Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

+5
Wordslinger
no stress
2seaoat
boards of FL
Markle
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Markle

Markle

Once again, the Global Warming SCAM ARTISTS are going to have to deny Science and FACTS.

Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)


Special to Climate Depot:

By Lord Christopher Monckton

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

The graph below shows no global warming at all for 17 years 6 months:

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  Global-waming-no422014_zpsceb3dc65

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:Nothing to refute, another of your OPINION pieces from a far left Progressive site.

This article is from Climate Depot, which is operated by Marc Morano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

He is a former employee of Senator Jim Inhofe. While working for Inhofe, he served as his director of communications beginning in June 2006. As communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the Bush administration, he designed the EPW press blog, which won a Golden Mouse Award in 2007.[2] His career began working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was often known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington".[1] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish articles accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his military service record.[3] In addition, Morano has worked for Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich[4] and American Investigator. He produced a minority report in 2007 entitled "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007", which he expanded a year later to "over 700 scientists" who, he claimed, believed that global warming was not caused by human activity.[5]
In November 2009, Morano was one of the first to break the Climategate story after being contacted by Anthony Watts. The story was subsequently picked up by James Delingpole.[6]

The list presented by Morano in his minority 2007-2008 report has been criticized by Joseph J. Romm for including a significant number of people who are not sufficiently well-qualified to assess climate science, such as author Ray Kurzweil and a number of TV meteorologists, such as Steve Baskerville, as well as scientists whose expertise is in geomagnetism.[10] In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."[11]
At the end of 2012 Media Matters for America named Morano the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year."[12]


Everyone point and laugh at the GOP supporter who gets his "science" from an underling of an uneducated AM radio blowhard!  Point and laugh, everyone!

boards of FL

boards of FL

So....the actual author of the article, "Lord Chrisopher Monckton", has his Bachelor of Arts in "Classics"!   I guess that makes him a good counterbalance to the consensus of the world scientific community.

Hmm.  He has some interesting theories on treatment of AIDS.

Views on AIDS
In a 1987 article for The American Spectator, "AIDS: A British View", Monckton argued "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult"). The article concluded, however, that current Western sensibilities would not allow this standard protocol for containing a new, fatal and incurable infection to be applied: therefore, he said, many would needlessly die. Andrew Ferguson, then assistant managing editor of The American Spectator, denounced it in the letters column of the same issue.[65] Monckton appeared on the BBC's Panorama programme in February 1987 to discuss his views and present the results of an opinion poll that found public support for his position.[59]

Monckton has since stated "the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work." He also said that this standard protocol could have worked at the time; that senior HIV investigators had called for it; and that many of the lives that have been lost could have been saved.[66]


Markle, please tell me you're a troll and only participate here for comedic value.  Please tell me you're really a democrat plant trying to make GOP supporters look stupid.

Guest


Guest

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability 3, 4, 6, 7 , external cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors 12, 13 . Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions 1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/how-the-ocean-reins-in-global-warming.html

In recent years, a hot topic in climate science has arisen over the fact that climate models vary widely in their representation of ocean heat uptake. The oceans in some models absorb more or less heat in high-latitude regions such as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean; some store heat at different depths. According to two new papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, those details matter a great deal to the predictions of global warming over the coming centuries.

There are other even greater sources for the differences in climate predictions across models, such as cloud responses to greenhouse gases, Kostov notes, “but all aspects of the climate system are important, and we have to take into account the role of the ocean in order to improve our predictions for future warming.”

These results led the MIT group to conclude that models must better represent the AMOC and its future changes, based on real-world measurements that extend over time and geographical location. Unfortunately, there is not a long record of observations in the AMOC, thanks to the enormous technical difficulty of probing the ocean’s deep layers. However, Kostov notes his excitement that a few large-scale oceanographic projects, including U.K. RAPID and U.S. CLIVAR, have started to continuously monitor how the circulation varies with depth in an effort to fill this scientific void.

