation of Ronald Wilson Reagan, old 666, who also said he was in D-Day, and helped liberate Nazi Death Camps, to the astonishment of those who knew he spent the entire war at Hal Roach Studios.

So it was nice of him to elucidate it for us.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
AGW = Intellectual Dishonesty

It will be a great day when this fraud is finally exposed in such a way that it can't wriggle out.


Then read this:
http://www.nature...664.html

Anyone who would think that 400 ppm of CO2 is such an evil commodity during a 17 year hiatus of global warming are only those who are self-deluded neophytes who've never seen a Rate of Reaction Equation they could understand much less solve. What cogent thinking person would link the present 400 ppm of CO2 to a global warming effect when the beneficial effects of 400 ppm of a 0.04% trace gas can have this beneficial effect with a 17 year hiatus on "warming"? The simple answer is that they can't, but they don't care that they can't & that they don't have enough of a background in science to come up with cogent arguments to the contrary.

denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
. Oh wait all that CO2 is turning the ocean into vinegar?


CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases and the fact is that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978

denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
That is a quotation of Ronald Wilson Reagan


Wrong. Its commonly attributed to Mark Twain, but was probably made by a contemporary of Twain's... the name escapes me.

old 666

I think you're choosing the wrong way to gain credibility.

who also said he was in D-Day, and helped liberate Nazi Death Camps

Reference please

So it was nice of him to elucidate it for us.

Excuse me, your ridiculously prejudiced liberalism is showing.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2015
I will be kind and include only the report by one of his apologists, trying to excuse it. If you look it up, you can find the others.
.
"In the spring of 1945, Capt. Reagan, as the FMPU's intelligence officer, spent weeks processing raw color footage from the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps. The images so burned into his brain that later in life - quite understandably - he imagined he had been there at Ohrdruf and Buchenwald."
gkam
2.4 / 5 (29) Jun 05, 2015
Yeah, "quite understandably" he lived in a fantasy world, as we told you long ago. Reagan believed whatever somebody told him, and it became reality. Later, he made up the stuff himself. His son said he had never had a real conversation of any meaning with Ronnie, (perhaps he may have been incapable). But to the conservatives he was SMART.

And he probably was, . . compared to them.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
I will be kind and include only the report by one of his apologists, trying to excuse it. If you look it up, you can find the others.
.
"In the spring of 1945, Capt. Reagan, as the FMPU's intelligence officer, spent weeks processing raw color footage from the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps. The images so burned into his brain that later in life - quite understandably - he imagined he had been there at Ohrdruf and Buchenwald."

No reference directly attributing it to Reagan = no ticky = no laundry.

Besides, this thread is about the NOAA lying, not Reagan lying.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (23) Jun 05, 2015
Yeah, "quite understandably" he lived in a fantasy world, as we told you long ago. Reagan believed whatever somebody told him, and it became reality. Later, he made up the stuff himself.


........in the meantime you are living in a fantasy world of a 17 year hiatus in global warming with ppm of CO2 having increased from 300 to 400 ppm but creating no warming effects as your side of political persuasion has been adamant would have almost immediate effects. The reason you don't think there's anything wrong with your science & your calculus is because you keep quoting politicians, and how many of those have ever seen a Rate of Reaction Equation they could solve?

gkam
2.5 / 5 (31) Jun 05, 2015
"and how many of those have ever seen a Rate of Reaction Equation they could solve? "
------------------------------------

Benni, the commenters here like Stumpy and many others rare REAL. The mathematics of which you so enamored are the beginnings of the criteria required for their professions. I do not know where you got the idea nobody else has had Algebra and Calculus, but I suggest you get into the Real World.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
the commenters here like Stumpy and many others rare (sic) REAL


Oh, that's rich! 9/10
gkam
2.5 / 5 (29) Jun 05, 2015
You may continue to get your science from the Bible, but the rest of us trust researchers, thanks.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
You may continue to get your science from the Bible, but the rest of us trust researchers, thanks.


In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.

Rationalisation happens in two steps:

1 - A decision, action, judgement is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all (in cases for instance of dogmatic judgement or normal behaviour).
2 - A rationalisation is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others).
gkam
2.3 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2015
"Rationalisation happens in two steps:

1 - A decision, action, judgement is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all (in cases for instance of dogmatic judgement or normal behaviour).
2 - A rationalisation is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others)."
------------------------------------------

Sounds like a case of conservatives screaming "WMD!" and "Bring 'em on!".
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
AGW = Intellectual Dishonesty = Al Gore's World
Benni
2.1 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
"and how many of those have ever seen a Rate of Reaction Equation they could solve? "


Benni, the commenters here like Stumpy and many others rare REAL. The mathematics of which you so enamored are the beginnings of the criteria required for their professions. I do not know where you got the idea nobody else has had Algebra and Calculus,


Ex-firefighter Stumpy is indeed real & living in Texas on a pension he earned as a firefighter & whose only college education is a psychology course he took at a local community college in Texas.

I'm enamored by the calculus of someone's background because it is the single biggest clue as to how deeply someone has actually studied science & not suddenly adopted it as a retirement hobby because they have nothing else to do, as the case is with Stumpy, VietVet, Ira, etc. have done. This bunch resents my challenging their proficiency in math because it is the single biggest intimidating factor they're unable to confront.

Sigh
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
No reference directly attributing it to Reagan
This does, and names two people to whom he told the story, Yitzhak Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal: http://www.salon....problem/
gkam
2.5 / 5 (32) Jun 05, 2015
Benni keeps referring to the mathematics all of us have had. Why is that?

How about some general knowledge, Benni? How about some specific knowledge of science Benni?

How about some ties to the Real World?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
Benni keeps referring to the mathematics all of us have had.
Stumpy?

How about some general knowledge, Benni? How about some specific knowledge of science Benni?


How about some ties to the Real World?

....obviously you don't recognize "specific knowledge of science" when you read it in my above postings, so that tells me a lot about your claims.

You, like the rest of the "science hobbyists" living on this site, are just so hoodwinked by hucksters with axes to grind that you're unable to explain to me why there has been a 17 year warming hiatus from the onset of CO2 ppm from 300 in the 1998 Hockey Stick to 400 today with no increase in global temperature.

Did you read the Nature article I've twice linked to? Just how offensive to science do you find it that increasing CO2 at the periphery of the Sahara has reversed the drought trend there, but hasn't brought increased temperatures, only increased vegetation. Don't like that kind of science do you?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2015
Ex-firefighter Stumpy is indeed real & living in Texas on a pension he earned as a firefighter & whose only college education is a psychology course he took at a local community college in Texas
@benni-TROLL
no, i don't live in texas
personally, i hate the place
also, my psyche classes were from MIT, U of Michigan and the U of Miami
at least i can demonstrate logical thought and mathematical ability, unlike you
you can't do basic math: http://phys.org/n...als.html
(a galactic year equal to milankovitch cycles? really?)
nor can you demonstrate ability with differential equations
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

but you are going to claim you are a nuclear engineer again?

NONE of this changes observed data which has shown increased temps from the 80's despite antig's, benni's or any other person like deng's claims
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
@benni cont'd
This bunch resents my challenging their proficiency in math because it is the single biggest intimidating factor they're unable to confront.
how can we resent something you have YET to demonstrate?

those links above show that you are STILL lying about your abilities

but that is beside the point
the data above simply represents what i've been posting for two years now:

last three decades temps: http://www.woodfo...60/trend

it says the same thing

temps going up

it also shows that benni cannot read and is illiterate
show me ONE place where i said i was from texas ROTFLMFAO

still reaching, eh b?

just because i lived there once, doesn't mean i still do
how about that differential equation link above?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
here is some OOPS data for benniTROLL
Direct from the RESULTS of the study!
As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1). Even starting a trend calculation with 1998, the extremely warm El Niño year that is often used as the beginning of the "hiatus", our global temperature trend (1998-2014) is 0.106°C dec−1 – and we know that is an underestimate due to incomplete coverage over the Arctic.
Science trumps your personal conjectures once again, benniTROLL

how are those math classes coming along B?
got past basic calc yet?

& i get paid by the military & gov't
not the FD
MR166
1 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
This is all so boring.The fact is that even when AGW is disproved the people in charge of the governments of the world will just find another way to enslave ALL of us. There will always be another crisis that requires our tax money and relinquishing our freedoms.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
So stumpy, according to your quote, prior to 1950 AGW was insignificant. Yet the warming is indistinguishable from that blamed on AGW.
http://wattsupwit...re-data/
gkam
2.3 / 5 (28) Jun 05, 2015
I think 166 is confused: It was "WMD!" which was disproved, not AGW.
MR166
2 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
This is truly depressing. A government agency is rewriting past data and climate science thinks nothing of it. This is truly another case which proves that the end justifies the means in the progressive world. The truth is of little value if it harms the cause. A real scientist who take the profession seriously would be up in arms and foaming at the mouth upon hearing of this travesty. It seems that ethics are as passe as marriage and 2 parent families.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
"Even with the corrections in this study, the observed warming has not been as large as predicted by models. Other global datasets, even when corrected for missing Arctic data, still show a decreased trend since 1998," he said.


No one should be surprised if this "announcement" is doubted.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (29) Jun 05, 2015
" A real scientist who take the profession seriously would be up in arms and foaming at the mouth upon hearing of this travesty."
-------------------------------------------

Do you know one?

Ask him.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2015
donglish/gorilacle monkey puppet quoting monkeyscience, keep us smiling, we like to play with monkeys, those 1 out of 5 votings really standing out bright and brilliant, you earned your bannanas today, but tomorrow you will need to up the posts, that 200 mark is still a ways off, but you're almost there... :D
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2015
cmon monkeys c'mon monkeys..more..more.more......
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
The fact is that even when AGW is disproved the people in charge of the governments of the world will just find another way to enslave ALL of us
@mr
then by all means just an-hero now and save yourself and keep the darwin award winning progeny of yours from spreading obfuscation and blatant fallacies

So stumpy, according to your quote, prior to 1950 AGW was insignificant.
@antiG
by all means, please copy and paste that quote from the above so i can see where it says that

and don't bother with those links
if it aint a journal with reputable science and studies, i aint using it

because i can show that anthony watts is NOT a reputable climate scientists with reputable studies published in journals which refute any studies i linked...

and you have YET to provide any reputable study from ANYONE that refutes a single one of the studies i linked... ANYWHERE on this site

oh, and you are TROLLING, too
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
Lieing about education is shameful.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
Lieing about education is shameful.
@deng
first off, it is "lying", not "lieing" [sic]

2nd- i can agree with that
i gave you 5 stars

that is why most people (including the site rules and mods) require you to present validated empirical evidence and links/proof supporting a claim

the only reason benni etc gets away with his trolling is because the site is not moderated

of course - that is also why zephir, cantdrive, water/ALCHIE et al, antiG and all the rest still are able to post here

Benni
2.7 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
A government agency is rewriting past data and climate science thinks nothing of it.
What are you taliking about: "and climate science thinks nothing of it"? There are no "climate" scientists posting on this site, just a bunch of congregants from the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick with high school math skills.

The truth is of little value if it harms the cause.
Actually, the lack of truth & honesty is what enhances zealots for their AGW cause.
A real scientist who take the profession seriously would be up in arms and foaming at the mouth upon hearing of this travesty.
You're a trespasser on this site if you proclaim your proficiency in advanced math skills & work in a science based profession

It seems that ethics are as passe as marriage and 2 parent families.
Very likely you just made an accurate depiction of the lifestyles of ALL those who are about to give this post 1 Star votes, most of them have probably been divorced multiple times.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
This sort of manipulation just goes to prove that you can never be too paranoid when it comes to trusting the US government. In the last 20 years or so the government of the people has been usurped by the people of the government.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
Lieing about education is shameful.
@deng
first off, it is "lying", not "lieing" [sic]


Ooops! Guesss who I caught! Wasn't even any bait on the hook! Just looking for someone who *may* have a reason to defend themselves! OUCH!

Tell us more about MIT...hahahah

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
You're a trespasser on this site if you proclaim your proficiency in advanced math skills & work in a science based profession
and you are a complete idiot if you denigrate others while touting your own skill but then when challenged to produce a result, lie about it or simply ignore it and fail to prove your ability
like benni did with his oft-repeated battle cry of differential equations here:

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

that isn't even mentioning the inability to take 3 seconds and look up a basic term!
which he them attributes to HIMSELF even though there is no post showing he knows what he is talking about

so what is your excuse for that benniTROLL?

typo?
Tell us more about MIT...hahahah
@deng
try it yourself
it's FREE

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

ROTFLMFAO

by, you just never learn!
I've been using this link for 2 years
been going to the site for longer
LMFAO
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
@deng
try it yourself
it's FREE

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

ROTFLMFAO

by, you just never learn!
I've been using this link for 2 years
been going to the site for longer
LMFAO



You really are a POS, aren't ya? Name drop like you're credentialed, and you got nothing! NOTHING!

Shameful.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
The worst crime in science it tampering with the data.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (28) Jun 05, 2015
"You really are a POS, aren't ya? Name drop like you're credentialed, and you got nothing! NOTHING!"
----------------------------------

Do you work for HR? Another buzzword-matcher?

Good performing people often do not have the "appropriate" degrees, says Bill Gates.

What Stumpy has is an understanding of the science, great curiosity to learn more, and the guts to do it.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (29) Jun 05, 2015
"The worst crime in science it tampering with the data. "
----------------------------------

In any important field.

Look up Deibold and "rob georgia", or Doug Feith and the Office of Special Plans.

They sure got to you.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
You really are a POS, aren't ya? Name drop like you're credentialed, and you got nothing!
@dung
awww... poor thing

get your feelings hurt because i've been using this link for two years and trying to get pseudoscience idiots like yourself to actually learn why they're wrong about physics?

Why the sudden butt-hurt, dung?

jealous?

tell you what: google the MIT link and my profile with Phys.org and actually SEE how many times i shared it... ROTFLMFAO

maybe you will learn something then?

personally, i think you should use the link and learn something

but i will not get my hopes up, given you don't WANT to learn: you want to simply denigrate others and spread obfuscation and lies

sorry, dung, the only shameful anything here is posters like you and benni and those who ignore science for a personal delusion, whatever it is
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2015
Mr 166 says:
The worst crime in science it tampering with the data.


I assume you are implying that the article above deals with data that were "tampered" with. That is a serious accusation and requires serious references. Don't give us blog posts that are not peer reviewed, show us a serious paper that demonstrates the "tampering." All data are transformed from raw form to usable form. There are many ways to do that and they are well accepted means for making the results more robust. Please show us why you think this was "tampering" instead of analysis?
MR166
1.9 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
If I had to place a time of demise of the US citizen I would guess it started under Bush 1. He basically gave Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait. He then invaded Iraq and when it was over stated that "This is the start of a new world order"

The US has been accelerating down hill ever since.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
" Please show us why you think this was "tampering" instead of analysis?"
I will leave that to the experts and history.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
"Look up Deibold and "rob georgia"," I did and am not sure what was compromised other than poor security. Anywho, I am totally against any sort of internet or smartphone voting since the possibilities for voter fraud are immense.
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
Well, after 18 years of pause ...

Read the freaking article and repeat after me... There was now pause, there was no pause... there was no pause.

It's amazing how much the stupid rightwing deniers twits will concoct. They are exactly like the tobacco industry. So now they can't even say there was a pause. All of the lame, statistically invalid graphs from the forest-from-the-trees website for the last 15 years is now officially BS. How will the deniers deal with it without their heads exploding again?

To be honest, I've been very skeptical of the lull because what I've seen is nothing but a continual exponential rise in temps.

and lies upon lies of where the CO2 manufactured heat is hiding, they have come up with the best of them all. What a surprise this happened when they "corrected".. er..excuse me.."cooked" the temperature.
Are you really surprised when someone finally corrects your wrong assumptions and misstatements about the data.

Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2015
MR166 observes
The US has been accelerating down hill ever since
Indeed. its primarily a republican issue ideologically driven to put all responsibility for all thing as much as possible on people with as little as possible effort/consideration by government to support an enlightened society whilst pandering to business to extract as much wealth as possible eg NRA, Health Insurance etc

This can be circumvented by:-
Science education, especially Physics. Maths & especially psychology.

