- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,670
- 2,419
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dude, the local effects of the moving jet streams moves around. Got it?You've just demonstrated that you don't understand jet streams.
The May snowstorms also hit Russia, which means they went all the way around the Northern Hemisphere.
Whimsical Weather in Russian Cities | Image galleries | RIA Novosti
And as far as your ridiculous claim that I am the only one pointing out this fraud, check out the following:
Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?
WEBCommentary(tm) - Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?
NASA Rewriting US History | Real Science
You, my friend, have been had. Big time. I asked you before, WHO IS STEVEN GODDARD?
Don't you know? He's not even real. He's a lie. He's a front. Someone called 'Steven Goddard' doesn't even exist. You've been had, yet again. Your sources have ZERO credibility. Here's the thing.
///“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.
At least Chris Monckton has a medical condition that explains his break with reality. As for this “Goddard” character, well, I have to let you see this headline to believe it.///
New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Quoting Steven Goddard and fossil fuel Denialist funded Heartland doesn't really help your case, my friend. They're on about a par with the 'Moon is made of Cheese' crowd, and the Flat Earth mob. Or is that Elvis is alive and well and working with the Men In Black? Whatever. It's all great for your credibility that you quote these people! They've butted their heads against the invulnerable peer reviewed circuit so many times I'm sure they have brain damage by now!
Now, as for Steve McIntyre's findings. It's all right there are Skeptical Science, laid out even for dummies like myself! It's there for those who have eyes for reading or ears to hear.
However, in reality-land away from the frantic, foaming at the mouth conspiracy theories:"Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA. But what is the significance?"
"1934 - hottest year on record
Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McIntyre notified NASA which acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. As a result, "The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech)."
1934 is the hottest year on record"1934 used to be the hottest year on record in the USA (2012 is now the hottest by a wide margin), but the USA only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest years on record globally are 2005 and 2010".
And even if there was some data problem over at NASA, how do you explain the other 2 databases revealing the same facts? I've asked you about 4 or 5 times to address this point? Repeatedly ignoring it does not help your credibility.
Also, how's the basic physics of the Radiative Forcing Equation disproved again?Maybe it's time to give your usual denialist sources a break. You'll breathe easier and feel better once you drop the conspiracy mindset.
Conspiracy theories"Not only is there no evidence in support of the conspiracy theory about climate science, there are tell-tale signs that this theory is mere paranoia. Plausible theories — including plausible conspiracy theories — explain a wide range of facts, are consistent with other sciences and make novel predictions that turn out to be true. The climate science conspiracy theorists don’t spend their time making careful observations and accurate predictions, but instead must work overtime to protect their theory from refutation by challenging evidence and making more and more bizarre and untested speculations. In typical paranoid style, they are forced to extend the net of their fantasy further and further, so that not just some scientists, but almost all of the world’s climate scientists, scientific organizations and governments are in on the fraud. "
If you're main argument is that NASA faked it, then you of course are also forced to accuse NOAH and CRU of the same gimic to come up with such startlingly similar readings? I mean, are you really that far gone?
You, my friend, have been had. Big time. I asked you before, WHO IS STEVEN GODDARD?
Don't you know? He's not even real. He's a lie. He's a front. Someone called 'Steven Goddard' doesn't even exist. You've been had, yet again. Your sources have ZERO credibility. Here's the thing.
///“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.
At least Chris Monckton has a medical condition that explains his break with reality. As for this “Goddard” character, well, I have to let you see this headline to believe it.///
New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Quoting Steven Goddard and fossil fuel Denialist funded Heartland doesn't really help your case, my friend. They're on about a par with the 'Moon is made of Cheese' crowd, and the Flat Earth mob. Or is that Elvis is alive and well and working with the Men In Black? Whatever. It's all great for your credibility that you quote these people! They've butted their heads against the invulnerable peer reviewed circuit so many times I'm sure they have brain damage by now!
Now, as for Steve McIntyre's findings. It's all right there are Skeptical Science, laid out even for dummies like myself! It's there for those who have eyes for reading or ears to hear.
However, in reality-land away from the frantic, foaming at the mouth conspiracy theories:
1934 is the hottest year on record
And even if there was some data problem over at NASA, how do you explain the other 2 databases revealing the same facts? I've asked you about 4 or 5 times to address this point? Repeatedly ignoring it does not help your credibility.
Also, how's the basic physics of the Radiative Forcing Equation disproved again?Maybe it's time to give your usual denialist sources a break. You'll breathe easier and feel better once you drop the conspiracy mindset.
Conspiracy theories
If you're main argument is that NASA faked it, then you of course are also forced to accuse NOAH and CRU of the same gimic to come up with such startlingly similar readings? I mean, are you really that far gone?
I knew what you would say about Steve Goddard, but he is inly one of many I cited. My point was entirely that I am not the only one that has noticed the fraud, as you falsely claimed. And those that have formally complained about data manipulation include weather officials from both Australia and Russia.
But I am not posting for your benefit. Nothing I post will change your opinion, for you have already clearly demonstrated that you are what the Communists call a "useful idiot."
My two refrences to "the Communists" are a reference to the fact that clear back in the 1950's, the Communist Party USA had already outlined Rnvironmentalism as one of the tools they should use to attack the United States, along with removal of God from schools, presenting abortion as a "right," and the homosexual agenda.
I knew what you would say about Steve Goddard, but he is inly one of many I cited. My point was entirely that I am not the only one that has noticed the fraud, as you falsely claimed. And those that have formally complained about data manipulation include weather officials from both Australia and Russia.
But I am not posting for your benefit. Nothing I post will change your opinion, for you have already clearly demonstrated that you are what the Communists call a "useful idiot."
So that's it? You're down to outright name calling and quoting from known lunatics on the net? Great job! Really academic!
While you sort out your argument strategy, and learn to discern between real peer-reviewed science and make believe, try to remember 3 things about this NASA 'fraud'.
1. Science evolves. If a database has been distorted by 'urban heat island effect' or other errors that might distort the overall database, surely you would be in favour of the errors being removed? The overall database conclusion would adjust as a result of faulty parameters and known faulty instrumental datasets being removed.
2. Peer-reviewed science admits and then deals with errors: Denialist's dote on dogma's.
It does not matter that Steve Macintyre is not a trained climatologist, and has spent a large part of his life fighting peer-reviewed climate science. Not if he actually finds something within his area of expertise... a mathematically significant database error. (I'm not admitting NASA were in on a conspiracy, but that a database error occurred when transcribing some data). No, despite the fact that this guy just keeps attacking areas outside of his field of expertise, when he actually DOES hit the nail on the head, and score some points, the peer-reviewed science does something about it. Not so in reverse. You Denialist's are driven by countless extremist dogma's, like "The Marketplace is God and anything else is Communism", or "Climate science is evil because it assumes an old earth" or whatever else drives you guys to deny the evidence before your eyes. Co2 DOES reverse some of the massive outward flow of energy, the climate IS changing, the temperatures ARE going up, the polar ice caps ARE melting, spring arrives earlier and winter arrives later, etc. (Unless, of course, you're in a freaky local event involving the jet stream. But across MOST of the USA? Late winter, early spring). It's happening. But Denialist's just put their fingers in their ears and stubbornly refuse to deal comprehensively and HONESTLY with the points raised by peer-reviewed scientists.
The sheer LIES the Heartland Institute have spread should have any Christian with any conscience vowing to disassociate themselves with that group; NOT spread their counterfeit 'word'. Heartland are REVOLTING!
3. You've studiously avoided the FACT that NASA is only 1 of 3 major global temperature databases, and that your attempted smear campaign falls short of proving anything about NASA, and definitely falls short of proving anything about the other organisations. The particular questions you've asked about a very particular database only cover 2% of the globe's surface.
When the organisation corrected for the mistakes highlighted by Macintyre, and explained what went wrong, and fixed it, and it covered such a tiny percent of the global statistics.... I find it hard to understand what you're getting your knickers in knot about!
I already expressed my views on this subject. In summary Global warming is a hoax whose purpose is to generate control, fear, and domination. Fear leads to the keys of the public treasury as well. Any crisis is useful - here is one of them that ultimately failed a few decades ago. Same liberal bunch were involved.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
I already expressed my views on this subject. In summary Global warming is a hoax whose purpose is to generate control, fear, and domination. Fear leads to the keys of the public treasury as well. Any crisis is useful - here is one of them that ultimately failed a few decades ago. Same liberal bunch were involved.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
The cooling world PDF? Yeah, sure. That totally corresponds to what the top 3 databases on the planet have beensaying!Try again mate. Oh I suppose they're all lying to us?
That is exactly what is happening. You claimed I was "taken in" by Steve Goddard and the Heartland Institute. But they were not the source of my information. My source was my own memory, which evidently is not as short as yours. For I personally remembered the data that NASA had previously published. And I personally remember that the graph of this data that NASA originally published looked essentially like the graph my software produced from the archived data.