Ultimately, the study critiques how the field uses observations in estimating the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. "A common way to calculate climate sensitivity simply combines recent observations of global surface temperature changes, heat uptake, and greenhouse gas forcing," says Armour, "which misses the details of how heat is getting into the ocean. One implication is that we can’t actually estimate long-term warming from present-day observations unless we take into account how the pattern of ocean heat uptake might change with time."

STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER PIELKE, JR. to the COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS of the UNITED STATES SENATE – HEARING on CLIMATE CHANGE: IT’S HAPPENING NOW

18 July 2013

• It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.

• Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.

• Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective).

• Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.

• Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

• Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

• The absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly in coming years due to greater wealth and populations in locations exposed to extremes. Consequent, disasters will continue to be an important focus of policy, irrespective of the exact future course of climate change.

boards of FL

boards of FL

To sum this all up, we have an article written by a guy who has a bachelor of arts in "classics", a guy who believes everyone with AIDs should be essentially imprisoned for life, and this article appears on a website ran by a guy with a bachelors degree in political science and whose career began as an underling of Rush Limbaugh.

And in the mind of the modern GOP supporter, this outweighs the consensus of the world scientific community.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:Nothing to refute, another of your OPINION pieces from a far left Progressive site.

This article is from Climate Depot, which is operated by Marc Morano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

He is a former employee of Senator Jim Inhofe. While working for Inhofe, he served as his director of communications beginning in June 2006. As communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the Bush administration, he designed the EPW press blog, which won a Golden Mouse Award in 2007.[2] His career began working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was often known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington".[1] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish articles accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his military service record.[3] In addition, Morano has worked for Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich[4] and American Investigator. He produced a minority report in 2007 entitled "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007", which he expanded a year later to "over 700 scientists" who, he claimed, believed that global warming was not caused by human activity.[5]
In November 2009, Morano was one of the first to break the Climategate story after being contacted by Anthony Watts. The story was subsequently picked up by James Delingpole.[6]

The list presented by Morano in his minority 2007-2008 report has been criticized by Joseph J. Romm for including a significant number of people who are not sufficiently well-qualified to assess climate science, such as author Ray Kurzweil and a number of TV meteorologists, such as Steve Baskerville, as well as scientists whose expertise is in geomagnetism.[10] In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."[11]
At the end of 2012 Media Matters for America named Morano the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year."[12]

Everyone point and laugh at the GOP supporter who gets his "science" from an underling of an uneducated AM radio blowhard!  Point and laugh, everyone!

Sorry, but Morano, as you might have noticed, did not do the PEER REVIEWED REPORT. Try again.

Media Matters? Surely you jest!

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  AnimatedDogLaughing

Really twisted your tail with a peer reviewed paper and that statistics.


boards of FL

boards of FL

Anyone else find this hilarious? It's like a feedback loop of stupid.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:Anyone else find this hilarious?  It's like a feedback loop of stupid.
Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  Socratestoo

boards of FL

boards of FL

Honest question to Markle:  You're out for a walk when, all of a sudden, you fall.  You hear a *snap* sound.  Your arm is now bent sideways.  

Two people approach you, and each want to help you with your arm.  One identifies himself as John Doe and states that he has a PhD and is an orthopedic specialist.  The other identifies himself as Lord Christopher Monckton, and states that he has a bachelor of arts (not science...arts) in something called "classics".  

Which will you listen to, Markle?

(We all know who you would listen to)

2seaoat



Mr Markle cannot get stuff right in his own field of alleged expertise where he claims he teaches. No wonder most real estate agents are ditzy blondes who do not even know what a 1031 like kind exchange is.....Markle taught them.........

Sorry 97% of science is in consensus, and 3% of hocus pocus disagree. It is obvious we are in the grips of climate change and man has a role in that contribution to the same.

Please note that the other denier of climate change PK thinks that Clinton disarmed military bases, and after a multitude of veterans corrected him, he was silent as to his nonsensical post, which honestly has been a trend......he must be spiking his gatoraide.

no stress

no stress

And to sum up boards summation, if the facts agree with one sides stance then they unequivocally true but if they contradict that stance then the facts were harvested from a hack website, junk science book or the scientist is not worth two shits. LMFAO! ! This shit never ends.