Why doesnt MR166 make a start ?

That way he can become immune to all politically driven propaganda by knowing the fundamentals.

Is that TOO simple ?
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Jun 05, 2015
" I did and am not sure what was compromised other than poor security. "
-------------------------------------

It got a cheater into the Senate.

Did you look up the Office of Special Plans? Lt. Col Kwiatkowski, who blew the whilstle on them? No? Are you aware many of us knew of it long BEFORE the Dubya Invasion?

We tried and tried to tell those of you who were fooled, but you folk really needed that mass killing to feel powerful.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
"Deniers are deniers for political reasons". Proponents have a profit motive. Which motive is dominant in humankind?


Political of course. Money is a means to power, and power is political.

denglish
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
@dung

Stopped there.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

What kind of POS steals the honor of acedemia?
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2015
To most of us, POS means point-of-sale, a term both in business and equipment. What does it mean to your kind of folk?

And what is "acedemia"? Sounds like a skin condition.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (20) Jun 05, 2015
El Stumpo,

I'm almost tempted to reset the Ignore button on you just to see what kind of mindless bilge you've been up to lately. But what would be the point? You know so little science & are so way more challenged in the math department that I'd be better stimulated engaging in a conversation with my six year old who already knows more than you in both of those departments. And hey, I should tell you, I have a ten year old who has just started learning calculus......these days Boolean Algebra is just so yesterday for him........How you doin' in those departments? Probably still imagining that Copy & Pasting is an enhanced computer skill, gkam must think so too.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
MR166 observes
The US has been accelerating down hill ever since
Indeed. its primarily a republican issue ideologically driven to put all responsibility for all thing as much as possible on people with as little as possible effort/consideration by government to support an enlightened society whilst pandering to business to extract as much wealth as possible eg NRA, Health Insurance etc

This can be circumvented by:-
Science education, especially Physics. Maths & especially psychology.

Why doesnt MR166 make a start ?

That way he can become immune to all politically driven propaganda by knowing the fundamentals.

Is that TOO simple ?

Mike you seem to know math science etc. but despite this you are still a political illiterate.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2015
AGW = Intellectual Dishonesty

It will be a great day when this fraud is finally exposed in such a way that it can't wriggle out.


But someone as idiotic as you? Actual dishonesty. The lie of misinformation is your crime.
howhot2
5 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

In your one dried out pig eye you POS. As Stephen Hawking said "We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet."
So quit being an ass holding the world back with your BS republican talking point crap!

gkam
2.3 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2015
"And hey, I should tell you, I have a ten year old who has just started learning calculus......these days Boolean Algebra is just so yesterday for him........"
----------------------------------

But haven't you shown us common sense and character do not come from math?
philstacy9
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2015
The 1% investing in these lies will extract trillions of dollars from the poor in this evil global warming scam.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2015
Those of us with Master of Science degrees in this topic are even less than 1%.

We think you Deniers are just following political prejudice, rather then the science.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Jun 05, 2015
Oops, sorry about the than/then typo.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
But someone as idiotic as you? Actual dishonesty. The lie of misinformation is your crime.

Do you write North Korean propaganda?

So quit being an ass holding the world back with your BS republican talking point crap!

Excuse me, your prejudiced liberalism is showing.

Those of us with Master of Science degrees in this topic are even less than 1%.

Great. Another one lying about their education.

We think you Deniers are just following political prejudice, rather then the science.

For the discerning observer looking for Anti-Tax, Terrorize and Wreck facts and data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

denglish
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
"Deniers are deniers for political reasons". Proponents have a profit motive. Which motive is dominant in humankind?


Political of course. Money is a means to power, and power is political.


No. Profit is the primary driver. Look at the way some of the liberal voting US states are being raped right now due to global warming laws. California is the one I live in.

A lot of money going into General Funds, jobs being lost, special interests getting filthy rich.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2015
"Deniers are deniers for political reasons". Proponents have a profit motive. Which motive is dominant in humankind?


Political of course. Money is a means to power, and power is political.


No. Profit is the primary driver. Look at the way some of the liberal voting US states are being raped right now due to global warming laws. California is the one I live in.

A lot of money going into General Funds, jobs being lost, special interests getting filthy rich.


Jobs being lost?

http://www.latime...ory.html
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015


A lot of money going into General Funds, jobs being lost, special interests getting filthy rich.


@denglsh

As a fellow Californian it's embarrassing you have no idea how general funds are spent It is not a slush fund.

http://www.sco.ca...ing.html

Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2015
In other words, you have declared that global warming is the kind of problem that markets can't deal with.
Huh? You mean the "stock" type markets where the 15-20 oil producing entities and their (in)security forces use some of their wealth to buy controlling interest in Boardwalk, Park Place, etc., cram the rest of us onto Baltic Ave., own everything from intellectual property to politicians, and have "Too big to fail" and "Don't even go to jail in the first place" cards? Or a stock type market with a "carbon" tax? Or NAFTA markets? TPP, TTIP markets maybe? Perhaps a "private bank charges the people's government interest to create its own money and then the banksters trickle down on the problem" type market?
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2015
Whoohooo yes i like, monkey donglish not holding back, heeding the call throwing all his toys out of the kot... crying like a little baby monkey... a....a....aaaaah....i warned ya not to mess with Captain and Mike, they always win... :D

So keep poking the giant, we got lots of bannanas for you

more...more monkey.... :D
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2015
but you need to man up your antiscience goracle gorilla account as well, go puppet it now we want to have some more fun this saturday... :D
richard_f_cronin
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
The NOAA data is confined to U.S. land measurements. They ignore the more important sea buoy data. Recall that the land heats up more than the ocean's waters. Even worse, they select temperature monitoring stations located near heated air conditioner exhausts and asphalt parking lots.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
The NOAA data is confined to U.S. land measurements. They ignore the more important sea buoy data. Recall that the land heats up more than the ocean's waters. Even worse, they select temperature monitoring stations located near heated air conditioner exhausts and asphalt parking lots.


Just plain wrong

https://www.ncdc....lies.php
Benni
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2015
"And hey, I should tell you, I have a ten year old who has just started learning calculus......these days Boolean Algebra is just so yesterday for him"


But haven't you shown us common sense and character do not come from math?


....and you've got it completely backwards, it is math that can bring common sense to issues of debate. Before Einstein's publication of Special Relativity, the debate surrounding Energy was a hotly debated topic in the world of Physics in the early 20th century, but Einstein brought all that to an end with his Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle in the form of E=mc*2, which today only the foolhardy think they're smart enough to contend is wrong, and once in awhile they show up here.

Ten years later Einstein ended the debate about the structure of the Universe when he published General Relativity with his Field Equations for gravity.

So you still think mathematical proficiency has no role in bringing common sense to issues of debate?
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015


A lot of money going into General Funds, jobs being lost, special interests getting filthy rich.


@denglsh

As a fellow Californian it's embarrassing you have no idea how general funds are spent It is not a slush fund.

http://www.sco.ca...ing.html


Vet, if you believe that, you're only listening to the government mouthpieces...like the LA Times.

http://www.articl...e-912923

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 06, 2015
philstacy9 claims
The 1% investing in these lies will extract trillions of dollars from the poor .
Do the poor have these trillions to start with ?

philstacy9 with anti-science claims
in this evil global warming scam
What evidence is there to support your idiot notion of a scam, answer this:-

"How can adding billions of tonnes of CO2, with proven & irrefutable thermal properties, to the atmosphere somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

The key & core issue absolutely settled by physics/maths/experiment is radiative forcing but, many just CANNOT understand it because they missed out on an education, maybe not their fault, so why do they want to maintain ignorance, would that be a form of immense stupidity ?
http://en.wikiped..._forcing
based upon
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Logic is clear, if AGW deniers refuse to gain education in physics knowing its experimentally proven then they must be STUPID or PAID ?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Jun 06, 2015
MR166 states
Mike you seem to know math science etc. but despite this you are still a political illiterate.
Ah so you accept the settled Physics of
http://en.wikiped..._forcing
based upon
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Now you just have to deal with probability & statistics so you can make sense of how to manage measurement data & in respect of climate periods etc Also helps to have an understanding of
https://en.wikipe...periment

such as exploited to verify the specific effects of all greenhouse gases

In respect of politics, evidence is against you, unless you accept the key difference between republicans & democrats, the former enact legislation to to acquire wealth for commercial partners, eg Health Insurance. Whilst the latter promote social programs, lower cost health care etc

Issue with Health care is settled. In USA its expensive even with insurance, in UK is free, haven't you seen Moore's doco "Sicko" ?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 06, 2015
deng, do you live in the Unites States?
MR166
1.2 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
"n respect of politics, evidence is against you, unless you accept the key difference between republicans & democrats, the former enact legislation to to acquire wealth for commercial partners, eg Health Insurance. Whilst the latter promote social programs, lower cost health care etc"

My God! You really don't know what is going on do you? To think that the Democrats are not connected to big business also, and to the same degree, is ludicrous.

The military/industrial complex owns the US government.
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Jun 06, 2015
Want more environmental statistics? Check these out:

http://www.politi...t-000015
gkam
2 / 5 (25) Jun 06, 2015
MR166,
Here:
http://www.politi...hp=b1_c1

I agree.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect
@deng
you mean like
What kind of POS steals the honor of acedemia?
Or how about
You really are a POS, aren't ya? Name drop like you're credentialed, and you got nothing! Shameful.
better yet
I wonder if you came off as an entitled, victimized cunt.
found here: http://phys.org/n...ian.html

by all means, please: keep sharing and giving us all plenty demonstrations of your hypocrisy

i fully believed you would simply "ignore" me
what you are doing is simply arguing because you CHOSE a path of employment that is now being threatened
anyone with any logical skills could see that this was inevitable due to past threats to oil/etc (70's ring a bell?)

you have ZERO science and argue from debunked political/other perspectives
you don't CARE about the science

you are no different than a new Zephir sock

i only reply to you to share science over debunked politics
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
You know so little science & are so way more challenged in the math department
@benni
that why you are not able to refute the PROOF supplied above which you yourself demonstrate absolutely NO science or math skills?

WOW

then by all means, keep the ignore button on
just like dung: you offer nothing to the argument
the ONLY reason i am posting to you is to point out that you offer NOTHING to the argument and also share that your debunked arguments are political/religious/conspiratorial etc and you argue from ignorance
(actually, in both your cases, it is argument from blatant stupidity because most of the arguments have been DEBUNKED and pointed out to you)

So please: show us all the results of the differential equation challenge from this link where you were called out:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
The NOAA data is confined to U.S. land measurements. They ignore the more important sea buoy data
@richard_f_cronin
from the study linked
First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details).... involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C
as you can see, the buoy data is included and even referenced so this claim is false
plus, you are making assumptions about parking lots/heated A/C units - care to share the link which supports that claim?
(no blogs or propaganda sites like watts or drroy, please)
Jimee
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
If all I have to do is lie and make up all that BS, then I want to sign up to write a study debunking AGW. I could use the money, and I have as good an imagination as some of the Denier monkeys.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2015
MR166 states
.. To think that the Democrats are not connected to big business also, and to the same degree, is ludicrous
No, never stated that. Focus on what I write not on what you imagine I think, thats one problem of many of those lacking education, they get angry with what they imagine not with clear incontrovertible evidence

All political parties have potential for connections with business at many levels, some are rather more unabashed at such connections Eg Republicans re medication bill as per the "Sicko" doco, have you seen it ?

Point is, which party has greater good for the 'people' as a whole, evidence sits with Democrats at present, might well change but, so far prevailing attempt at overt static control structures that do not favour healthy environmental management is with Republicans

MR166 states
The military/industrial complex owns the US government
To a degree & the case at various levels, which party however favours greater distancing ?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
i only reply to you to share science over debunked politics


Tell us more about your university degrees.

deng, do you live in the Unites States?

No, I live in California.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
The UKMO HadNMAT2 data are not available online so that the public can easily verify the NOAA ERSST.v4 results.

A preliminary investigation of the UKMO dataset suggests that the HadNMAT2 data do not support NOAA's claims of no slowdown in global surface warming. In other words, the HadNMAT2 data have a much lower warming rate than the new NOAA "pause buster" ERSST.v4 data since 1998.

When the HadNMAT2 data are finally published online by the UKMO, that reference data for the NOAA ERSST.v4 data will very likely put NOAA and the publishers of the Huang et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2015) and Karl et al. (2015) papers in very awkward positions. Time will tell.

I wonder if FIFA and NOAA officials take vacations together.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2015
deng, do you live in the Unites States?

donglish lives inside a silkwormybox, fearing his oilboss silkwormymasters, and only say the dumb things they tell him to say, kind of like all the sockpuppets his puppeting.

He is trying at mental school to gain some perspective of reality, but progress is slow.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2015
I wonder if FIFA and NOAA officials take vacations together.
Nope, but you, and the cockh brothers do.. and we all know what you naughty monkeys will be up to when left all by yourselves alone in the dark.. ;) :D
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
deng, do you live in the Unites States?

donglish lives inside a silkwormybox, fearing his oilboss silkwormymasters, and only say the dumb things they tell him to say, kind of like all the sockpuppets his puppeting.

He is trying at mental school to gain some perspective of reality, but progress is slow.

Do you expect to be taken seriously?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2015
"No, I live in California."
---------------------------------------

Have you looked into Hayden Lake, Idaho? Lots of your folk there.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Back on topic, here is some more interesting reading re: NOAA adjustments:

https://stevengod...ess.com/
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Have you looked into Hayden Lake, Idaho? Lots of your folk there.


No, I live in California.

What does where someone live have to do with NOAA data adjustments, and the question of the veracity of such actions?

Oh wait, I see... the suggestion that I am a racist is supposed to move us away from the topic!

In that case:

Red Herring: something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.

Looking upwards in the thread, I am discovering lots and lots of red herrings! But...only from the AGW side.

Why does the side that is so overwhelmingly right choose red herrings as the foundation of their position?

gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 06, 2015
It was a joke. That is a place with a lot of very conservative folk.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
It was a joke. That is a place with a lot of very conservative folk.


Accusing someone of being a white supremacist is not a joke.

Have you considered that your target may be a German Jew by birth?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 06, 2015
There are decent conservatives there, too. Why didn't you think I was speaking of them?

But, again, we see there was no warming "hiatus", and we are in for it.

We want to thank the denier folk for setting us back so many years in our effort to save the Earth.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
Mike you seem to know math science etc. but despite this you are still a political illiterate.

You could not be referring to Muttering Mike. So now he's pretending to know politics.
Muttering Mike could not tell his arse from his mouth. Then again, I could not blame him, since they both spew the same thing.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
If all I have to do is lie and make up all that BS, then I want to sign up to write a study debunking AGW. I could use the money, and I have as good an imagination as some of the Denier monkeys.
@jimee
heck, why not just take the posts from these threads, re-word them and then try to justify it as science and use PO as a reference, like the rest of the scientifically illiterate do here!

you could get a grant from the koch bro's to do it... i am sure they would support it!

great post! made me laugh!


Do you expect to be taken seriously?
@dung
nope
he is ridiculing you for your ignorance and blatant choices to utilize known fallacious arguments for the sake of supporting personal conjecture and religious like delusional beliefs

by all means, please keep posting
you are a rich source of data which can be later mined for proving the intentional refusal of trolls to accept known facts over personal beliefs

i love it
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
But, again, we see there was no warming "hiatus", and we are in for it.


The UKMO HadNMAT2 data are not available online so that the public can easily verify the NOAA ERSST.v4 results.

A preliminary investigation of the UKMO dataset suggests that the HadNMAT2 data do not support NOAA's claims of no slowdown in global surface warming. In other words, the HadNMAT2 data have a much lower warming rate than the new NOAA "pause buster" ERSST.v4 data since 1998.

When the HadNMAT2 data are finally published online by the UKMO, that reference data for the NOAA ERSST.v4 data will very likely put NOAA and the publishers of the Huang et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2015) and Karl et al. (2015) papers in very awkward positions. Time will tell.

denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015

you are a rich source of data which can be later mined for proving the intentional refusal of trolls to accept known facts over personal beliefs
i love it


Tell us more about your college degrees.

http://www.drroys...MIP5.png
Benni
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2015
Mike you seem to know math science etc. but despite this you are still a political illiterate.

