It is now official. No global warming of the earth's environment in 15 years.

Ha-Ha!

Very good, Cigar!

You can thank our warmer and milder winters to El Nino!

They have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

 

And which of us radical global "alarmist" has ever claimed that a change of .51C is problematic? You are again accusing of stating things we never stated. That, sir, is dishonest.

 

In living color on page 4.:

http://victas.spe.org/images/victas/articles/70/Drilling_into_the future-ice_core evidence.pdf

 

You haven't even proven that the planet is warming yet. I'm still disputing the baseline ice core data.

 

I'll See your BS post and raise you somebody elses graphic.
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...hs-environment-15-years-3.html#post1060865909

 

We're the most important one or you wouldn't be here trying to sabotage our economy.

 

It was called Climategate. Of which the Penn State staff exonerated Mann. The same Penn State staff that was fired for ignoring pedophilia charges from coaching staff.

Gotta love the holes in you peoples arguments.

 

It's clear that you do not understand the argument. GISS' exclusion of data hasn't been done before. In short, this perceived pattern of increasing temperatures goes away if GISS' data collation remains true to original data collation.

When Tisdale explains that the coefficients are far more volatile for sea water areas, he's pointing out that excluding them swings temperatures upwards - which is completely legitimate - if that is how the data had always been considered.

What is illegitimate is to manipulate results by consciously deciding to remove the data that counters the upward swing when consistency of graphing demands otherwise.

You don't change parameters of an experiment halfway through, but that's exactly what GISS did. There is no "God of the Gaps" argument here; you've completely fabricated it.

 

Come now, MannieD.

Please examine the latest NASA global surface themperature chart again.

This chart clearly shows the very slight increase in global surface temperatures from 1880 until 2011.

If you believe an increase in surface temperatures over this time period of 0.51 deg-C is not credible evidence of global warming, then congratulations! You are not a global "alarmist".

You therefore agree with our position and the scientific position of most reputable scientists and climatologists today.

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

 

Sorry but I thought we were debating temperature - this paper is about atmospheric composition

And again I ask - just how dumb do you think scientists are?

If they were sampling ice that had melted in the past then they would not be using it for data i mean, have a look at those pictures - do those poor bastards look like they are living the high life there or do they look like people who are doing a hard, difficult, demanding job so that we can find accurate information? (and yes there is a very good reason why I have them looking at the photos of people and ti is because so many here seem to have a mental image of scientists as these hand rubbing evil geniuses out to destroy the world for just one more research grant)

 

Evidence of GISTEMP's own manipulation:



So MannieD: can you explain to me how GISTEMP's own data shows two different graphs for - purportedly - the same form of data collection?

You can't, because GISS screwed with the collection methodology to SELL A STORY. Which one has the "scarier" trend line???

 

So you post a graphic from the very article that has been debunked as "proof" you are right?

 

Where do you see a .51C temperature for the last 130 years on your graph?

 

Oh! Please!

Do you NOT think that we are ALL in the same boat? Do you NOT think that we all pay taxes? IF we are "trying to sabotage your economy" why has Europe done so much to reduce it's carbon footprint?

 

Got a reference for those graphs beyond "tiny pic"?

Because if I played around enough I could make some pretty coloured graphs too

 

Yes. It's NASA's own data, including NASA data saved offsite in archive. Perhaps you can get around to actually providing a credible answer that sews up your rebuttal?

Take your time.

 

A complete exposé of this ruse manipulation of data is found here.

Let me be crystal clear: this is NASA's GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) caught red-handed manipulating data they themselves collected previously. Those posters who are vainly attempting to stick to the AGW talking points are failing here; they cannot possibly excuse or explain a core set of data being manipulated in this way when previous data pools were used and accepted in environmental study, and then manipulated since the '80's in a manner which would suggest planetary temperature increases are taking place THAT ARE NOT.

 

I did not ask where you got the data but where you got the graph - or are you telling me you made this yourself?

 

From the prior link:

The following is a graph of the actual changes which take place to GISS data - at the hands of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) - for US temperatures:



This is GISS graphed data. This is the case GISS makes for AGW when their data is "corrected" - and to have the US figures conform to the case they're attempting to make for the globe at large.

From the site:

Since the total corrections for the US look so similar to the claimed temperature anomaly, it begs the questions as to what the raw data looks like without any corrections. Does it show the claimed rapidly accelerating warming trend claimed by the AGW advocates? To determine this I took the raw data from the USHCN graph shown in Figure 1 and plotted this using a 5 year mean (blue trace), matching the smoothing in the NASA GISS profile shown in Figure 4. The result is shown in Figure 5. Please note that while the plot is one that I generated, the data comes directly from the raw data from Figure 1 published by NOAA.

Here is what a graph of temperatures looks like without their "correction":



Do those graphs look similar? Hell no. Red-handed; caught in the cookie jar.

AGW is a fiction of data manipulation. Again, from the link:

 

It's from the link I already provided. Did you not open the link?

I am not seeing you contest the veracity of what is being offered to you thus far. Do you intend to attack the messenger instead?

 

Oh! My! Anthony Watts from "Watts up my Butt" quoting a blogger quoting a blogger

Yep! REAL high academic standard we are hitting here!

Now I have to ask - if this is such valid information and such a strong challenge - why is it not published? I mean Steve McIntyre got published

 

Just as I thought: trying in vain to attack the messenger.

Scintillating refutation. Really.

Published? How about refuted? There is no refutation available. This is a proved case of data manipulation.

Oddly, it does absolutely prove AGW (read: Man-Made Global Warming). This definitively proves that Man can absolutely create the fiction of Global Warming caused by Man: he simply has to screw with the datasets to achieve the desired outcome.

Fact.

 

Commentary - in a nutshell - regarding just exactly why the AGW crowd is failing, and getting increasing hysterical and snarky in the process (fail, quasi-scientists!):

From the Wong-Fielding meeting on Global Warming:

“For the last two decades the alarmist scientists have been safe in the knowledge that the valid criticisms of their theories and models are just a little bit more complex than the politicians and most of the public are willing to hear. On the other hand, the alarmists have lots of time and media space to get across the complexities of their message. But finally, after the usual warming cycle apparently ran its course by 2002, the public and politicians are noticing that temperatures are not rising as the alarmists said they would — and the public and politicians understand temperatures!”

Stick a fork in this farce.

 

Bowerbird:

You may be interested to see that GISS has manipulated Australian collected data as well!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=Echuca





Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

 

You are very correct, Subdermal.

I wish the liberals and environmentalists in this group would explain to me how this official NASA temperature graph shows evidence of "Global Warming"!

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​

... The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.