2seaoat



And to sum up boards summation, if the facts agree with one sides stance then they unequivocally true but if they contradict that stance then the facts were harvested from a hack website, junk science book or the scientist is not worth two shits. LMFAO! ! This shit never ends.


Actually Boards was polite. There is science, where there is a 97% consensus as reported by NASA, and there is politics, represented by 3% of paid shills. It does not get any easier. I was neutral on man's contribution until the year 2014, and then I watched the HBO special put on by Vice......I am now convinced that man is contributing to climate change. I am ashamed that I gave any credence to the 3% for the last decade.

no stress

no stress

2seaoat wrote:And to sum up boards summation, if the facts agree with one sides stance then they unequivocally true but if they contradict that stance then the facts were harvested from a hack website, junk science book or the scientist is not worth two shits. LMFAO! ! This shit never ends.


Actually Boards was polite.  There is science, where there is a 97% consensus as reported by NASA, and there is politics, represented by 3% of paid shills.  It does not get any easier.  I was neutral on man's contribution until the year 2014, and then I watched the HBO special put on by Vice......I am now convinced that man is contributing to climate change.   I am ashamed that I gave any credence to the 3% for the last decade.
thanks for reiterating my point with your post. Lmao

Guest


Guest

It remains a theory no matter how loudly you shout down those that disagree. The hypothesis is tested by model and observation. The data must MUST be openly peer reviewed and the models repeatable. See my links above for a couple of the many variables and their impact on the current models. I've listed many others many times.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:Once again, the Global Warming SCAM ARTISTS are going to have to deny Science and FACTS.

Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)


Special to Climate Depot:

By Lord Christopher Monckton

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

The graph below shows no global warming at all for 17 years 6 months:

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  Global-waming-no422014_zpsceb3dc65

Read more:  http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

Here's some of what Wikipedia has to say about the whacko, conservative intellectual Lord Monckton:

"Monckton has asserted that he served as science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during his years with the Number 10 Policy Unit, and that "it was I who—on the prime minister's behalf—kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward."[28] John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, however, has claimed Monckton was "a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable."[29] Writing in The Guardian, Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment notes that Thatcher's memoirs, The Downing Street Years, do not mention Monckton and credit George Guise with the role of science advisor."

. . . "Climate change

Monckton is on record as accepting that there is a greenhouse effect,[40] and that CO2 contributes to it. However, he has said "there is a startling absence of correlation between the CO2-concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that—at least in the short term—there is little or no causative link between the two", but that, on a different timescale, there is "a close correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature: but it was temperature that changed first".[41] In a 2006 article he questioned the appropriateness of using a near-zero discount rate in the Stern Review, which, he wrote, had underestimated the costs of mitigation and overstated its benefits. He said that mitigation was "expensively futile without the consent of the Third World's fast-growing nations".[42]

After a presentation by Monckton at Bethel University (Minnesota), Professor John P. Abraham[43] of University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) produced a rebuttal to Monckton's claims.[44] Abraham investigated the origins of many of the claims by contacting the authors of those papers Monckton had cited[45][46] and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science".[46] Monckton "initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster, to answer disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct unbecoming a member of his profession",[47] and asked that Abraham's talk be removed from the University servers, and a donation of $10,000 and $100,000 be made respectively by Abraham and the University to the "United States Association of the Order of Malta for its charitable work in Haiti".[48][49]

The university responded that "The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham's right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham Father Dease and The University of St Thomas",[50][51] and it refused all of Monckton's demands"

and ... "Monckton has questioned whether Barack Obama's birth certificate is authentic at public venues: in 2010, when speaking in front of a crowd in Washington, DC, he said, "America! Land of opportunity! You can be born in Kenya and end up as president of the United States!"[71] He expressed similar views at the International Conference on Climate Change two years later.

and ..."Since 2008 he has toured Britain, Ireland, the US, China, Canada, India, Colombia, South Africa, and Australia delivering talks to groups related to the subject. In 2008-09 he was invited on four occasions before Congress to speak on the behalf of Republican representatives. He followed this up with his January 2010 and July 2011 tours of Australia, as well as tours of China and India in December 2011. Between 2009 and 2010 the film maker Rupert Murray followed Monckton on his climate change tour. The film was later broadcast on 31 January 2011 on BBC Four titled Meet the Sceptics. Prior to its broadcast its depiction of Monckton was described by fellow sceptic James Delingpole as "another hatchet job"

And this is the nutty British Lord Herr Markle offers as irrefutable proof that global warming is a hoax.