You could not be referring to Muttering Mike. So now he's pretending to know politics.
Muttering Mike could not tell his arse from his mouth. Then again, I could not blame him, since they both spew the same thing.


If you want to know Muttering Mike's proficiency in math it's real easy to find out. He's a retired meteorologist living in the UK. Next you Google the universities in UK which provide majors in Meteorology, then you bring up the curriculum data for two or three of the largest institutions in the UK for which you've found a curriculum in Meteorology.

You only need to examine two or three of these UK institutions because all the smaller ones must copy the larger ones. I did this once a few months ago after I challenged MM on his proficiency in Calculus, specifically Differential Equations after he claimed to know how to do them,(what else could he say).
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
I am discovering lots and lots of red herrings! But...only from the AGW side
@deng
you mean like this one?
The NOAA data is confined to U.S. land measurements. They ignore the more important sea buoy data
by richard?
or perhaps this one
What kind of POS steals the honor of acedemia?
Or how about
You really are a POS, aren't ya?
better yet
It will be a great day when this fraud is finally exposed in such a way that it can't wriggle out
or
Lieing about education is shameful
[sic]
in all the above posts you've made, you've argued politics, personal conjecture and religious/conspiratorial ideation
but not once have you given ANYTHING like a scientific argument or even demonstrated a scientific literacy above the grade school level

but you think denigrations are the way to successful argument, as long as they are not directed at you- then it is
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect
you are a proven hypocrite and liar

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015

you are a rich source of data which can be later mined for proving the intentional refusal of trolls to accept known facts over personal beliefs
i love it


Tell us more about your college degrees
not sure you would understand it... it would require a literacy above the 7th grade

perhaps you would like to link some more fallacious arguments that are debunked?

keep linking dr roy... that is always a good one for you
especially since even though he makes a lot of conjecture, none of it is published in reputable science journals

kinda like your own diatribes!
LOL

why not try another red herring?

if you can find a way to interpret any studies i've ever linked then please show us the rebuttal and scientific evidence
THANKS
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
Next you Google the universities in UK which provide majors
@benji-TROLL
funny:
you couldn't google "galactic year" or "Milankovitch Cycle" or "Chandler wobble" as demonstrated here:

http://phys.org/n...als.html

that shows you can't google OR do basic math, but you want to disparage another person who is bi-lingual?

what about being challenged to do differential equations here:

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

you couldn't even follow the terminology which everyone else seemed to understand just fine

why is that, mr NOOclear engineer?

was your google broke that day?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
you are a proven hypocrite and liar

Tell us more about your college degrees.

if you can find a way to interpret any studies i've [sic] ever linked then please show us the rebuttal and scientific evidence


See the red highlighted part:
https://bobtisdal...le-1.png
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
See the red highlighted part:
https://bobtisdal...le-1.png
so how is a random table linked to a BLOG that is already proven and known to support pseudoscience somehow justification or refutation of the studies... ANY studies.... i linked?

better yet: how does this BLOG actually refute the linked study above?

there is no empirical evidence
there is no peer review
there is no link to a reputable journal
the blog author is known as a watts publisher and has been repeatedly debunked in the past

http://www.realsc...-armour/

but i digress... lets look at his journal entries or studies published which demonstrate at least a passing knowledge of physics or climate science

where are they?
https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

not ONE peer reviewed journal on climate or physics

so- why the link to his site?
where is the SCIENCE?

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015

Tell us more about your college degrees
@dung
ok, i will tell you and give you personal information as long as you go first

start by contacting me at SciForums and giving me a functional e-mail address: i will reply with my e-mail address (even though anyone with any logical or computer skills can get it right off the PO comments section)

then we can validate that we are who we say we are...

we can also do that publicly if you like:
it is not hard to find me as i've been called Truck Captain Stumpy for about 2 decades

let me know when you contact me that it is you (put your name in the header so that it can be validated)
we will move on from there

is that ok with you?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
so how is a random table linked to a BLOG that is already proven and known to support pseudoscience

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest.

is that ok with you?

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

@dung
ok, i will tell you and give you personal information as long as you go first

Tell us more about your college degrees.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation
@d
so you are saying that any and all blog's are equivalent to empirical evidence produced by observation, experimentation and published with the strict controls by the scientific method and double checked by peer review?

HUH!
who would have thought!
If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest
but i provided links and evidence that take you to reputable sites (excluding the blog i linked, which is equivalent to your own link and thus produces a stalemate of equivalent evidence)
the ScienceMag study linked above is empirical as well as peer reviewed
the google scholar shows that bob is not a regularly published scientist and you've not provided justification for his graph and why it should be taken as an empirical study...

so far:
i've linked studies and peer reviewed data

you are still making emotional, political, conspiratorial and red herring arguments
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue
@dung
yep
got that with your above posts, like
Tell us more about your college degrees
or
Lieing about education is shameful
&
What kind of POS steals the honor of acedemia?
or
You really are a POS
perhaps this is more your speed?
It will be a great day when this fraud is finally exposed in such a way that it can't wriggle out
basically, you have used the red herring (over used?) through out the entire argument

you are not substantiating ANY conjectures with reputable evidence

whereas, per my own criteria, i am giving proof either in your own words repeated or by links/studies
plus demonstrating that there is no reputable science being drawn upon by you (or your bob or roy links, either)

prove that AGW doesn't exist with science using the scientific method
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 06, 2015
Benni claims
If you want to know Muttering Mike's proficiency in math it's real easy to find out
Why ?
Benni claims
He's a retired meteorologist living in the UK. Next you Google the universities in UK which provide majors in Meteorology, then you bring up the curriculum data for two or three of the largest institutions in the UK for which you've found a curriculum in Meteorology
No. You are confused & can't read my posts & confused with runrig's. I'm in Perth, Western Australia, not retired, I design products, my credentials
http://www.niche..../physorg

Benni claimed to be an "Engineer", later "Nuclear Engineer" why won't he post his credentials ?

Benni claims
... few months ago after I challenged MM on his proficiency in Calculus, specifically Differential Equations (DE) after he claimed to know how to do them,(what else could he say)
No. Benni is very confused he 'tried' to challenge runrig not me

Benni often claims to do DE's, why ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
@d
one last point
Intellectual dishonesty ... If one judges ...
my criteria for evidence is as follows:
it must be reputable peer reviewed studies linked to a reputable journal (not pseudoscience like vixra or ieee publications for astrophysics)

it must demonstrate that something is validated (via studies or simply by showing that the opposite argument is fallacious, like posting your own words to show your own hypocrisy and "intellectual dishonesty" as well as blatant lies)

validation must be by 2nd party sources (as in studies etc, not claims like Mills hydrino BS)

i use these same criteria for links/proof

http://www.nature...65a.html

http://rspb.royal...20141856

http://www.scienc...abstract

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

judging your posts
you've not been able to disprove ANYTHING

i've proven MY points
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2015
antigoracle FAILs again in his claim
You could not be referring to Muttering Mike. So now he's pretending to know politics
No. I observe evidence & make decisions on that basis. I'm not currently interested in politics, especially US

Anyone can check congress' records re legislation & who benefits in terms of path of least resistance re correlation with commercial lobby groups over what periods, some of that offered in the documentary "Sicko" by Michael Moore. I stand by opinion as posted here :-)

antigoracle insults
Muttering Mike could not tell his arse from his mouth. Then again, I could not blame him, since they both spew the same thing
This is antigoracle to a Tee - exposing himself for all to see; a sad redneck who is angry with himself for not getting an education in Physics when he had the chance & now spews out evidence of his jealously of those that went further

Sad, antigoracle has been here since 2009 but, still hasn't gained Physics education
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2015
........ever notice that MM always demands of the other person "as long as you go first"? Actually, he doesn't need to submit personal information for us to discover his proficiency skills in Calculus.

I was just visiting the site of a Meteorology school in the US for curriculum content. I keyed in on the math pre-requisite courses & looked at the content of Calculus for Meteorology majors compared to the Calculus course content I took as an Engineering major, the content & scope of the math is not the same, talk about watered down math for Meteorology majors.

Now you understand why Muttering Mike wants you to go first, he either neither intends to keep up his end of the deal, or he's going to equivocate whatever you put up so that he doesn't look diminished in the eyes of the faithful congregants. And by the way, when MM took his Meteorology courses in the UK a hundred years ago, there very possibly was not a Calculus requirement.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
you are still making emotional, political, conspiratorial and red herring arguments


http://www.nature...65a.html

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment

Tell us more about your college degrees.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
not rated yet just added
Enightening email exchange between Anthony Watts and Dr Thomas Peterson:

http://www.ncdc.n...matology

Here.....
http://blog.hotwh...15801072

And reposted by me here....

http://judithcurr...t-709136
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
There goes Muttering Mike again pretending to know science -
No. I observe evidence & make decisions on that basis


I'm still waiting for him to give me the science behind this blabbering -
you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole

Benni
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2015
Sad, antigoracle has been here since 2009 but, still hasn't gained Physics education


.......and your Physics courses as a Meteorology major were grossly watered down by comparison to what Engineering majors need to take. The Calculus courses a present day Meteorology major takes are also pathetically watered down by comparison to what I took as an Engineering major.

So, Muttering Mike, the presumed positional superiority you proclaim for yourself is worshiped only by the likes of Stumpy & that gang of foul mouthed profanity prone neophytes who can only come up with you & DarkLordKelvin as the ministers of this decrepit theism called AGW & the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment
then i tell you what: stick to the ScienceMag articles

if there are any that you need, contact me at SciForums and get my e-mail and i will provide you the FULL study for your perusal, ok?

while you are at it - even though it doesn't give you the full details, you CAN still look for refuting evidence from reputable sources
there will be studies published in journals that directly refute it and will usually state so in the abstract, name, or specifically in the contents which ARE free

normally, you can look at google scholar for those references (google tracks your usage and thus will tailor what you see based upon history- so politics breeds more politics, not science)
Tell us ...
ROTFLMFAO
still with the red herrings?
really?
Ok.... as soon as you provide empirical evidence and reputable studies which refute the above and then link your own degree's
THANKS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
MM always demands of the other person "as long as you go first"?
not only are you mixing your posters up due to age-related dementia (or illiteracy) but you are also TROLLING
Actually, he doesn't need to submit personal information for us to discover his proficiency skills in Calculus.
just like we don't need to see your own credentials since you've PROVEN that you can't do MATH
be it basic math:

http://phys.org/n...als.html

OR calculus (or differential equations)

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment
@d
the others are not restricted (except the Science Mag one, and there are free copies of it already floating around, so you CAN get that one if you simply look for it)

or you can contact me for a copy

show the valid scientific proof that those studies are wrong

THANKS
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
THANKS

Tell us more about your college degrees.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
Here.....
http://blog.hotwh...15801072

This one is interesting. The moderators delete posts that disagree.

Ah, proof through censorship.

Smells like...progressiveness.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Tell us
@dung
sure
follow the above requirements and i will freely give you all my personal info

also
RED HERRING
intentional distraction from argument

where is that evidence which refutes those links?

where is the "intellectual honesty" which you so desperately crave but somehow cannot actually accomplish for yourself?

links/proof?
evidence?

i gave you plenty of evidence refuting your personal stance on AGW... where is your refute?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
i [sic] gave you plenty of evidence refuting your personal stance on AGW... where is your refute?

Tell us more about your college degrees.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2015
Hey there El Stumpo,

I still haven't reset my Ignore setting on you, so I don't know what you're saying, but wow, just look at all those postings you've submitted as you work so hard pretending to be relevant. I don't even wonder what you're saying. Been back to the fire station lately to climb aboard a truck to pretend you're still a Captain?
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
LOL He's a fire captain as well as a MIT graduate?

Oh man...the internet...
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2015
LOL He's a fire captain as well as a MIT graduate?

Oh man...the internet...

Hey, there are bios on this guy all over the place. Just plug "Captain Stumpy" into Google like I did a few months ago after he made a cyberthreat on me to commit ID Theft & bodily harm after he finds his way to my "doorstep". Yep, "doorstep" is his quote. I'll look it up for you & republish his quote, it was last July & I think the date was the 25th or 27th of 2014. I'll Search it tonight after the horserace & publish it. Look for it in a couple of hours.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2015
Benni states
........ever notice that MM always demands of the other person "as long as you go first"? Actually, he doesn't need to submit personal information for us to discover his proficiency skills in Calculus
Prove it see link below.

Not relevant never asked to demo Calculus here, only use it sporadically in product design re passive component choices, probably need practice but, like riding a bike :-)

You write as if you've just discovered value of Calculus but, still don't write like an Engineer. Your preoccupation with claiming others can't do DE's when its not relevant betrays you !

Benni claimed
I keyed in on the math pre-requisite courses & looked at the content of Calculus for Meteorology majors compared to the Calculus course content I took as an Engineering major, the content & scope of the math is not the same, talk about watered down math for Meteorology majors
So what, never claimed to be Meteorologist, can't you read my link below ?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2015
Benni claims
Now you understand why Muttering Mike wants you to go first, he either neither intends to keep up his end of the deal, or he's going to equivocate whatever you put up so that he doesn't look diminished in the eyes of the faithful congregants
No, you are wrong & its so easy to prove.

Evidence is clear, years ago ryggeson2 asked me my quals, I asked him to do same, I gave mine, he refused to prove his, mine still on phys.org try google
http://www.niche..../physorg
You can see I'm NOT a meteorologist & don't live in UK, can you read Benni ?

Benni goes on with
And by the way, when MM took his Meteorology courses in the UK a hundred years ago, there very possibly was not a Calculus requirement
Benni appears to write claims without reading posts preceding which directly address his claims

Benni are you ill, or pretending to be stupid, you seem to be like antigoracle, going to the trouble to show up your witless cognitive deficits often !
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2015
antigoracle claims
There goes Muttering Mike again pretending to know science
No pretense, evidence in my posts for yrs, I often comment on scientific method & prevailing theories which of course have immense evidence base

antigoracle claims
I'm still waiting for him to give me the science behind this blabbering -
you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole
Its geography antigoracle, I offered the fact to address your flakey question about a small part of the world

antigoracle by obfuscating Science you come across as paid flunky & refuse to get an education in Science which is essential to progressing, if at least from a Science-Engineering perspective, there are immense commercial opportunities to advance power generation & improve health/standards of living in the 3rd world, as I have Eg
http://members.ii...us/Power

:-)
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
Mike says....
You can see I'm NOT a meteorologist & don't live in UK, can you read Benni ?


AFAIK I am the only Meteorologist regularly posting here.
I am indeed in the UK and worked 32 yrs for the UKMO.
Qualifications required Maths, Stats and Physics and Computing up to HND standard along with the requisite longevity of service with UKMO.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
LOL He's a fire captain as well as a MIT graduate?

Oh man...the internet...

Hey, there are bios on this guy all over the place. Just plug "Captain Stumpy" into Google like I did a few months ago after he made a cyberthreat on me to commit ID Theft & bodily harm after he finds his way to my "doorstep". Yep, "doorstep" is his quote. I'll look it up for you & republish his quote, it was last July & I think the date was the 25th or 27th of 2014. I'll Search it tonight after the horserace & publish it. Look for it in a couple of hours.

Well, that's why god invented .38s.

No need, I can tell by that person's writing style that they're a moron.

AFAIK I am the only Meteorologist regularly posting here.

Oh gawd...another one.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
Been back to the fire station lately to climb aboard a truck to pretend you're still a Captain?
@benji_TROLL
learned how to do differential equations yet, you geriatric farce?
he made a cyberthreat on me to commit ID Theft & bodily harm
well, if you could prove that,then i would have been cited or arrested, as it is ILLEGAL in my state to threaten, make terroristic or cyber threats or in otherwise commit assault with the internet

all you gotta do is have me arrested, benniTROLL
ROTFLMFAO
by all means, share the link
ACTUALLY READ IT while you are at it, ok?
LMFAO
He's a fire captain as well as a MIT graduate?
@Dung
i never claimed to be an MIT grad, i said i took classes via the link provided above!

