10 Climate Change Facts (in 60 seconds!)

Apollo VII astronaut Walt Cunningham, summed it up pretty well,

"True believers in human caused-global warming cannot be reasoned out of their position, because it wasn't reason that got them there in the first place."

Irrational people, by definition, won't accept rational arguments. Facts mean nothing to the left and the dupes that follow them. They want to believe the lie.

 

There is a huge amount of mass behind CAGW which has distorted the science. Computer models can be helpful but when they are based on such complex systems with so many uncertainties and so many unknowns, they can only be used for testing against the model itself for improvement and not for policy like they are being used now. I do believe the models will evolve but using them for policy makers is a mistake as has been pointed out with the current unpredicted hiatus in warming.

 

Thank you for being honest about your motive for pushing junk science perpetrated by the 3% wing nut scientists who are in the pocket of the Koch brothers. Keep in mind though that when New York is underwater and the mid-west is a dust bowl-to name just a couple of consequences- those economic issue will still arise only much, much worse

 

You mean like the Arctic was supposed to be ice free this year?

 

Lol, the CATO institute? Really? They're more trustworthy than NASA? Ok, I think we're done here. Why do I even come on these boards if i'm relegated to having such daft debates?

 

Who is it that you think said that?? Better check your facts before you reply

 

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski which the Goracle repeated.

 

I put no credibility into anything produced by Cato. It is largely funded by the Koch bros. and their energy interests, and their political agenda is totally corporatist and fascist.

 

I'll take NASA's word for it over some group called woodfortrees.org.

 

Ignorance is not a way to argue.

Woodfortrees.org is simply an online accessible database that houses all the major temperature and other temperature related data sets like the Mauna Loa CO2 index and the ENSO index. The graph is of the Remote Sensing System satellite temperature record one of two satellite records the other being UAH. The satellite records are the best and most accurate we have.

Before you attack the messenger its best to know who the messenger is first. If you don't then you just look the fool. But dont worry you aren't the first warmmonger on the forum to make that mistake when it comes to woodfortrees.org. Its almost a Pavlovian response amongst warmmongers.

As for your source being NASA. First of all its not NASA its the NCDC. Which is fourth rate at best. The NCDC currently doens't even have any research to support their method as they removed all satellite data from their analysis because it was making it too cool. This of means that research supporting their supporting method which comes from Smith et al (200 is cannot be used because Smith et al (200 is heavily dependent on the integration of satellite data. This invalidates their method. Without satellite data the NCDC's method and with it their reconstruction is an absolute joke unsupported by any literature.

 

I put no creditibility in anyone. The fact is there is no way to determine what they are trying to determine. If you really cared you go out and read the skeptics writings and then the science teams who can't refute it. The facts are the models all can't determine well enough all of the aspects of the environment. But hey, you go with the losers who only want money for fiction. I'll stick with those who can actually dispute the findings presented. Ever hear about the rings of a tree being used to determine past temperatures? Just curious how little you do know about it.

 

So are the 48% of American Meteorlogical Society members who did not agree with your supposed 97% consensus part of the 3% of "wing nut scientists"?? lol...

Or the comments of the scientists who said their positions were absolutely misrepresented by Cook so as to be included in the 97% - you simply cannot bring yourself to admit that Cook's numbers are a pure fabrication.

Everything about the alarmist position is false, and easily falsifiable - but you people have no shame!!! lol... seriously, Mann wipes out centuries of known facts with his inane hockey stick, and you gullible dupes then prance around and regurgitate the nonsense as if it were fact.

The Climategate emails don't phase you in the least; Mann's hockey stick is easily discredited, yet you don't miss a beat; Gleick commits outright crimes, and is heralded as a hero; we've had undeniable cooling for the past 11 years - yet you deny it, lol...

You alarmists are truly amazing. By the by, have you noticed it a bit cold out lately?? But wait, that's proof of global warming, right?? The ocean ate your warming, right??

 

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

And of course the CAGW models model everything right?

 

I know a fair amount about dendrochronology. And yes it can be used to determine rainfall, and to some extent past temps for localized areas. As to climate change and mans part in it, the vast preponderance of the evidence is on the side of those who claim that it is happening. The sad part is that it is already too late to do anything about it that will have much impact. We are going to lose much of the East Coast over the next century, and many other coastal areas around the world. We are going to see the desertification of much of the central U.S. especially in the area that was hit hard by the Dustbowl of the 1930's (that was just a warmup for what will be coming).

 

All a tree ring can tell you is how well the environment was for that tree to grow. That is it no one factor can be filtered out. And even that is iffy because trees rarely grow symmetrically you can take cores from the same tree at different angles and get vastly different widths and densities. The same ring can in a core from one side of a tree can be narrow and wide tree tight in a core from the other.

Anyone who tells you that he can devine temperature from a tree ting is blowing smoke up your ass.

 

More on the subject of dendroclimatology. One little talked about e-mail in the climategate trove was an actual tree expert going to town on dendroclimatologists for pretending to know what the hell they are talking about. Remember there isn't a single leading dendroclimatologist who knows the first thing about the actual biology of trees.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/dendrochronologists-get-spanked-by-guy.html

The author is Dr. Rod Savidge a real tree expert unlike Dr. Mann and his band of merry ignorant dendroclimatologists.
http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/forestry/people/savidge.html

A major problem with dendroclimatology can be identified with a simple examination of the most well known picture of Dr. Mann



Can you spot the problem?



Even in his own favorite picture Dr. Mann shows a major problem with dendroclimatology you get vastly different results if you take a core from the right or left side of the tree cross section he is holding but he is too stupid to know.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I am B but I am not sure of the cause and will not committ untill I see something better

There is a rule but in Opinions we rarly use it

see above and read the rule



I wonder how many are experts in the field , I have learned a bit about the Weather versus Climate all of this makes it really hard the Layperson like me .

 

Weather vs. climate is very simple. If it supports AGW its climate. If it doesn't it weather. Despite having year after year of large northern hemispheric snow cover winter snow is still just weather because it doesn't support the AGW narrative.