Don't bother verifying anything you say. I'll just quote "Someone on the internet said..."So don't bother to tell me NAsa did not actually change the data. I personally know they did.
1. Science evolves. If a database has been distorted by 'urban heat island effect' or other errors that might distort the overall database, surely you would be in favour of the errors being removed? The overall database conclusion would adjust as a result of faulty parameters and known faulty instrumental datasets being removed.
2. Peer-reviewed science admits and then deals with errors: Denialist's dote on dogma's.
It does not matter that Steve Macintyre is not a trained climatologist, and has spent a large part of his life fighting peer-reviewed climate science. Not if he actually finds something within his area of expertise... a mathematically significant database error. (I'm not admitting NASA were in on a conspiracy, but that a database error occurred when transcribing some data). No, despite the fact that this guy just keeps attacking areas outside of his field of expertise, when he actually DOES hit the nail on the head, and score some points, the peer-reviewed science does something about it. Not so in reverse. You Denialist's are driven by countless extremist dogma's, like "The Marketplace is God and anything else is Communism", or "Climate science is evil because it assumes an old earth" or whatever else drives you guys to deny the evidence before your eyes. Co2 DOES reverse some of the massive outward flow of energy, the climate IS changing, the temperatures ARE going up, the polar ice caps ARE melting, spring arrives earlier and winter arrives later, etc. (Unless, of course, you're in a freaky local event involving the jet stream. But across MOST of the USA? Late winter, early spring). It's happening. But Denialist's just put their fingers in their ears and stubbornly refuse to deal comprehensively and HONESTLY with the points raised by peer-reviewed scientists...
Yes.If you're main argument is that NASA faked it, then you of course are also forced to accuse NOAH and CRU of the same gimic to come up with such startlingly similar readings? I mean, are you really that far gone?
Um, if there is a database COPYING error because they set one of the parameters wrong, then the database will need to be changed. It's all in my post.This is indeed correct. But historical data, by its very nature, cannot change. This is something you stubbornly refuse to admit.
I'm sorry for you. You're so far outside normal science you may as well be arguing for the moon to be made of cheese. It's your theological presuppositions that have taken you there, not anything in science that I can tell. The sad irony is that you are far better trained to visualise the complex issues in climate science than I am, and yet you're not a climatologist and I don't respect the position you've taken = It's all a conspiracy. Really? Evidence against NOAH and CRU? Who's running this conspiracy, and to what end? Evidence? Why would the many Christian climatologists be in on it? Why do you feel so happy to attack the character of so many brother's and sisters in Christ who are studying this stuff professionally?Yes.
Um, if there is a database COPYING error because they set one of the parameters wrong, then the database will need to be changed. It's all in my post.
I'm sorry for you. You're so far outside normal science you may as well be arguing for the moon to be made of cheese. It's your theological presuppositions that have taken you there, not anything in science that I can tell. The sad irony is that you are far better trained to visualise the complex issues in climate science than I am, and yet you're not a climatologist and I don't respect the position you've taken = It's all a conspiracy. Really? Evidence against NOAH and CRU? Who's running this conspiracy, and to what end? Evidence? Why would the many Christian climatologists be in on it? Why do you feel so happy to attack the character of so many brother's and sisters in Christ who are studying this stuff professionally?
Climategate? Are you for real? Just run along and munch on some cheesy moonrock OK?I do not have evidence against NOAH, but I have presented evidence against NASA, and climategate exposed evidence against CRU.
I learned before you were born, that "scientists" often present falsified "evidence" to back up their godless claims, and often attempt to forcibly silence opposing voices. I have seen this systematically done for numerous decades, so I am not surprised to see it in the ecological movement.
Are you going to claim that you did not know that as far back as in the 1950's, the Communist party selected environmentalism, along with banning public religion, arguing for women's "rights," presenting abortion as a "right," and arguing for homosexual "rights?"
Yeah, but this is too serious a subject to make trite jokes about.If they could find a way to neutralize the hot air over Wash D.C. we would have a cure for global warming.
Yeah, but this is too serious a subject to make trite jokes about.
That's simply not true. Christians are supposed to respect the book of God's works, and science is how we study that 'book'.Might as well joke about it - it is nothing more than a money grabbing system from way back. We've been cooling for awhile now - which is the normal system of the earth - warmer, then cooler, etc. Scientists have proven it, but no one wants to pay attention because there is too much money in it - Al Gore is a good example. Look at the money delegated to it in our budget. Look at the tiny cars they are trying to make us drive - control and money is what it is all about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?