RED HERRING and distraction because you still have ZERO evidence

and i am not just a fire captain, i am a TRUCK Captain
any decent firefighter would know the difference between an Engine Capt and a Truck Capt.

maybe you could GOOGLE it!
LMFAO
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
and i am not just a fire captain, i am a TRUCK Captain

The internet.

This site rules as the great exposer of the AGW believers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Well, that's why god invented .38s
@d
i can give you my address if you're game
i'm game...

better bring something a mite bigger than the .38 though
i'm already immune to those: already had my vaccination
ROTFLMFAO
I can tell by that person's writing style that they're a moron
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect

you are also being intellectually dishonest

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

(yep, that is you all right... is that why you posted it dung? warning us all?)

where is that evidence against AGW?
why do you keep making the same RED HERRING argument?
why keep repeating the same STRAWMAN?

why do you keep trying to distract away from the facts or the lack of evidence on your part?

denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect

you are also being intellectually dishonest

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

better bring something a mite bigger than the .38 though
i'm already immune to those: already had my vaccination


omg that person's been shot too. *And*, they're looking for a gunfight.

AGW...whiskey tango foxtrot

Jesus..the internet...what next?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Truck captain...MIT grad (via internet) hahahahaha
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Holy mackerel that person is reeling.
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
Oh gawd...another one.

No, as I said. The only one on here.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Oh gawd...another one.

No, as I said. The only one on here.


If you associate yourself with these people, I say you're lying.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
So I google Captain Stumpy, and this is what I get:

http://www.amazon...7138908X

hahahaha
gkam
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2015
"Well, that's why god invented .38s."
----------------------------------

Another adolescent macho-mouth? How long would he last in a serious business, Stumpy?

Fact is, he would not be allowed in one.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2015
@ denglish: As I promised you a couple hours ago, I've reproduced below between the hash marks Comments El Stumpo made to me when he got so mad at discovering that he had been called out by me on his braggadocio of his computer skills. He got so bent out of shape that you can see by his own words that he was sending me the message that unless I ceased challenging him that he would use his vast computer skills to cyber-terrorize me via ID Theft by which he could also find his way to my very doorstep.

More at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Benni
3 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2015
From Stumpy: July 27, 2014

ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on

you don't have anything of value to me.

and AGAIN! MORE PROOF that you are not an electrical engineer! LOL
YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT about computers!

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Gruber science.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (28) Jun 06, 2015
Sorry, benni, all I read was you bragging about math and Einstein, and Stumpy putting you straight. There was no threat.

Did you really claim to be a Nuclear Engineer? If so, we can have a wonderful discussion.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2015
Sorry, benni, all I read was you bragging about math and Einstein, and Stumpy putting you straight. There was no threat.


.......but you're not my Attorney.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2015
Did you really claim to be a Nuclear Engineer? If so, we can have a wonderful discussion.


....no we could never have "a wonderful discussion", not when you would make light of terroristic messages from posters on this forum to another.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015


Instead you should understand that God and science go hand-in-hand. They are NOT mutually exclusive, but rather mutually inclusive.



Which god, there are thousands?
eachus
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
I think it was last year that I offered here a $1000 dollar bet that the average temperature of 2015-2029 would be higher than 1998-2014. No takers from the believers in the pause. I offer the same bet again. Money from both parties in an escrow account or invested such that only the winner can take it in 2030. Will you take it? I want to increase my retirement fund.


This is the most ridiculous strawman that I have ever seen. Assume that the worshipers at the Church of AGW are correct. You win by default. Assume that the temperatures go down but the worshipers pull cheap stunts like this one? You would claim to win. Assume that there is no relationship between increasing CO2 levels and global warming, and that in thirty years those cooking the books have give up? Then and only then do you have a 50/50 chance of losing. Because if there is no long term global warming and no fudging of data, then it really is a coin flip.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
If you associate yourself with these people, I say you're lying
@dung
well... of course you do
that is how TROLLING works!
We PROVE you are a liar, hypocrite and TROLL, so you simply call us names and say we are all LYING!
ROTFLMFAO
So I google Captain Stumpy, and this is what I get
TROLLING
and you can't even differentiate between a book and a person!
WOW
ROTFLMFAO

@dungDong

TROLL SOME MORE

it only substantiates my claims that you have absolutely NO evidence or science supporting your conjectures

i love how you've now turned all your personal animosity and jealousy into a direct attack on myself and anyone associated with me 9or who even claims to be educated)

why is that?
is there a failed attempt at college in your closet?

kicked out for failure like jvk?

or simply not able to get in?

let us all know

and thanks for all the "evidence" you linked
BLOGS ARE NOT SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
but you're not my Attorney
@benni
hey
speaking of attourney's and litigation

HOW COME i haven't heard from yours, the internet police, the FBI, my local sheriff or anyone else about your claims of "threatening you" or all that crap you are making up above?

even in your quoting of my posts, it stated " if I wanted to "

it isn't rocket surgery benni
and being a "nuclear engineer" like you claim, surely you know what 3rd party cookies can do...
Surely you know how computers talk to each other...
Surely you know that pinging a computer will let me know if you are ON or not

so...

when can i expect my subpoena?

I would LOVE to get you on the stand...

MOST IMPORTANTLY.... you have contributed absolutely NOTHING but TROLLING to this thread
and mostly TROLLING and stupidity to the site...

WHERE is your scientific evidence, credible papers or proof that AGW isn't real?
Where is your refute of my above links?

LMFAO

yall have me laughing HARD tonight!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
. Assume that the temperatures go down but the worshipers pull cheap stunts like this one?
@eachus
here is a link that accesses data that is NOT from the above study which proves unequivocally that the temp rose AND that you are wrong...
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

that is data from BEFORE the study above which is only enhanced by the study... making a stronger correlation between the warming and data due to inclusions of Buoy data...

so, where is the "wrong" part?

you are making plenty of conjecture and absolutely NO evidence supporting your claim

where is your evidence supporting the inference to AGW being wrong?

you are another one TROLLING with NO evidence
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
I am talking about the God of Kepler and of Pascal and of Newton. There is only One.
@verkle
no, there isn't "only one"
There is Allah
there is Wakan Tanka

My Wakinyan Tanka (different from Wakan Tanka) say that you are wrong too... and i've proof that they exist that far outweighs your own conjecture or holy "comic"

the Wakinyan Tanka live in the clouds and atop the sacred Paha Sapa and manifest as the violent winds (AKA Tornado's) with lightning being the power of their glance...

that is far more empirical than your weakling sky faerie who only talks and never shows its face ...
it is also physical and measurable, not like your book which has been proven false

the Wakinyan also never died ... you still see them today
(worse, in fact- see AGW)

so for religious reasons, you are proven absolutely wrong about there being only one god

(satirical sarcasm)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Did you really claim to be a Nuclear Engineer? If so, we can have a wonderful discussion.


....no we could never have "a wonderful discussion", not when you would make light of terroristic messages from posters on this forum to another.
@benni
you also claimed to be an Electrical Engineer, which i can prove false by your own posts in this thread and your links you gave to the other thread

My daughter is an Electrical Engineer and knows more about coding and programming than most IT people... it tends to come with the job and degree

yet you don't comprehend the basics
Just more belly laughs about benniTROLL

Instead you should understand that God and science go hand-in-hand.
@verkle
based upon your comment and argument

this is the God of the Gaps argument
https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs

epic fail
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 07, 2015
eachus claims
Assume that the worshipers at the Church of AGW are correct
The Physics, Maths & experimental evidence supports the proposition ie Rising CO2, CO2's thermal properties well known for >100yrs, proven not refuted, it is settled Physics !

eachus suggests
Assume that there is no relationship between increasing CO2 levels and global warming, and that in thirty years those cooking the books have give up?
No. Millions of Physics students around the world have studied radiative heat transfer for decades & unleashed on laboratories to examine/test the formulae/physics from lectures/tutorials - none found fault with:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer
leads to
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

eachus
"How can adding billions of tonnes of CO2, with proven thermal properties - to the atmosphere each year & having it accumulate, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Physics capisce' ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 07, 2015
verkle claims & doesnt understand
.. to remind you, I am talking about the God of Kepler and of Pascal and of Newton
No. Not the 'god of...', history of those times shows clearly if there was even a vague implication you didn't toe the line re god & church you were; ostracised, abused, bullied & allowed to be murdered - its clear bible's so called commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is wrong, phrasing should be "Thou shalt not Murder", that is, its acceptable to KILL if you deem you have a good (legal enough) reason Eg stoning etc

Your god is a capricious killer, Eg Samuel, the claimed deity KILLED 50,000 for looking in a box !

verkle claims
There is only One
Evidence from your own idolised book is abundantly clear, deity punishes all innocents & for EVER because deityt set up a young woman by planting (literally & figuratively) temptation deity KNEW ahead would fail (ie. Nil education in Guile) !

Its 'entrapment' ?

How does your deity/Devil communicate ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
phrasing should be "Thou shalt not Murder", that is, its acceptable to KILL if you deem you have a good (legal enough) reason Eg stoning etc
@Mike
actually, this is incorrect as well
not "legal".. just if you FELL like it

the bible might state that killing/murder is bad, but it actually supports it, even for like minded members!

as otto has pointed out time and again: it is tribalism at its finest
it is also violent and anyone who deems it justifiable to kill PERIOD is ok by god, according to the religion

case in point:
ALL xtian religions stem from the jewiswh AND muslim books (known as the old testament)
and yet, the xtians condone killing jewish, muslims AND EVEN other xtians as long as they are not their specific flavor (baptist, methodist, etc)
This means everyone, reading from the exact same texts, simply justifies murder and killing as OK as long as it feels good to them!

talk about promoting sociopathic antisocial behavior!

WOW, right?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 07, 2015
Captain Stumpy offered
phrasing should be "Thou shalt not Murder", that is, its acceptable to KILL if you deem you have a good (legal enough) reason Eg stoning etc
@Mike
actually, this is incorrect as well
not "legal".. just if you FELL like it
Mostly yeah sure, I added the brackets as 'artistic license' only :-)

NB brackets aren't used in bible original greek/aramaic obtuse renditions etc. Been studying comparative religion since I came of age many moons ago circa 1980, do a bit of yoga & buddhist meditation nowadays, wrote a paper about 24 yrs back on the common issues re all religions and immense problem of certitude attachment re emotional hypnosis, some extracts I post on here occasionally, have lost interest since so many are so attached to notion there has to be a (human oriented) deity the addage "Its easier to fool someone straight up than educate them they have already been fooled"...

Applies to so many of all religions, even conglomerates
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
deng, do you live in the Unites States?

donglish lives inside a silkwormybox, fearing his oilboss silkwormymasters, and only say the dumb things they tell him to say, kind of like all the sockpuppets his puppeting.

He is trying at mental school to gain some perspective of reality, but progress is slow.

Do you expect to be taken seriously?


Judged by the support and my rankings vs yours, it's a no brainer... ;) of course, we're still trying to grow you one, but the size of the skull make's it difficult to squeeze in those extra braincells. :D
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
I am discovering lots and lots of red herrings! But...only from the AGW side @deng
you mean like this one? The NOAA data is confined to U.S. land measurements. They ignore the more important sea buoy data by richard?
in all the above posts you've made, you've argued politics, personal conjecture and religious/conspiratorial ideation
but not once have you given ANYTHING like a scientific argument or even demonstrated a scientific literacy above the grade school level


Oooohh... and another insult rubbed into donglish's face...they keep getting better :D
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
@donglish
you are still making emotional, political, conspiratorial and red herring arguments


Well said Captain, (he's still confined to the silkwormbox) so becomes very emotional when facing the real world even worse when faced with real scientific evidence... it's scary to him... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
you are a proven hypocrite and liar

Tell us more about your college degrees.

if you can find a way to interpret any studies i've [sic] ever linked then please show us the rebuttal and scientific evidence


See the red highlighted part:
https://bobtisdal...le-1.png


Donglish/antisciencegorilla finding it hard to pass mental school, but he'll be proud one day when showing his certificate to the world so he could apply for kindergarden, don't worry monkey we'll be proud of you too, and reward you with the bannanas you seek :D
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
Next you Google the universities in UK which provide majors
@benji-TROLL
funny:
you couldn't google "galactic year" or "Milankovitch Cycle" or "Chandler wobble" as demonstrated here:

http://phys.org/n...als.html

you couldn't even follow the terminology which everyone else seemed to understand just fine

why is that, mr NOOclear engineer?

was your google broke that day?


OOOOOHHHHH...... that is a show stopper well said Captain, benni/donglish gotta spank themselves harder to get out of this one (but i'm afraid as usual they'll just dig themselves in deeper with the next post) lol...
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
If you associate yourself with these people, I say you're lying.


You are a monkey, and monkey's get 1s out of 5's meaning their opinions means less than 0, that's why we are having so much fun with you... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2015
All in all a good show with the monkeys manning all their puppets, can it get even better... lol... i doubt it, they dug themsleves in real deep, almost at the 200 goal i set for them, atta monkeys, but i'm always open to some more surprizes... :D

Well done Captain, Mike,Gkam,Runrig,Maggnus for slapping the monkeys back in their cages everytime. :)
Benni
3 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
Judged by the support and my rankings vs yours, it's a no brainer of course, we're still trying to grow you one, but the size of the skull make's it difficult to squeeze in those extra braincells.


.....but your rankings come from those who would never recognize a Differential Equation when placed in front of their eyeballs.

Cyber threats, name calling & profanity sums up the voting block you identify yourself with. So why do you & the voting block you identify yourself with congregate on a science website?

You imagine you're some kind of "new scientist" because you've learned the technique of Copy & Paste, then when you employ Copy & Paste at a science site you imagine you are now just as smart as someone who has spent 4-7 years in a science based curriculum of higher education. All the name calling, the "monkey" stuff, etc, simply reveals the level of education you have. People use the language of what they know best, & we know your language isn't based in science.
bluehigh
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
It's good to have Captain Stumpy back in full flight, hopefully a little less extreme.

Otherwise not worth reading any of the very long comments

It's all been said many times previously.

Benni
2.9 / 5 (19) Jun 07, 2015
It's good to have Captain Stumpy back in full flight, hopefully a little less extreme.

Otherwise not worth reading any of the very long comments

It's all been said many times previously.


.............you're known by the company you keep.
Sigh
5 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2015
In other words, you have declared that global warming is the kind of problem that markets can't deal with.
You mean the "stock" type markets where the 15-20 oil producing entities and their (in)security forces use some of their wealth to buy controlling interest in Boardwalk, Park Place ...

Doesn't matter. Every time people advance the "global warming is a plot to extend the reach of government" argument, they admit that regulation is a better tool to deal with global warming than market-based alternatives. If they believed that market-based approaches were as good or better, they would argue for that alternative solution, instead of denying the problem. Every time they use that argument, they tell everyone of the limit of markets, but rarely get called on it. I think it's a case of solution aversion (http://psycnet.ap...ode=pa), and they get so focused on their dislike of the state that they don't notice what they imply about markets
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (24) Jun 07, 2015
You imagine you're some kind of "new scientist" because you've learned the technique of Copy & Paste, then when you employ Copy & Paste at a science site you imagine you are now just as smart as someone who has spent 4-7 years in a science based curriculum of higher education.


I know what you mean Bennie-Skippy. Like this couyon does,,,,,

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Man that couyon had to go to yahoo answers the question to find something to snip and glue,,,,

https://answers.y...9AAPuFyU

Oopsidaisy, that was Bennie-Skippy who snip and glued from the yahoo answers the questions. Well oh my golly gee, and it was the easy math stuff he had to snip and glue from the yahoo answers the question place. I guess that 7 years of studying different equations didn't take to good.

Bennie-Skippy, shame on you. (Everybody can bookmark the place for later, eh?)
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Jun 07, 2015
".....but your rankings come from those who would never recognize a Differential Equation when placed in front of their eyeballs."
---------------------------------------

Benni, your one accomplishment does not tell you about the Real World. And most of us can do it, too.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
People use the language of what they know best, & we know your language isn't based in science.


This defines all of the above.