Methinks that Markle and Moncton are the hoaxers ... LOL

2seaoat



So what made the flat world hypothesis no longer a hypothesis?

2seaoat



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

There are contrary hypothesis, therefore under your theory, science cannot be certain as long as any hypothesis is out there which questions the certain science.

Did I get anything wrong......flat earther?

Sal

Sal

I blame the public schools. 


The critical thinking skills of this country have evaporated. 

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:So what made the flat world hypothesis no longer a hypothesis?

A tested, quantified, and repeated model.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:I blame the public schools. 


The critical thinking skills of this country have evaporated. 

From MIT:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/how-the-ocean-reins-in-global-warming.html

In recent years, a hot topic in climate science has arisen over the fact that climate models vary widely in their representation of ocean heat uptake. The oceans in some models absorb more or less heat in high-latitude regions such as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean; some store heat at different depths. According to two new papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, those details matter a great deal to the predictions of global warming over the coming centuries.

There are other even greater sources for the differences in climate predictions across models, such as cloud responses to greenhouse gases, Kostov notes, “but all aspects of the climate system are important, and we have to take into account the role of the ocean in order to improve our predictions for future warming.”

These results led the MIT group to conclude that models must better represent the AMOC and its future changes, based on real-world measurements that extend over time and geographical location. Unfortunately, there is not a long record of observations in the AMOC, thanks to the enormous technical difficulty of probing the ocean’s deep layers. However, Kostov notes his excitement that a few large-scale oceanographic projects, including U.K. RAPID and U.S. CLIVAR, have started to continuously monitor how the circulation varies with depth in an effort to fill this scientific void.

Ultimately, the study critiques how the field uses observations in estimating the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. "A common way to calculate climate sensitivity simply combines recent observations of global surface temperature changes, heat uptake, and greenhouse gas forcing," says Armour, "which misses the details of how heat is getting into the ocean. One implication is that we can’t actually estimate long-term warming from present-day observations unless we take into account how the pattern of ocean heat uptake might change with time."

2seaoat



Then when critical thinking does happen, folks like PK who embraces relativism bound by superstition and oblique subtle nihilism argue that there is no science, if there is a contrary theory.......like pk could beat Jimmy Connor in their primes......it could happen, cuz he plays tennis too.

Guest


Guest

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQA0BCwMWy9lEYzvrUO8z5pVFbU6CbA8S2B4xODUq9Za9weP4qc

It doesn't matter if we don't take into account all the extenuating factors or if the data doesn't match the predicted values...

We can turn lead into gold God damn it!

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENRhli-rpo

 Laughing 

Guest


Guest

The sad part is I know some of them took chemistry... and have to ignore unknowns/variables to believe the climate models.

I don't think even public education can be blamed... it's deeper and more pervasive than that.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:The sad part is I know some of them took chemistry... and have to ignore unknowns/variables to believe the climate models.

I don't think even public education can be blamed... it's deeper and more pervasive than that.

political driven agendas goes deep.

it used to be we took data, analyzed it and came to a conclusion. Now they take conclusions and hire scientist to fill in the pieces with manipulated data that supports their pre-determined conclusion. We used to call that fraud, now it's just front page news. Wink

Guest


Guest

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw_7ln5ccJj8hyVg0XHMM6Y-9L2-qHHz17HbFsx5b61EYLNgyI

Politically and emotionally driven science, not done for scientific advancement but for the money... Perhaps they have learned how to turn lead into gold.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

 Smile



Last edited by Damaged Eagle on 4/4/2014, 9:55 am; edited 1 time in total

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum