The data is there if you're willing to put in the effort to find it. I suggest you start with degree in climatology since they're not likely to hand over data to just anyone.
The environment has always changed and always will. Bad data also didn't cause the mega lake that was located where the Sahara is now to dry up either. That dried up ages before data and gasoline ever existed. What caused that?
One more time with feeling....Im not the one making the claim, YOU ARE. You are entitled to your opinion of bad data. You are not entitled to pick my pockets to support your opinion that the sky is falling. Im still waiting for one of you to tell us how you plan on stopping the Earths climate from getting warmer. Anyone? Buehler.....Buehler.......................................................Buehler.
The environment is like underpants = it does not change by itself Now YOU tell ME why it changed I KNOW
No the environment is nothing like underpants......at all. The environment has constantly changed long before man and will change long after man as it always has. But Id love to hear your plan to control planetary temperature to your desired correct temperature.
The claim that human CO2 emissions are responsible for most of the warming has been supported in the scientific literature. Saying that it hasn't is simply your opinion. Here's a novel thought. If increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing warmer temperatures, maybe we should stop adding to it.
Dodge - you have not backed any claim so far on this thread And no, the environment does NOT change without reason - - - Updated - - - Swap away from fossil fuels - encourage or rather discourage the rampant destruction of the worlds forests Both would be winners
The climate changes for more reasons than man can grasp. It has done so long before man existed and will continue to change long after we are gone. Im still waiting for your plan to stop change a planets temperature to your liking. - - - Updated - - - Swap fossil fuel WITH WHAT? There is no viable alternative. Ill swap right now. Just tell the world what your new discovery is.
If they were serious about co2 levels, there would be an all out move to manage land in a different manner, by planting co2 absorbing trees. There would be a push of the UN and the modern world to stop rain forest deforestation. We would all be told to plant trees, everywhere we had a spot for one. But the only remedy being offered up is what? Well, a clever way conceived of by the UN to tax carbon, and then distribute that revenue to the poor nations of the world, for the damage the rich nations are doing. And with all schemes like this, that money passes through the hands of the elites, who take their percentage for handling, until finally perhaps 25 cents out of each dollar reaches the poor nation. It's nothing but a money grubbing scheme, and you can bet your ass that there are people at the UN who have found a way to dip their beaks in the flow of funds. I don't see anyone who is actually serous about co2 levels, except when it comes to going after what produces the world's energy and prosperity. For in that area, a well positioned elite can rake in the dough. Harder, much harder to do that when you concentrate on a natural way to reduce co2, i.e. plants. Freeman Dyson, a very smart an nonhysterical man, has suggested a first move should be land management. Yet the Left and the alarmists are totally ignoring one of the logical ways to reduce co2. For they simply want to get rid of fossil fuels, or tax them so that average people all over the world bear the costs, for all costs are passed on to the average man. Far too many people are crazy and hysterical, trying to convince the more intelligent that a warming of the earth is dooms day. It isn't. In fact, its hardly a problem at all, once you get past rising sea levels. So what? All life has adjusted to an ever changing climate. I could understand the hysteria if we were moving into an ice age, for that would be doom and gloom. But each time the earth has warmed since man has been here, man has flourished, for a warmer earth means more food. Yet to listen to the hysterical, the world will turn into one big desert. They will blame each and every thing on climate change, when many of the things predicted like bigger, more numerous hurricanes have not happened. When something doesn't work out as their inaccurate models predict, they just change the models. I hope the climate is changing, and I hope it is gonna warm up, for that means we are not heading into an ice age. Higher co2 means healthier, higher yielding food crops. It means all of that fertile land where it is too cold now to grow regular crops will one day grow crops. It means more food for more people. It means less disease, if we use the other cooling periods as an illustration. Yet all you hear from the hysterical, is doom and gloom. It isn't that at all. In fact, it will be an economic boom if we have to move coastal cities a little farther inland. Will there be areas, like Bangladesh that will suffer? Sure. But then it all depends on how that nation can address rising sea levels. Necessity is the mother of invention. Since the earth according to that NASA scientist will continue to warm, even if we reduced co2 by 80 percent today, and since we will be off of fossil fuels in at least 100 years, there really isn't a problem here that should cause the concern and hysterics. Hopefully we will have enough fossil fuels left so when the next ice age comes a calling, we will be able to burn it like crazy, to increase global warming, so as to stop the ice age from coming. But something tells me, an intuition, that when the earth gets ready to cool down, it will do it, and when it gets ready to warm up, it will do that as well, and there is nothing man can do to control it. No more than reducing co2 emissions today is gonna control anything, except making a few elites extremely richer than they already were. This co2, carbon tax, cap and trade is just a scheme, and will not solve anything. It will just make the poor have less money, as it goes to the rich. You say the ship is headed for the reef, and we should do something now. I say there is no reef in the way at all. It's your and others, imagination, or a problem in vision, so some good corrective glasses are in order.
What gets my goat, are these climatologists that are so arrogant as to think they have a complete understanding of climate change. They may, and I stress may, know perhaps 20 percent of all of the factors involved in climate change. The climate is more complicated, with interrelationships than their silly computers can generate as models. If insufficient data goes in, well, you get the current climate models that can predict no better than rolling dice, or reading tea leaves. One would think that would cause some humility, and an admittance that they simply do not know enough to make accurate predictions. So, what is the low hanging fruit here. Co2 levels. And coincidently, the UN wanted to concentrate on that one factor, because they needed a way to redistribute money from rich nations, to the poor nations. So, if they could prove that co2 was gonna destroy humanity, than they could get a tax put on carbon, and have the funds to send from the rich nations to the poor nations. Except the money from the rich nations do not come from the rich, but the average guy and the poor who would pay that carbon tax when he paid his electric bill. For all costs are always passed on to the consumer. So they want to take from the poor in a rich nation, and send it to the poor in a poor nation. It's not only utter nonsense its is immoral and unethical. So, with co2 being a cash cow, the UN made sure that the billions of dollars went only as grants to climatologists, while other very important factors that are involved in climate change couldn't get a cent in funding. And if you think that billions of dollars will not affect the outcome of research, you need to go ahead and shoot yourself in the brain, for yours is worthless. On top of that, if they were really concerned about co2 levels, there would be a tremendous push to stop cutting down rain forests, and the planting of trees on all public land, while having everyone plants trees on their property. For doing so would pull quite a bit of co2 from the air, and the fact this is not being pushed, is proof this is a con game, a way to redistribute money, in which the elites get their share of it for handling charges. The good news is good news. The little higher co2 levels is greening up the earth. But I am sure they will find some doom even in this, when otherwise they would be cheering that the earth is greening up.
Yes of course, all they need to stop global warming is more money. Youll note the man made climate changers have no qualms about wasting oil generated electricity with their computers and internet. I guess their CO2 by product doesn't affect the climate.
Why does the title have quotation marks around the word "warmest"? Anyone might think the OP was denying reality.
When they start hollering about land management, a massive planting of trees, stopping the rainforest devastation, then I will give this group some serious thought. For unless they do that, they are not at all serious about co2 levels and climate change. They have other agendas.
You are exactly correct. Did you notice when pressed for the details of their solution they tucked and ran from the thread. They always do when you ask them to provide the details of their solution. Yes stop using fossil fuels. Great idea leftists! after a week of tractor trailer trucks not delivering food most reading this will be dead. Sounds like a good idea because unless we do something right now that could kill everyone, everyone could die.
All of which is irrelevant when computing anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. Which is why they use anomalies in the first place. It's been available online for years. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ - - - Updated - - - What we do with CO2 will have a dramatic impact on the rate of warming, and it's the rate of warming that's crucial. Part of the reason for that technological drive is the realization that we will have to get off fossil fuels rapidly if we are to save civilization. So it's the "hysterical Left" that is driving the very saving grace upon which you're depending. Since land use changes and urban heat effects (combined) account for less than 10% of global warming, it is abundantly clear that concentrating on land use while ignoring greenhouse gases is a recipe for disaster. Although I suppose that would be exactly the tactic we might expect to be advocated by fossil fuel interests. No, actually, this is the way scientific realists are attacking the real problem. Ummmmm ... shouldn't you be posting this in the Conspiracy Theories section? Considering that environmentalists have always been pushing for much more than a carbon tax, I expect you'll be taking them seriously any moment now. Right?
Thanks for proving my point. You just posted a csv file......... from 1763. Im certain they didn't have csv files in 1763 therefore when I say show me the logbooks I mean the actual logbooks not three columns of data typed into excel with absolutely no meta or tracking data whatsoever. Attach a pdf file of the actual logbook or stop posting me. You just wasted my time. It should show the date, the recording, the person who recorded it and the instrument used to make the measurement along with its calibration records or the numbers are qualitative not quantitative.
No, actually, you just wasted your own time. If you want actual paper records, you can't get them on the internet. You have to go to actual physical archives. Most people know that. I guess such obviousnesses are lost on the denizens of Denierstan.
Most people who do it for a living (like me) know that transcribed records have accompanying meta data, and verified transcriptions. None of which you have supplied. Is it too difficult for you to provide me ONE logbook from ONE year since the recording of the temperatures you cite? Too much for ya? So basically you base your sky is falling mentality on data that you have no idea where it came from, who took it, how it was taken and haven't even cared enough to check to see if its actually valid. Heres your argument....the data is correct here is the source www.google.com.....it all there. Lefties are a hoot.
Tell me, do you believe Antarctica exists? Or will you have to go there yourself to accept it as so? Do you believe Abraham Lincoln actually existed? Or will you need metadata for that?
I've been to Antarctica so I'm going to say yes it does exist. As far as Lincoln, we have the data for that, why you can even see his signatures on verified documents. Your data...not so much. Just a bunch of untraceable numbers typed into excel that you are referencing to try and pass as a reason to extract more tax payer money. So, unless your next post has some traceable data, you lose.
Verified by whom? To what standard? WHERE IS THE METADATA on Abraham Lincoln? Why don't climate deniers apply their same ridiculous standards to every other aspect of their lives? Is it because deniers really know in their hearts how ridiculous they are? Or is it that they truly unaware of how silly they look?
LOL. So unless we get off of fossil fuels, we destroy civilization? Make humanity go extinct? We will get off of fossil fuels regardless if we tax them or not. We can handle a great deal more co2 than we currently have, and the world will not end if it gets higher. We will just be able to feed more people. Which with the growing population, we better be able to. So perhaps the increasing population is by necessity warming us up so we can grow more food. There is nothing to get hysterical about. Climate changes. We adjust. The great fear if you want to fear climate, is the next ice age. All I see with the left and the alarmists is mob mentality. This mob is going nuts. And that is when a mob usually becomes stupid, in what they do. So now you relegate the idea of the UN transferring wealth from rich nations to the poor as conspiracy theory? LOL. And using carbon taxes to do that? And that when this is done, it will have to pass through hands, and those hands will extract their fees for handling. Sir, that is the way the transfer of money works. And that ain't a conspiracy, we call it reality.
No its because when people claim man is causing warming it costs us money and therefore we would like the facts not a liberal "feeling" that it is occurring. We dont question Lincoln because its not costing me money when someone says he didnt exist or did...not to mention the copius amounts of verified documents proving he did exist that are readily available unlike your data records.