Its weird...these people present themselves as somethings, but express themselves as nothings. When the going gets tough, they digress from the topic and devolve into insult, threat, and demeaning innuendo. That tactic works against children, but when applied against discerning adults it is nonsense.

The AGW war has been lost on this site...a casualty of friendly fire.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
Every time people advance the "global warming is a plot to extend the reach of government" argument, they admit that regulation is a better tool to deal with global warming than market-based alternatives.


AGW is absolutely a plot to extend the reach of government.

There is no "way" to deal with global warming. Humans cannot possibly hope to impact what the Earth decides to do. Thinking or suggesting that we can somehow influence nature is either naive, arrogant, or evil.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
We PROVE you are a liar, hypocrite and TROLL


Tell us more about your college degrees.

I would LOVE to get you on the stand...

Oh snap! This person is an attorney too?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
There is no "way" to deal with global warming. Humans cannot possibly hope to impact what the Earth decides to do. Thinking or suggesting that we can somehow influence nature is either naive, arrogant, or evil.


.....or for that matter the orbital cycles of our location not only within our solar system, but also within the galaxy. Those with no background in Kinematics are totally befuddled by periodic orbital eccentricities of Earth because they do not comprehend the impact of how those cycles affect our Earthly environment.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2015
When the going gets tough, they digress from the topic and devolve into insult, threat, and demeaning innuendo
@deng
like this?
I wonder if you came off as an entitled, victimized cunt
Or maybe these?
You really are a POS
What kind of POS steals the honor of acedemia?
that's why god invented .38s
I can tell by that person's writing style that they're a moron
Lieing about education is shameful [sic]
Does your hypocrisy know any bounds?

yes d, we can also tell by your writing style (and content, or lack thereof) a lot about you, like your xconspiracy beliefs
a plot to extend the reach of government
you also say
no "way" to deal with global warming
but there were experts who also once said there was no way to have heavier than air flight while forgetting about balloon's and demonstrations

so by all means, stop with the red herrings and distractions
lets see some actual intelligence

where are the refutes for the studies i linked to you?
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
Does your hypocrisy know any bounds?

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain, or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
There is no "way" to deal with global warming. Humans cannot possibly hope to impact what the Earth decides to do. Thinking or suggesting that we can somehow influence nature is either naive, arrogant, or evil.


.....or for that matter the orbital cycles of our location not only within our solar system, but also within the galaxy. Those with no background in Kinematics are totally befuddled by periodic orbital eccentricities of Earth because they do not comprehend the impact of how those cycles affect our Earthly environment.

The thought that climate change is bad (as taught by the people getting rich and/or their agenda realized) is odd.

Actually, climate change is good. If it weren't for climate change, the Earth would still be a fireball, or an iceball. One can step out of their door on a day by day basis and experience climate change; no day is like the last.

Climate changes. It is the symptom of a living earth...not a dieing one.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
you have declared that global warming is the kind of problem that markets can't deal with.
.....you mean like Carbon Swaps brokered by government?

You mean the "stock" type markets where the 15-20 oil producing entities and their (in)security forces use some of their wealth to buy controlling interest
........all brokered by governments taking their cut of the "Carbon Swapping Pie"?


Every time people advance the "global warming is a plot to extend the reach of government" argument, they admit that regulation is a better tool to deal with global warming than market-based alternatives. If they believed that market-based approaches were as good or better, they would argue for that alternative solution
.....so why then has government inserted itself into the Carbon Swapping trade for money based fees they collect which has zero effect in reducing carbon emissions?

I think it's a case of solution aversion
.....that's for sure, Carbon Swapping.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Jun 07, 2015
benni once again displays his lack of knowledge by assuming liberals invented carbon trading. It was the response by industry of Filthy Fuels to beat back the requirements for the Best Available Control Technology (BACT),which was the law.

Big Money forced a retreat of that, so Filthy Fuels could save their precious money, and not our health,
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
benni once again displays his lack of knowledge by assuming liberals invented carbon trading. It was the response by industry of Filthy Fuels to beat back the requirements for the Best Available Control Technology (BACT),which was the law.

Big Money forced a retreat of that, so Filthy Fuels could save their precious money, and not our health,

Wrong. Cap and Trade was authored by Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
Tell us more about
@d
to quote something from above
When the going gets tough, they digress from the topic and devolve into insult, threat, and demeaning innuendo
That tactic works against children, but when applied against discerning adults it is nonsense
i asked for your valid science refutes
where are they?
all i've seen is conjecture, red herrings, strawman arguments, misdirection and obfuscation and insult from you bubba
The thought that climate change is bad (as taught by the people getting rich and/or their agenda realized) is odd.
It is the symptom of a living earth...not a dieing one
[sic]
and of course you have plenty of scientific studies saying that our civilization will continue unharmed due to the warming, right?

mind sharing?

or is this a reserved for TROLLING conversation now between you and benni?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Jun 07, 2015
"Wrong. Cap and Trade was authored by Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats."
---------------------------------------

Look up the history of Air Pollution Control. industry fought BACT until we gave up and instituted what we could get, which was cap and trade.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
our civilization will continue unharmed due to the warming, right?

The Earth doesn't care about our civilization, or species. It is going to do what it is going to do regardless of the implications for any living thing.

Now:

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain, or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
"Wrong. Cap and Trade was authored by Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats."
---------------------------------------

Look up the history of Air Pollution Control. industry fought BACT until we gave up and instituted what we could get, which was cap and trade.

My point stands against your assertion that Cap and Trade was devised by the Fossil Fuels industry. Cap and Trade was a liberal idea, and liberals are the ones profiting from it.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
benni once again displays his lack of knowledge by assuming liberals invented carbon trading.


....I made absolutely no allusion to "liberals invented carbon trading". Why did you make that assertion? Sounds like a guilty conscience attempting to shrug off the culpability gendered from within a personal affiliation?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
The Earth doesn't care about our civilization, or species
@d
i never said it did

however, you've been making a LOT of unsubstantiated claims and conjecture, while also making political and debunked arguments above
I gave you some accessible studies which directly refute your stance not only about AGW and how "real" it is, but it's effects, what we know and more... and i requested your refute

so far i've gotten the following:
red herrings/strawman, misdirection and obfuscation, libel, insult, intentional misrepresentation, and refusal to address the science

where are the refutes for the studies i linked to you?

as for the rest: already gave you the means to get that information
if you are refusing to accept that, i don't know what to tell you
all you are doing is labeling yourself as a TROLL and attempting to hijack the thread for your political, religious or other motivations

again...where are the refutes for the studies i linked to you?
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
The Earth doesn't care about our civilization, or species

@d
i never said it did

That's right. You were pleading that it would. It doesn't.

intentional misrepresentation

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

btw:
Why don't you capitalize the first-person singular nominative? Its weird; very weird.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015

....I made absolutely no allusion to "liberals invented carbon trading".

That's right. You said it came from the fossil fuel industry. It didn't; it came from liberals.

Why did you make that assertion? Sounds like a guilty conscience attempting to shrug off the culpability gendered from within a personal affiliation?

No assertion, just a correction.

gkam
2.2 / 5 (24) Jun 07, 2015
"My point stands against your assertion that Cap and Trade was devised by the Fossil Fuels industry. Cap and Trade was a liberal idea, and liberals are the ones profiting from it."
-------------------------------------
Nope. You are guessing and hoping, . . nothing less.

Look up the history of air pollution control.
Benni
3 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
By now, there are probably a few of you who still wonder why I never cast a 1 Star vote on a number of you? It's because I do not want to affect the filter setting whereby those who maintain a 5 Star setting would not otherwise be able to read the scientifically vacuous postings of Captain, Mike,Gkam,Runrig,Maggnus, VietVet, & a couple more. I want as many as possible to see the name calling, the profanity, & all that comes with neophyte zealotry from the theistically dark world they live in.
Benni
2.9 / 5 (17) Jun 07, 2015
....I made absolutely no allusion to "liberals invented carbon trading".

That's right. You said it came from the fossil fuel industry. It didn't; it came from liberals
.

Why did you make that assertion? Sounds like a guilty conscience attempting to shrug off the culpability gendered from within a personal affiliation?


No assertion, just a correction.
........not quite, but it could have been the next thing I would have stated & been accurate in so stating.
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Jun 07, 2015
" theistically dark world "
---------------------------------

Is that what you call a life without superstition and silly stories from the Age of Total Ignorance?
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
"My point stands against your assertion that Cap and Trade was devised by the Fossil Fuels industry. Cap and Trade was a liberal idea, and liberals are the ones profiting from it."
-------------------------------------
Nope. You are guessing and hoping, . . nothing less.

Look up the history of air pollution control.

Guessing and hoping what?

Guessing doesn't get anyone anywhere.

I'll tell you about the hope: I hope that humans will stop playing the game whereby once they convince another human of culpability they then profit from it.

Look up the history of indulgences. The AGW profit scheme is no different.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
This is a pretty good read:

http://wattsupwit...owledge/

"The nature of science is such that people who look for confirming evidence will always find it."

Though this is valid for both sides of the debate, of course, it concerns more the people who claim "The Science is settled"…
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
You were pleading that it would. It doesn't
@d
where am i pleading that?
my point is actually the reverse: the science shows that climate change can be disastrously fatal, and is blamed for a huge extinction event
Tell us more about
why keep trying to redirect the conversation from the science?

First you use political and conspiratorial arguments, now it is conjecture, insult and red herring/strawman along with misdirection and obfuscation and blatant lies
again, may i quote
When the going gets tough, they digress from the topic and devolve into insult, threat, and demeaning innuendo
That tactic works against children, but when applied against discerning adults it is nonsense
you are the one posting on a science site and intentionally TROLLING the climate threads... how about some actual science?
is it too hard for you to understand?
that is one reason i shared the MIT link above, try using it:

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Jun 07, 2015
denglish must assume we all have his character, and will fool ourselves for money or whatever we want. Conservatives do that, denglish, as in "WMD!" and "Bring 'em on!".

I'll bet he got fooled,suckered, by those two cowards hiding and screaming "WMD!", didn't he? Now he thinks we are all so easily fooled.

Nope. I knew better. Why didn't he?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
the science shows that climate change can be disastrously fatal, and is blamed for a huge extinction event

Regardless of anyone's tears. "Oh wait! Its *your* fault! Give me your money, and cripple your economy!"

that is one reason i shared the MIT link above, try using it:

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

Heck, your buddy gkam has a MS, and who is the meteorologist? You guys...anonymity is your greatest ally.

The climate models are the only grounds for fearing dangerous manmade warming. The eight more commonly used datasets show that they grossly exaggerate CO2's warming effect.

http://wattsupwit...g-pause/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
btw:
Why don't you capitalize the first-person singular nominative? Its weird; very weird.
@deng
mostly- i really don't care all that much

and it is faster to type

plus, it is a good specific search tool (internet, LAN and PC) that differentiates my posts from others
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
denglish must assume we all have his character, and will fool ourselves for money or whatever we want. Conservatives do that, denglish, as in "WMD!" and "Bring 'em on!".

I'll bet he got fooled,suckered, by those two cowards hiding and screaming "WMD!", didn't he? Now he thinks we are all so easily fooled.

Nope. I knew better. Why didn't he?

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Regardless of anyone's tears. "Oh wait! Its *your* fault! Give me your money, and cripple your economy!"
@d
again, relevance?
this is a political argument
you are the one posting on a science site and intentionally TROLLING the climate threads... how about some actual science?

again...where are the refutes for the studies i linked to you?
Tell us
tl;dr
When the going gets tough, they digress from the topic and devolve into insult, threat, and demeaning innuendo
That tactic works against children, but when applied against discerning adults it is nonsense
The climate models are the only grounds for fearing dangerous manmade warming
um... no
the observations and the evidence are the grounds for fearing AGW
the models only substantiate the claims and give a method of prediction which allows for advanced warning or knowledge which cannot be directly observed
Same as the models for MHD, fusion, fission, and more
gkam
1.9 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2015
Our economy got crippled not by energy advances, but Conservative Wars, none of which were paid for. None!

before Reagan, our total National Debt, from over 200 years of revolutions, coast-to-coast expansion, world wars, panics, Great Republican Depressions, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, and the race to the Moon, ALL of it as LESS than ONE trillion dollars.

It was 281% of that when Reagan finally bumbled out of office. . . and into the coat closet.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015

mostly- i really don't care all that much


Attention to detail means nothing?

Gosh...that goes against being a MIT (and what were the other universities?) graduate, a "truck captain", an attorney, a website vigilante, *and* a climate scientist!

Hmm...attention to detail or lack thereof. I think I see your problem. You're missing the details.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
When the going gets tough, they digress from the topic and devolve into insult, threat, and demeaning innuendo
That tactic works against children, but when applied against discerning adults it is nonsense


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

again...where are the refutes for the studies i linked to you?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

the models only substantiate the claims and give a method of prediction which allows for advanced warning or knowledge which cannot be directly observed

Temperature models vs. reality:

http://www.drroys...-RSS.png

gkam
2.3 / 5 (25) Jun 07, 2015
Stumpy, wasting time with this dude is like trying to deal with Willie or ryggy, the cut and paste twins. It is like trying to debate with someone who is screaming the same borrowed phrases across the playground over and over.

When we get tired of the adolescent behavior and go away, they think they "won".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
who is the meteorologist?
@d
runrig- aka Tony Banton
how is that relevant to the topic?
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue... why are you using it?
You guys...anonymity is your greatest ally
i am not anonymous
my name and information is publicly posted and i've been known as Truck Captain Stumpy for longer than you've probably been alive
again: A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue... why are you using it?
The eight more commonly used datasets show that they grossly exaggerate CO2's warming effect.
nope. they are more accurate than you are thinking

http://www.skepti...iate.htm

more reading

http://pubs.giss....pdfJames Risbey 2014

http://www.nature...310.html

http://www.scienc...abstract

need more?
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
Our economy got crippled not by energy advances, but Conservative Wars, none of which were paid for. None!

before Reagan, our total National Debt, from over 200 years of revolutions, coast-to-coast expansion, world wars, panics, Great Republican Depressions, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, and the race to the Moon, ALL of it as LESS than ONE trillion dollars.

It was 281% of that when Reagan finally bumbled out of office. . . and into the coat closet.

Excuse me, your extreme liberalism is showing.

Look, I think you're an ok guy (despite your claim to hold a MS). The best political stance is in the middle.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Attention to detail means nothing?
@d
the detail is there, the intention is for rapid and easy location using searches
so what?
gosh...
not an attourney, nor MIT grad, already told you that one... so again, your argument is strawman, red herring, distraction due to lack of content and intentional TROLLING
where are the refutes for the studies i linked to you?
where is the science? (not the BLOGS)
You're missing the details
and yet, if you read the posts, the only person missing the details is you
nice attempted redirection
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
and apparent;y you don't understand hyperbole, satire, sarcasm or ridicule either
imagine that
the above is also pointing to your blatant hypocrisy (hence the ridicule)
would you like me to explain more? because it is OT... but i have nothing but time

again:
where is your science
at least my blog is validated by the studies i shared

you still have nothing but conjecture
denglish
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
i am not anonymous


Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

and apparent;y you don't understand hyperbole, satire, sarcasm or ridicule either
imagine that

Imagine that.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
wasting time
@gkam
it is not time wasted if there is legitimate science shared, and the above troll deng (and benji-tard) have not only been refuted with empirical evidence and validated scientific studies but they've also proven that their intent is not to make a scientific point at all, but to TROLL the comments

just like dungs posts about temp, no warming and his fallacious claims and attempts to redirect into a TROLL post and OT argument, it points to a larger problem which is prevalent in society, especially in the US

scientific illiteracy

dung/benji et al simply reinforce the following:

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

it is fascinating & very enlightening

see how flared up dung is about education?
speaks volumes about his actual ego/self and circumstances... perhaps some failure mixed with Dunning-Kruger like jvk?
they're arguments are SO similar!
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
runrig- aka Tony Banton
how is that relevant to the topic?


Evidently, its not:

https://www.faceb...t=public

Are you lying for someone else now?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2015
"(despite your claim to hold a MS)"
---------------------------------------

I will explain my thesis system for you if you like. It used off-the-shelf components in 1982 to power an ethanol still through anaerobic digestion, providing high-proof ethanol, cattle-feed supplements to raise the butterfat content and the value of the milk, converted nutrients for land application so artificial nutrients are not needed, all the hot water and power to run the 3000 head dairy, and hundreds of thousands of kWh to power companies each month.

I have process parameters, mass flow, and energy balance for every one of the many steps in the processes, on a D-size sheet.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
Tell us
@d
tl;dr
trolling and baiting anyway
Imagine that.
what? no OT troll comment about my intentional ";" in the post?

again:
where is your science
at least my blog is validated by the studies i shared

you still have nothing but conjecture

i gave you studies which specifically refute your blog claims and general stupidity regarding AGW
i use the term "stupidity" because this is a repeat argument we've had before and you were refuted then with science, just like now, and you still haven't been able to recover from that one
in fact, you're using the same refuted blog, links and comments regardless of the empirical evidence which proved you fallacious

that means you are ignoring empirical evidence and validated claims for the personal conjecture and blatantly fallacious comments of others

that is NOT "ignorance"
that is "stupidity" by definition
therefore it is not pejorative but descriptive

where is your SCIENCE?
the studies refuting mine?
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
see how flared up dung is about education?


Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

You can't back out now...your credibility is shot.

but i have nothing but time

That's obvious.

it points to a larger problem which is prevalent in society, especially in the US

Your hatred of the US is showing. Perhaps we should eat insects.

speaks volumes about his actual ego/self and circumstances

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

where is your SCIENCE?
the studies refuting mine?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
"(despite your claim to hold a MS)"
---------------------------------------

I will explain my thesis system for you if you like. It used off-the-shelf components in 1982 to power an ethanol still through anaerobic digestion, providing high-proof ethanol, cattle-feed supplements to raise the butterfat content and the value of the milk, converted nutrients for land application so artificial nutrients are not needed, all the hot water and power to run the 3000 head dairy, and hundreds of thousands of kWh to power companies each month.

I have process parameters, mass flow, and energy balance for every one of the many steps in the processes, on a D-size sheet.

You may be sincere; your style of argument belies intellectual training.
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Jun 07, 2015
denglish, Stumpy has repeatedly said nothing about having college degrees. He takes online courses from MIT. Do you? What do you do? What have you done?

I think you have no idea what he did for a living, but I do, having watched them in action at Edwards AFB, where we lost aircraft almost continuously. It is dangerous, and to me traumatic work.

Not having any significant experience in life, you deprecate those who have DONE IT, not read about it.

Oops, just saw this:

"You may be sincere; your style of argument belies intellectual training."

You have shown no sign of understanding that phrase, let alone the technical details of what I was explaining. You're just screaming across the playground again.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
wait... why do you think everyone has to have a facebook page?

Are you lying for someone else now?
Tony Banton is from the UK
or is searching Google too difficult for you today?
it's not like it is a state secret... it is posted quite a bit
need lessons on how to Google?

STILL not relevant to the topic i'm providing evidence for and you are providing conjecture about
You can't back out now...your credibility is shot
i haven't backed out... i gacve you the means to get the information... apparently you are either:
fearful
ignorant
or illiterate

again, relevance?
Where are those studies i asked for?
Your hatred of the US
i don't hate the US
the gov't, maybe... but not the US
Tell us
more red herrings?
really?

and dr roy?
the failure who can't get published because he can't get blatantly bad and wrong math/science past the peer review?

that is your evidence?
you actually think BLOGS trump STUDIES?

interesting
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
that means you are ignoring empirical evidence

Temperature models vs. Reality:

http://www.drroys...-RSS.png
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
Judged by the support and my rankings vs yours, it's a no brainer of course, we're still trying to grow you one, but the size of the skull make's....
Cyber threats, name calling & profanity sums up the voting block you identify yourself with. So why do you & the voti..?

You imagine you're some kind of "new scientist" because you've learned the technique of Copy & Paste..


i love it when you monkeys think you got it all figured out while being boxed in by overwhelming scientific opinions and emperical evidence, now now monkey no need to throw your toys out the kot, copy and paste have been left to you and your sockpuppets, and that we all so often point out ;) I simply enhance the scientists standpoint so you monkeys are exposed for what you are, not needed as the scientists stand their own ground, but i find it entertaining so does the scientists, so let's keep playing ... :D :D
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
your style of argument belies intellectual training.
@d
let me clarify this...
in order to demonstrate "intellectual training" we must post red herrings and strawman arguments, obfuscate the science, assume that blogs and opinion are of higher caliber evidence than validated studies, troll, utilize distraction from lack of content and then blatantly lie, libel, insult and then hypocritically admonish those who perform the above?

like you are doing?
will we be as credible as you then? (hyperbole and satire)
Temperature models vs. Reality:
already debunked with the above studies as well as the linked ScienceMag study

also debunked with this
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
I think you have no idea what he did for a living, but I do, having watched them in action at Edwards AFB, where we lost aircraft almost continuously.


Doubling down on a bad bet. Man...stop it...seriously. You're not doing anything for your case by making up lies.

What do you do? What have you done?

That has nothing to do with AGW being a lie, nor will it add to anonymous credibility.

You have shown no sign of understanding that phrase

Why should I?

i don't hate the US
the gov't, maybe

You hate Democratic Republics. Noted.

Evidently, you hate grammar too.

and dr roy?
the failure who can't get published because he can't get blatantly bad and wrong math/science past the peer review?


Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

interesting

Not really.

Benni
2.9 / 5 (19) Jun 07, 2015
denglish must assume we all have his character, and will fool ourselves for money or whatever we want. Conservatives do that, denglish, as in "WMD!" and "Bring 'em on!".

I'll bet he got fooled,suckered, by those two cowards hiding and screaming "WMD!", didn't he? Now he thinks we are all so easily fooled.

Nope. I knew better. Why didn't he?


Odd isn't it? How you only manage to find hypocrisy on just the one side of Washington DC's political aisle but never the other side of it? You apparently would never explicitly decry Al Gore setting up a business selling Carbon Swaps & trades would you, a practice that does nothing to reduce carbon emissions?
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Not having any significant experience in life, you deprecate those who have DONE IT, not read about it.


Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 07, 2015
Whohooo... donglish and his little puppet benni, really fighting to break out of their monkey cages tonight, by the looks of it, it's all he does in his spare time all all of of his time and still he's not getting anywhere lol.... here monkeys monkyes, the world outside is very big, and you monkeys are still not brave enough to face the big real world, here have a few bannanas... :D

Well done Captain

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
You hate Democratic Republics. Noted.

Evidently, you hate grammar too.
@dung
yep
pretty much all politicians, just to be clear
Tell us
tl;dr
trolling
baiting

so, where is the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that refutes my studies above?
all you've given so far is blog or conjecture... neither of which is equivalent to the validated study published in a reputable peer reviewed journal
interesting
Not really.
you can add your opinion and likes/dislikes to my "apathy" list if you want

it is interesting to me... it speaks volumes about you

again...
I already debunked you with the above studies as well as the linked ScienceMag study so...

where are your studies which refute the claim?

[insert crowd noise]
and now!
batting 1000 trolling red herring comments from left field: ......
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2015
Donglish being mind controlled by his oil silkwormpuppetmasters think that because they said it's a lie, it must be a lie, while the world in the meantime is presented with Real Emperical Scientific Evidence to see just how dumb donglish and his puppets are (and we're ,loving it ) ;) :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
Not having any significant experience in life, you deprecate those who have DONE IT, not read about it.


Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.


aaaah.. lol you hit the nail on the head my monkey, so glad you starting to see the light, now stop denying the real world that is outside of your silkwormbox and outgrow your puppetmasters, you can read the scientific evidence with your own eyes... :D you can do it ! Go monkey Go...
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
You hate Democratic Republics. Noted.

Evidently, you hate grammar too.

@dung
yep
pretty much all politicians, just to be clear

You hate Democratic Republics. That explains your commitment to AGW politics.

so, where is the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that refutes my studies above?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

it is interesting to me... it speaks volumes about you

Giving me free rent in your head will not benefit you.

where are your studies which refute the claim?

Challenging me to lie will not get you anything either.

Whohooo... donglish and his little puppet benni, really fighting to break out of their monkey cages tonight, by the looks of it, it's all he does in his spare time all all of of his time and still he's not getting anywhere lol


The Special Olympics play by play announcer adds a very amusing flavor of absurdity to it all.

HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
OoooWhooohooo!! monkeys you make me proud... That 200 mark is within Reach :D
Benni
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
Not having any significant experience in life, you deprecate those who have DONE IT, not read about it.


Well, well, well then. I have designed nuclear reactor systems in the past, worked on them as well. In addition, I can design electronics circuits. But I would imagine you think that wouldn't count in your world because it doesn't defend AL Gore setting up a for profit company to trade Carbon Credits while doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions?
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (17) Jun 07, 2015
The Special Olympics play by play announcer adds a very amusing flavor of absurdity to it all.


Jaaa totally, the absurdity from you monkeys always reaching new heights, but the world loves seeing monkeys go bannanas especially those opinions sucked out of their hard working 3 braincells.... here monkey monkey... ;)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2015
I have designed nuclear reactor systems in the past, worked on them as well.


Did you have to ask the Yahoo-Answers-The-Question for the plans? Or did you go to Asking-How-On-The-Interweb to get that one?
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2015
Benni
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
Ira, you're on the Ignore.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
That explains your commitment to AGW politics
@dung
you're projecting again- you are the only political advocate here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
and again, BLOGS are not equivalent to validated scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals

but i didn't think you would understand that anyway... to much science, not enough politics
Giving me free rent in your head will not benefit you
studying psychosis is not giving anything "free rent"
your Dunning-Kruger is showing
Challenging me to lie will not get you anything either
ROTFLMFAO
so now all science is a lie?
fascinating how you think... i'll remember that when i use my laptop

so your claim is that there is no such thing as valid science unless it conforms to your political claims?

that is essentially what you are saying above... because the refuting studies i linked used the same physics etc that is used in the building of our technology and more
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
Sorry Denglish I gave you a one instead of a five. OOOps
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
I wish I could get away with creating a crisis and then profiting from it.
@dung
so long as you support and defend the politics over the science... you are directly responsible for the crisis and profiteering which is being done right now

ignorance is bliss, isn't it...

but in your case, it's been pointed out already, so it is stupidity, not ignorance

i like how all your links are simply conjecture or opinion
no science

or you link to blogs with anti-science and blatantly invalid claims and consider it equivalent to validated studies

your dunning-kruger is fascinating to educated people

EDIT
sorry, there are other posters using political BS to argue against the science
MR does the same thing
he is another "political advocate" over science and logic
Benni
2.9 / 5 (17) Jun 07, 2015
@gkam,

Your defense of Al Gore is what?
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
you're projecting again- you are the only political advocate here


@dung
yep
pretty much all politicians, just to be clear


but i didn't think you would understand that anyway... to much science, not enough politics

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

your Dunning-Kruger is showing

Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes.

so now all science is a lie?

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

so your claim is that there is no such thing as valid science unless it conforms to your political claims?


you're projecting again- you are the only political advocate here

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
Sorry Denglish I gave you a one instead of a five. OOOps

for Mr and dung

http://psycnet.ap...4347-002
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2015
Ira, you're on the Ignore.


That's the first smart thing you have said in a long time. But I still got to give you a one karma points for all that snip and glue foolishment.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Sorry Denglish I gave you a one instead of a five. OOOps

Don't worry. I don't care.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes
@dung
you are definitely demonstrating that here
Intellectual dishonesty is
yep
demonstrating this here too
i ask for studies and give studies... you give politics and conjecture and assume it is equivalent... you are definitely intellectually dishonest, you big lug
Tell us
more red herring and distraction?
really?

even with your demonstrations of intellectual dishonesty, dunning-kruger and failure to be able to comprehend validated evidence over personal opinion... you are still trolling and baiting with stupidity?

your trolling is getting repetitious

i gotta run, so make sure you get the last post in (at least for now)
Make it a good one!
not a trolling one... or blogs...

too bad you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of learning

HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2015
ROTFLMFAO
so now all science is a lie?
fascinating how you think... i'll remember that when i use my laptop

so your claim is that there is no such thing as valid science unless it conforms to your political claims?


ooohhh. Another Scooore :D Well said Captain ,dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five... lol
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
Ira, you're on the Ignore.

That one was the first one I ignored even before I felt the urge to post.

your dunning-kruger is fascinating to educated people

Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes.

Tell us more about your college degrees, or how you are a "truck captain", or how you're an attorney, or how you're a (best one) web-site vigilante.

sorry, there are other posters using political BS to argue against the science


you're projecting again- you are the only political advocate here


HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2015
Dongmonkey double posting, i don't think he perfected unskewing his eyes yet.. monkey you see one or two bannanas ? :D
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
too bad you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of learning


Appeal to ridicule is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.

While a person may be insulted, and his political position subjected to question, the person so impugned has not been discredited until the allegations against him have been proved correct.

dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five... lol

Populism...the new road to veracity.

Dongmonkey double posting, i don't think he perfected unskewing his eyes yet.. monkey you see one or two bannanas ? :D

Look again. Evidently, the person that up-voted you needs to do the same.

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (23) Jun 07, 2015
Ira, you're on the Ignore.

That one was the first one I ignored even before I felt the urge to post.


That way you can pretend I did not recognize you when you first walked in the door. But the silly looking pointy cap was a dead give-a-way.

What's that? You thought ol Ira-Skippy wouldn't recognize Shakey-scenery-Skippy aka obama-sock-Skippy? You should have took your cap off before you can in.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2015
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
ooohhh. Another Scooore :D Well said Captain ,dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five...


.....but it's lost on you that not a one of El Stumpo's 5 Star votes is by someone who has ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
ooohhh. Another Scooore :D Well said Captain ,dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five...


.....but it's lost on you that not a one of El Stumpo's 5 Star votes is by someone who has ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.

You gotta ask...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot re: the groupies?
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2015
too bad you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of learning


Appeal to ridicule is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.

While a person may be insulted, and his political position subjected to question, the person so impugned has not been discredited until the allegations against him have been proved correct.

dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five... lol

Populism...the new road to veracity.

Dongmonkey double posting, i don't think he perfected unskewing his eyes yet.. monkey you see one or two bannanas ? :D

Look again. Evidently, the person that up-voted you needs to do the same.


Nope my 5 out of 5s is perfectly in place, so is your 1 out of 5's ... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
ooohhh. Another Scooore :D Well said Captain ,dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five...


.....but it's lost on you that not a one of El Stumpo's 5 Star votes is by someone who has ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.


No loss, as always Captain's evidence is solid... ;)
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2015
Nope my 5 out of 5s is perfectly in place, so is your 1 out of 5's ... ;)


Populism...the new road to veracity.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
ooohhh. Another Scooore :D Well said Captain ,dongmonkey is used to getting 1's so don't worry everyone rates him 1 out of five...


.....but it's lost on you that not a one of El Stumpo's 5 Star votes is by someone who has ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.

You gotta ask...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot re: the groupies?


monkeys like groupies... :D got some more bannanas for you... first one with the next dumb answer can get it (better be quick..this one's going to go quick).... :D
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 07, 2015
Nope my 5 out of 5s is perfectly in place, so is your 1 out of 5's ... ;)


..........and just to remind you that not a one of your 5's are by someone who could even recognize a Differential Equation if it were placed right in front of their eyeballs, and the evidence is neither could you, so you write what you do know thinking name calling makes up for your math deficiencies.

You recognize math requires arduous focus on attention to detail, so do the rest of El Stumpo's 5 Star voters.

HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2015
Nope my 5 out of 5s is perfectly in place, so is your 1 out of 5's ... ;)


Populism...the new road to veracity.


Scientific Evidence = truth, truth gains popularity.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
runrig- aka Tony Banton
how is that relevant to the topic?


Evidently, its not:


https://www.faceb...t=public

Are you lying for someone else now?


If it's so important - I'm the top on on the list sunshine.
TKS Capt
Benni
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 07, 2015
Nope my 5 out of 5s is perfectly in place, so is your 1 out of 5's ... ;)
Populism...the new road to veracity.

Scientific Evidence = truth, truth gains popularity.


Here is a scientific truth: E=mc2.

The question I would have for you: Do you know the the title phrase by which this equation is known?

MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
"sorry, there are other posters using political BS to argue against the science
MR does the same thing
he is another "political advocate" over science and logic"

Capt. are you telling me that taking the data generated by ocean buoys designed solely to measure ocean temperatures very accurately and adjusting it upwards to match the data from the water intake of ocean vessels is "science and logic" ? THAT looks like political advocacy to me!!!!
sdrfz
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
Yup, we are polarized. I got my own biases from earning a Master of Science in the fields of the Environment and energy use.


You have a personal economic interest in promoting a belief in AGW. It helps fatten your wallet to have AGW become the accepted truth, because people will rely on your supposed knowledge and skills in helping them deal with this supposed "problem", that is really just a fantasy.

HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2015
Nope my 5 out of 5s is perfectly in place, so is your 1 out of 5's ... ;)
Populism...the new road to veracity.

Scientific Evidence = truth, truth gains popularity.


Here is a scientific truth: E=mc2.

The question I would have for you: Do you know the the title phrase by which this equation is known?



lol.. good one monkey, seems like bennimonkey got this topic mixed up with Einstein's theory of special relativity.. ;) Provide empirical evidence against the topic at hand...have fun.. ;) here monkey monkey....
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
Mass energy equivalence is not evidence against climate change lol...
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2015
Mass energy equivalence is not evidence against climate change


.......but you don't get it, I was checking for your knowledge in Special Relativity science. I was factoring into your response the length of time it would take you to respond. There are two problems with your response:

The first problem was the length of time you took to come up with "Mass energy equivalence", this against the backdrop of the extraordinary short time frames in which you respond with all your other "monkey" quips to previous posts. You spent an hour & a half of search time on the internet to come up with "Mass energy equivalence".

The second problem is that your "Mass energy equivalence" response is incomplete. If you had ever studied SR or GR in college you would know to phrase it like this: Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, but you didn't know that. Therefore I can conclude you would never recognize a Differential Equation in SR or GR if it were placed in front of your eyeballs.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
the person so impugned has not been discredited until the allegations against him have been proved correct
@d
but you have proven my allegations against you correct all by yourself

lets look at this- your arguments are
1- off topic and mostly not science
2- already debunked and pointed out to you
3- full of insult, distraction, red herrings, obfuscation, opinion, strawman arguments, unproven conjecture and politics
4- hypocritical and judgemental, while also "intellectually dishonest"

Your only ally benni is a blatant liar who has yet to be able to demonstrate his own claims, from electrical engineer to basic math skills (see proof/links above)

Your posts not only deserve ridicule, they invite it

anyone who thinks that blogs and opinion are equivalent to validated studies as you have inferred above by your posts does NOT know the scientific method, nor can consider themselves educated or logical

it is one reason benni (and you) are ridiculed on PO as TROLLs
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
https://www.faceb...t=public

Are you lying for someone else now?


If it's so important - I'm the top on on the list sunshine.
TKS Capt
@runrig
WC -been a morning of belly laughs here!

not that i did anything but point out what everyone else already knows because you've posted the information multiple times here already...
as if that is hard to find

apparently dung has a problem working the google search...
his superior intellect has not figured out how to narrow down searches or confine them to sites... or how to find data that is not handed to him on a 1k limit post

i am thinking that his mensa charter is covering his screen or maybe that his ego is blocking the view?
it could also be the dunning-kruger in the way... like benji and his "differential equations" argument

so many possibilities
(satire, hyperbole, a dash of parody and a little ridicule for seasoning)
still cracking up!
HAVE FUN, runrig!
PEACE
gkam
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2015
Benni, I am genuinely interested in what you did in the nuclear field. I promise to not play semantic games. I want to see why you think it is safe, and we can discuss it. No snarkiness.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (25) Jun 07, 2015
Those of us who have solved quadratic equations know it is not a big deal, and anyone who makes such a big deal out of it is unaware of the fact.

Bragging about it is like counterfeiting one-dollar bills.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2015
How sideways has the original topic gone.

AGW = Get rich scheme devised by politicians.

runrig, if you associate yourself by these people, then you must be considered a liar. Sorry, nothing personal, the internet is that way.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2015
Benni, I am genuinely interested in what you did in the nuclear field. I promise to not play semantic games. I want to see why you think it is safe, and we can discuss it. No snarkiness.


You can start by perusing my past posts on the subject. Every time you see something about ENERGY or NUCLEAR, simply bring it up. Don't be expecting me to do work you can do for yourself .
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2015
Fakes like Benni and @Denglefish are the same in general. When it comes to catastrophic climate change (like what we are seeing from AGW) these pions are clueless (and their commentary demonstrates it.

The second problem is that your "Mass energy equivalence" response is incomplete. If you had ever studied SR or GR in college you would know to phrase it like this: Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, but you didn't know that. Therefore I can conclude you would never recognize a Differential Equation in SR or GR if it were placed in front of your eyeballs.

But I would. And so far you Full of crap dude.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2015
How ever, what is not full of crap is the fact the mankind is killing the planet with pollution, over use of resources, and over population. Let me repeat what Steven Hawking said on mankind's future.

"We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet."

Polluted and over crowded are the ingredients for disaster. Not the small kind, but the big global extinction kind in the short time frame of less than 1000 years or so.

So given E=Mc^2, what the hell will it matter if no one is alive or mankind is not capable of understanding it's meaning? That is the very reason I will fight AGW deniers always. Stupidity is not your friend.

Sigh
5 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2015
AGW is absolutely a plot to extend the reach of government.

There is no "way" to deal with global warming. Humans cannot possibly hope to impact what the Earth decides to do. Thinking or suggesting that we can somehow influence nature is either naive, arrogant, or evil.
Which is why passenger pigeon burgers are so cheap, moas are popular livestock in NZ, the great auk is such a pest to Icelandic fishermen, and there is no such thing as overfishing. Right. Here is an easy to understand graphic showing why your statement is naive: http://xkcd.com/1338/ Also look up "anthropocene".
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2015
Mass energy equivalence is not evidence against climate change


The first problem was the length of time you took to come up with "Mass energy equivalence", this against the backdrop of the extraordinary short time frames in which you respond with all ...

this is funny, it takes only seconds to come up with your dumb answer, i went out and came back, on the other hand you and monkey denglish and your sockpuppets have been given what YEARS ? to come up with evidence disproving climate change ? You and your sockpuppets just begs to be stupified... :D
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2015
How sideways has the original topic gone.

AGW = Get rich scheme devised by politicians.

runrig, if you associate yourself by these people, then you must be considered a liar. Sorry, nothing personal, the internet is that way.


Monkey donglish and associates would rather let big oil destroy the earth and let their greedy minds profit from the trillions upon trillions carnaged from the earth, while he actually tries to say climate change is a get rich scheme... no wonder people think they are dumb and stupid, we on the other hand have been knowing it for years... :D Here monkeys monkeys... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2015
Well said Sigh and Howhot.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2015
....... have been given what YEARS ? to come up with evidence disproving climate change ?


Your comprehension of name calling & profanity far exceeds your comprehension of the sciences associated with Climate Change & Anthropogenic Global Warming, two vastly different topics.

Climate Change cycles due to Earths orbital eccentricities & Rotational Wobble are well known events causing cycles of warming & cooling, geologists have been producing this data for decades, the problem those of you in the name calling & profanity crowd have is that you resent this data being made public because it counters your AGW hypotheses.

It's a new week, I don't have any more time to put up with more of your confusion because you are so ill equipped to have a cogent exchange of concepts in science.
MR166
2 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2015
I did not fail to notice how many 5s Menelo gets. The very same people who would not hesitate one instant to report the slightest rule violation of someone skeptical of the science gives him 5s and encouragement. Yet, they claim to be only moved by the science and to be apolitical.

Menelo has yet to post anything more than personal attacks.
Sigh
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2015
From denglish:
Humans cannot possibly hope to impact what the Earth decides to do. Thinking or suggesting that we can somehow influence nature is either naive, arrogant, or evil.

Which further means that either there never was an ozone hole, or if there was, it occurred because of natural fluctuations, nothing to do with CFCs. It means that either removing keystone species makes no difference(http://phys.org/n...e.html), or that humans could not possibly hunt wolves or Tasmanian tigers to local or global extinction. Believing that rabbits or cane toads make a difference to Australia's ecosystems, or that the brown tree snake makes a difference to Guam (http://phys.org/n...ds.html) is naive, arrogant or dangerous. Good to know that.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2015
Excellent Sigh... donglish pulling the dumbest one out yet... naive arrogant evil = big oil... ;) here monkey monkey...
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2015
runrig, if you associate yourself by these people, then you must be considered a liar. Sorry, nothing personal, the internet is that way.

No, we associate ourselves with the science. I know it doesn't scan with you (and far less engender respect) but I and most on here understand it. People learn stuff and practise it. They are the best on the planet at what they do. Newton said "if I see further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Meaning climate science (unarguable bit) was discovered by those giants of the past and has been found to be correct (GHG theory).
I don't proceed to tell you that the foundations of your profession are wrong. Whether you profess to know the science better, say Spencer, Curry or the minority do, deny anything is happening, or think its a scam. All of those notions are beyond bizarre.
I've no investment in AGW other than as science.
You start with the answer you want and deny the science proving you wrong.
Sorry, nothing personal.
Sigh
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2015
HeloMenelo:
here monkey monkey...
denglish's "naive, arrogant or evil" remark was an ad hominem attack, and I regret and apologise for responding in kind even with the mildest of those terms. I don't think calling him a monkey is any more productive.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
Climate Change cycles due to Earths orbital eccentricities & Rotational Wobble
@everyone
whatever you do, don't mention Milankovitch cycles or chandler wobble

http://phys.org/n...als.html

the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way. As we study these phenomena In our astronomy club...
he gets all bent out of shape when you correct him, too
then takes credit for the introduction of the data
LMFAO

just read his comments
... blah blah blah encouragement
@MR
i've used science with you- didn't work
logic- didn't work
evidence - doesn't work
humor doesn't work either
so why NOT watch how you react to ridicule and ad hominem from someone?

it is equivalent to your posts
it contains the same evidence: personal conjecture

the difference is: it's directed AT you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
... an ad hominem attack, and I regret and apologise for responding in kind ...
@sigh
Whereas i agree with your post, ...
IMHO - you cannot fault someone else for their decision to give back what they have received from the above posters, can you?

plus: it is advantageous to see how they react to the ad hominem as well as trolling tactic

notice how it angers MR166 that he is being trolled, and that some of us actually support it (some of THAT is intentional, be it for humor reasons or simply to watch reactions)

But yet MR can't see that his own posts are exactly the same in every way except he is targeting Science and its methodology and those who support it
he uses the same tactic, CONJECTURE without evidence based upon a flawed premise to justify his posts (politics, conspiracy, religion, etc)

it is the SAME THING

IOW - trolls can dish it out but cant take it

IMHO - keep posters who are willing to call 'em as they see 'em
it is insightful (state of mind)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (22) Jun 09, 2015
he gets all bent out of shape when you correct him, too
then takes credit for the introduction of the data
LMFAO


@ Captain-Skippy. How you are? I am good. You mean the way some peoples go to the yahoo answers your questions and snip and glues the answer then posted him like he knew that him self? Bennie-Skippy would never do that. Just ask him. He's to busy writing out the words different equations to be fooling around with wobbly stuff.
Sigh
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2015
IMHO - you cannot fault someone else for their decision to give back what they have received from the above posters, can you?
Having just given in to the temptation myself, I am in a poor position to do so, but I still think it's less productive. Trolling gives people an excuse to ignore counterarguments and complain, with some justification, about the trolling. Note that denglish did not dispute my claim that if global warming is an argument for extending government control, that implies that government control is the best tool to deal with global warming. He had to resort to claiming humans could not affect nature, and has said nothing since my counterexamples. I would prefer if he actually engaged with my point, but if those with poor arguments shut up instead of just repeating them yet again, I take that as second best. A trolling battle will is unlikely to achieve either.
eachus
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
But some questions can never be answered like Why do deniers go to a science site to trash science?


Why do people who do not understand science post nonsense like this on a science website?

In the scientific method nothing is ever "proven" right. One slight flaw is enough for a theory to be proven wrong. When a new theory is proposed, true scientists test it, often in areas not considered by the originators of the theory. For example global cooling on Mars is evidence against AGW. (Incidentally, note that the partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is greater than on Earth. The atmosphere is almost pure CO2 with some wiffs of methane. Must be nice and warm there...)

Oh, and there is no point, on a science site, to post additional evidence which is in accordance with the theory. One contrary fact outweighs millions of facts which conform to the theory. In other words, I could time falling apples all day long and it wouldn't make Newtonian gravity true.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
In the scientific method nothing is ever "proven" right
@each
don't confuse popular or colloquial terms used in conversation with actual science

Also
a falsification must also demonstrate correlation with causation

Your interpretations of Mars and how it demonstrates AGW wrong are incorrect:

one huge difference is that CO2 is not a stand alone GHG (on earth) and it has been demonstrated, by experimentation/observation/measurement (and validated, repeatedly), that the cyclical and feedback nature of CO2 in conjunction with water vapor as well as other GHG's are the cause of AGW

there is absolutely NO refutations/falsification of that fact, either

Mars does NOT mimic earth environment as you point out that the atmosphere (little as it is) differs greatly from ours

Perhaps you should consider taking some refresher physics courses?
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

just because you WANT to believe i something doesn't mean it is true or provable
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
but I still think it's less productive.
@Sigh
yes- i can agree with that
A trolling battle will is unlikely to achieve either.
a troll flame war achieves nothing but distraction, so again, i agree with you

not saying i don't agree, just letting you know that i DO support some people and their efforts to point out the anti-science trolls simply because it allows me the opportunity to observe trolls in action, the troll responses to being trolled, and it also opens up a lot of the internal drivers of the anti-science troll as well

take deng:
fairly literate in physics (see astrophysics threads) but completely refuses to apply that same knowledge or evidenciary requirements to AGW

then there is Mr :
for some reason, people who enjoy the humour of Helo somehow offends him and makes him feel threatened, yet if you take the content of his own posts...

No science
no evidence equivalent to studies
all conjecture, conspiracy, politics, etc

IOW-TROLLING
TehDog
5 / 5 (17) Jun 09, 2015
@eachus
" For example global cooling on Mars is evidence against AGW. (Incidentally, note that the partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is greater than on Earth. The atmosphere is almost pure CO2 with some wiffs of methane. Must be nice and warm there...)"

From this link https://www.ucls....ats.html

"The Martian atmosphere is too thin for the carbon dioxide to hold in any infrared radiant energy and so it does not have any heating effect like the greenhouse effect on Earth. Mars is heated only by the incoming solar radiation. With the lack of Martian cloud cover there is nothing to prevent the little bit of incoming heat from escaping."

Why didn't you bother to check before you made your claim?

Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2015
eachus claimed
For example global cooling on Mars is evidence against AGW
No. It is at very close to equilibrium as the atmosphere is VERY thin but, can still reach > 25 deg C in the SHADE, how is that possible eachus when the atmosphere is only CO2 & much thinner than Earth ?

Read eachus, learn eachus, get an education eachus
http://en.wikiped...perature

eachus please check before barking, get an education in the proven physics & maths of
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Its experimentally verified for many decades, so eachus you are way off any physics !

which leads to
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

eachus satirically blurted
Must be nice and warm there...)
Yes, It can be despite FACT its further away as the link at top of my post here shows.

eachus, all scientists here await your apology for making a false claim & leading other naive readers astray !
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
@eachus
" For example global cooling on Mars is evidence against AGW. (Incidentally, note that the partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is greater than on Earth. The atmosphere is almost pure CO2 with some wiffs of methane. Must be nice and warm there...)"

From this link https://www.ucls....ats.html

"The Martian atmosphere is too thin for the carbon dioxide to hold in any infrared radiant energy and so it does not have any heating effect like the greenhouse effect on Earth. Mars is heated only by the incoming solar radiation. With the lack of Martian cloud cover there is nothing to prevent the little bit of incoming heat from escaping."

Why didn't you bother to check before you made your claim?

Thanks Teh:
Also ....http://www.newsci..._nM9Viko

Plus Mars receives just 43% of the TSI that Earth does.
TehDog
4.8 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2015
@runrig
Ta for link, useful read.

"Plus Mars receives just 43% of the TSI that Earth does."

I feel compelled to point out that that's an average, there's a wide variation over the martian year due to orbital eccentricity :)
I found this link, lots of info on the subject here; http://ccar.color...mars.htm

Thanks for the many useful posts you (and thermo, DLK, magnus, M_M, and many others) have made over the years, much appreciated :)
eachus
1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
From this link http://www.ucls.u...ats.html

"The Martian atmosphere is too thin for the carbon dioxide to hold in any infrared radiant energy and so it does not have any heating effect like the greenhouse effect on Earth. Mars is heated only by the incoming solar radiation. With the lack of Martian cloud cover there is nothing to prevent the little bit of incoming heat from escaping."

Why didn't you bother to check before you made your claim?


Because the claim I made--that global warming on Mars (and for that matter, some of Jupiter's moons) contradicts AGW theory has nothing to do with CO2. If system wide temperatures vary in sync, then Occam's Razor argues against CO2 levels as a cause of global warming on Earth.

BTW, I'm a statistician, and applying Box-Jenkins to historical CO2 levels and temperatures on Earth finds temperature as a cause of CO2 levels, not an effect.
eachus
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
Flame Retardant: Why don't I publish the time series analysis (TSA) results relating temperature and CO2 levels? Three reasons:

Most important, if you do statistics right, there are two phases. First comes exploratory data analysis (EDA). Then, if you see something interesting, you set up a formal trial, usually excluding the data used in the EDA. The TSA results above are exploratory.

Second, I'm now retired. I have no problem helping researchers use statistics correctly. However, writing a paper in another field that would be highly controversial is not a good idea.

Third, correlation is not causation. I suspect the correlation comes from methane clathrates in permafrost and under the ocean. (There is a fast and a slow response.) I'm not the right person to write that paper, especially without data on the age of the clathrates currently in place. (Carbon dating can be used to determine which clathrates are recent in geological terms.)
TehDog
5 / 5 (19) Jun 09, 2015
@eachus
Oh good grief. From your 1st post
" For example global cooling on Mars is evidence against AGW"

Now you say
"Because the claim I made--that global warming on Mars..."

Make your mind up.
DarkLordKelvin
2.5 / 5 (21) Jun 09, 2015
In the scientific method nothing is ever "proven" right. One slight flaw is enough for a theory to be proven wrong. [snip] For example global cooling on Mars is evidence against AGW. (Incidentally, note that the partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is greater than on Earth. The atmosphere is almost pure CO2 with some wiffs of methane. Must be nice and warm there...)
All that shows is that you have no idea about the mechanism of the greenhouse effect ... thermal radiation from the planet is dispersed into the atmosphere via absorption and re-emission from GHG's. In order for that to work, the pressure must be high, in fact, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, emission from GHG's at low pressure *cools* the Earth.
One contrary fact outweighs millions of facts which conform to the theory. In other words, I could time falling apples all day long and it wouldn't make Newtonian gravity true.
Newtonian gravity works just fine as a theory, as long as you understand its limitations.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2015
take deng:
fairly literate in physics (see astrophysics threads) but completely refuses to apply that same knowledge or evidenciary requirements to AGW

1. I don't need your approval. Stop being condescending.

2. Astrophysics and AGW are very different. One relies on falsifiable theory being proven or disproven via observation. The other does not value falsifiable theory proven or disproven via observation, is heavily dependent on populism, is being used as a profit machine, a creator of dependent classes of citizenry, and a destroyer of the world's greatest economies.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2015
denglish:
AGW [...] is being used as [...] a destroyer of the world's greatest economies.
Are you saying that
a) global warming is the kind of problem that destroys economies, no matter what the solution, or
b) that specifically the proposed solution destroys economies?

If b), why don't you propose a solution that doesn't destroy economies? And if you want to insist that AGW can't be a real problem, despite failing to refute my counterexamples to your claim that humans can't influence nature, just treat this as a thought experiment. Assume the most alarmist claims about global warming are true, and you are in charge of picking the best solution. What do you decide?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2015
Deng stated
How sideways has the original topic gone
Yeah. it tends to do that when trolls start posting unsubstantiated conjecture and think that it holds the same equivalence as validated studies... like your posts
Stop being condescending
i wasn't
you have the ability to understand the physics, but you refuse to see it because you are so emotionally and politically charged
that is obvious to anyone reading your posts
Astrophysics and AGW are very different
not really
same physics
is heavily dependent on populism
you're lying again - we covered this already
is being used as a profit machine blah blah blah
the rest is politics and simply proves MY point above

you don't LIKE the science and you FEAR changes, so you lash out with unsubstantiated conjecture and political dogma which has been proven false
I don't need your approval.
i didn't give you any

eachus
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
All that shows is that you have no idea about the mechanism of the greenhouse effect ... thermal radiation from the planet is dispersed into the atmosphere via absorption and re-emission from GHG's. In order for that to work, the pressure must be high, in fact, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, emission from GHG's at low pressure *cools* the Earth.


Trying to respond to all the misinformation posted here is a mugs game, but cherry picking especially stupid statements seems like a public service.

Have you STUDIED the (one dimensional) models you are misquoting? The most important factor omitted from one dimensional models is wind. I keep saying, stand outside and watch a thunderstorm form. You will see megatons of air and water (in various forms) transported to non-equilibrium positions in the stratosphere. The water vapor quickly turns to ice. You have just seen more heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week. (3d models are much more interesting.)
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 10, 2015
eachus FAILs in his claim
Because the claim I made--that global warming on Mars (and for that matter, some of Jupiter's moons) contradicts AGW theory has nothing to do with CO2
Liar !
You connected CO2 with Mars - you Dill !

eachus claims
If system wide temperatures vary in sync, then Occam's Razor argues against CO2 levels as a cause of global warming on Earth
No. Occam's razor has NO metric - you Dill !

eachus claims & is already caught by
BTW, I'm a statistician, and applying Box-Jenkins to historical CO2 levels and temperatures on Earth finds temperature as a cause of CO2 levels, not an effect
You're confused re correlation/causation & thus NOT a statistician of any merit !

Eg your outright failure in your claims re Mars & CO2 goes to prove you have NIL Maths training - simply because if you did, under the discipline of Maths training for statistics re correlation/causation you would be compelled you learn about underlying Physics - you Dill !
eachus
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
The 3d atmospheric models are much better--but currently too computationally expensive to run for any length of time. Various weather bureaus buy big expensive computers to run the models for up to 10 days. (Well some runs require more than a day of computer time, so a 7 day forecast will have started with yesterday's data.)

What is the biggest limitation of these models? They use a grid of map positions several hundred kilometers apart. The details, in particular of cloud formation, in these models is poor. A thunderstorm can form and dissipate without affecting any grid point. Of course, the weather services do have models with finer grids that they run for example around a hurricane. But these runs are not useful for (3d) climate modelling. Well they show how much better it needs to get to give useful answers.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2015
eachus FAILs again in claims
Trying to respond to all the misinformation posted here is a mugs game, but cherry picking especially stupid statements seems like a public service
You prove completely lack of education in Science AND Math !

Statisticians are schooled to appreciate sources of data re underlying causality & NOT confuse correlations at whatever levels with ANY causative factors.

eachus asks & claims
Have you STUDIED the (one dimensional) models...
The various models re Climates are within error bars !

Statisticians KNOW this !

eachus claims
You will see megatons of air and water (in various forms) transported to non-equilibrium positions in the stratosphere
A statistician as you claim, shouldn't talk meteorology, esp restorms & equilibrium - you Dill !

eachus
You have just seen more heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week
You FAIL to understand heat is integrated
http://en.wikiped..._forcing
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2015
eachus FAILs again in claim
The 3d atmospheric models are much better--but currently too computationally expensive to run for any length of time
Crap !
Computing resources are vast AND climate changes VERY slowly, billions of iterations can be run each week !

eachus states
Various weather bureaus buy big expensive computers to run the models for up to 10 days
Idiot ! Climate over 30+yr trend, integrating weather cells over those periods continues from NUMEROUS data sets & very often !

eachus claims
The details, in particular of cloud formation, in these models is poor
Differentials comparatively small re Heat, all partial effects ALSO integrated !

eachus claims
A thunderstorm can form and dissipate without affecting any grid point
Crap, depends on cell sizes & differentials re historical data !

eachus prove your sources of claim for above 3 posts, if you have NIL then it PROVES you are ONLY here to obfuscate Science & should be thus banned !
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2015
.....stand outside and watch a thunderstorm form. You will see megatons of air and water (in various forms) transported to non-equilibrium positions in the stratosphere. The water vapor quickly turns to ice. You have just seen more heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week. (3d models are much more interesting.)


You are way off in your "heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week" - orders of magnitude.
Earth is estimated to be adding ~300 TW of energy per hr due AGW. Which is 50,400 TW/week
A typical thunderstorm releases ~600TW of energy per hr (~typical lifespan).

http://www.easter...-system/
http://forum.weat...is_in_a/
DarkLordKelvin
2.4 / 5 (20) Jun 11, 2015
All that shows is that you have no idea about the mechanism of the greenhouse effect ... thermal radiation from the planet is dispersed into the atmosphere via absorption and re-emission from GHG's. In order for that to work, the pressure must be high, in fact, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, emission from GHG's at low pressure *cools* the Earth.
Trying to respond to all the misinformation posted here is a mugs game, but cherry picking especially stupid statements seems like a public service.
Interesting that you didn't actually refute a single point in my post. You just mentioned some additional phenomena related to heat transport within the atmosphere, none of which affect the radiation balance phenomena I was posting about.
Have you STUDIED the (one dimensional) models you are misquoting?
Please explain what I have misquoted .. and of course I have studied them, that is why I can correctly summarize their major conclusions, as I did above.
eachus
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2015
You are way off in your "heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week" - orders of magnitude.
Earth is estimated to be adding ~300 TW of energy per hr due AGW. Which is 50,400 TW/week
A typical thunderstorm releases ~600TW of energy per hr (~typical lifespan).


Hmm. You ignored two details. First you are comparing worldwide global warming to one thunderstorm. Multiply by 2000 thunderstorms on Earth at any given time to get the scale right. (Although my thinking was the heat transported by one storm as it passed over a given area, compared to the forcing by CO2 in that area.) http://www.sky-fi...rms.html

But there is another important difference. I was not talking about the energy released by the TS, but the heat transported. Think of a TS as a giant bulldozer moving warm air from near ground level up several miles. Even warm CO2 radiates its heat away up there. That's how a TS can drop the surface temperature by 20ºC.
eachus
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2015
All that shows is that you have no idea about the mechanism of the greenhouse effect ... thermal radiation from the planet is dispersed into the atmosphere via absorption and re-emission from GHG's.


Wrong! Some heat is directly radiated. Some is absorbed and reradiated by GH and other gasses in the atmosphere.

In order for that to work, the pressure must be high,...[/g]

Wrong. GHGs prevent some heat radiation at any pressure, even up where the air is rare.

...in fact, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, emission from GHG's at low pressure *cools* the Earth.


The reason they have a net cooling effect, is the low temperature at that altitude, not the low pressure.

Please explain what I have misquoted...


Is that enough?
DarkLordKelvin
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
.....stand outside and watch a thunderstorm form. You will see megatons of air and water (in various forms) transported to non-equilibrium positions in the stratosphere. The water vapor quickly turns to ice. You have just seen more heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week. (3d models are much more interesting.)


You are way off in your "heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week" - orders of magnitude.
Earth is estimated to be adding ~300 TW of energy per hr due AGW. Which is 50,400 TW/week
A typical thunderstorm releases ~600TW of energy per hr (~typical lifespan).

Actually, I gave this post a '5' too quickly .. the math is WAY off. A typical thunderstorm releases about 1x10^15 J of heat energy in about 30 minutes (wikipedia estimates of "typical" energy & duration). In 30 minutes, the ~300 TW (1 TW = 10^12 J/s) of extra heat *power* added due to increased GHE amounts to ~540x10^15 J of energy, or ~1.8x10^20 J in a week.
DarkLordKelvin
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
the greenhouse effect ... thermal radiation from the planet is dispersed into the atmosphere via absorption and re-emission from GHG's.
Some heat is directly radiated.
Irrelevant to GHE
Some is absorbed and reradiated by GH and other gasses in the atmosphere.
No, that's only true for GHG's; other gases engage in collisional transfer only
In order for that to work, the pressure must be high
GHGs prevent some heat radiation at any pressure, even up where the air is rare.
Nope, the heat lagging effect of GHG's only works at high-pressure; re-radiation is too fast to retain heat otherwise
in fact, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, emission from GHG's at low pressure *cools* the Earth
The reason they have a net cooling effect, is the low temperature at that altitude, not the low pressure. No. At higher T, radiative cooling is *more* efficient; at low p, re-radiation occurs before collisional transfer to non-GHG's, & there's far less re-absorption.
DarkLordKelvin
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
You are way off in your "heat transport in a few minutes than CO2 can block in a week" - orders of magnitude.
Hmm. You ignored two details. First you are comparing worldwide global warming to one thunderstorm. Multiply by 2000 thunderstorms on Earth at any given time to get the scale right. (Although my thinking was the heat transported by one storm as it passed over a given area, compared to the forcing by CO2 in that area.) http://www.sky-fi...rms.html
Check my corrected order-of-magnitude estimates of the relative energies above; you'll find you're still way off.
But there is another important difference. I was not talking about the energy released by the TS, but the heat transported.
The heat transported *is* the energy released
Think of a TS as a giant bulldozer moving warm air from near ground level up several miles...That's how a TS can drop the surface temperature by 20ºC.
No, it's precipitation that cools the surface.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2015
But there is another important difference. I was not talking about the energy released by the TS, but the heat transported. Think of a TS as a giant bulldozer moving warm air from near ground level up several miles. Even warm CO2 radiates its heat away up there. That's how a TS can drop the surface temperature by 20ºC.


Yes, the heat is transported from the lower Trop to other layers in the Trop - not expelled to space.
Otherwise the Earth would be cooling damn quick.
BTW: I don't need "to think" - I am a retired meteorologist. It's intuitive.
The GHE builds up heat in the climate system, primarily in the lower Trop. Convection moves it to higher layers. It's still in the climate system.
Like I said - you try and fail to imply that the Earth's GHE is inconsequential in comparison to convection.
xstos
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
xstos offered
http://www.hefty.co/truth-in-pictures/
Troubling and only really a fraction of whats going on worldwide, the population spreads are pretty scary not least of which for quality of life...

Thanks. Unfortunately the case many just cannot get a handle on the harm humans are doing to their only home !

But whats worse is some here insist on maintaining ignorance and CANNOT deal with reality thus, the only uneducated reaction is for some dicks to down-vote you ie the Dill dogbert who comes across as a redneck & paid flunky to only obfuscate the scientific process throwing doubt around.

Admins please ban dogbert, he has NEVER offered anything useful or constructive or any attempt to engage in any sort of dialectic or convergence to pin down the essentials and fails dismally atr Science communication !

so sad
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
Mike_Massen,
Admins please ban dogbert, he has NEVER offered anything useful or constructive


If the Admins banned people for NEVER offering anything useful, you would have been banned a long time ago.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 15, 2015
dogbert FAILs by proving CANNOT comprehend
Mike_Massen
Admins please ban dogbert, he has NEVER offered anything useful or constructive
If the Admins banned people for NEVER offering anything useful, you would have been banned a long time ago
No. My posts are replete with Evidence you are WRONG dogbert. Thats not the only reason you Dill, learn comprehension, look at your banal history here - ugly stuff !

Why not get an education in this; along with Physics...
https://en.wikipe...c_method

dogbert, you have nothing except behavior consistent with a redneck paid flunky, you don't read links, you don't counter with any sort of intelligent dialectic, makes arbitrary claims, ie NOTHING useful to entertain a mature discussion.

Please ban dogbert, he really is NOT improving Science Education/Communication one bit.

I've asked you and your other paid flunkies questions all never get answered, your motives are clear !

Please ban dogbert ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.