SLAM DUNK! Global Warming Hoax exposed!

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,970
Reaction score
2,154

Ruh-roh! Red was right all along! Here is the link to the full 2 hour video.

Could it possibly get worse for our AGW Scam supporters? Yes it can.

Leaked draft of climate report struggles with drop in warming

Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, according to data from the U.K.’s weather-watching Met Office. Climate skeptics have spent months debating the weather pattern, some citing it as evidence that global warming itself has decelerated or even stopped.
Click to expand...

That doesn't exactly jive with the liberal left wing mainstream corporate media has been saying, does it?

The U.N. agency's report is sure to face intense scrutiny. The 2007 iteration was widely lambasted over flaws and sloppy information, notably the claim that global warming would cause the Himalayas to melt by 2035.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I wish I felt bad for those wanna-be greenies who fell for this scam, but I don't. I will laugh and point as they wash the egg off their face.
 
Farmers' Almanac predicts colder-than-normal winter for most of US

The Farmers' Almanac is using words like "piercing cold," ''bitterly cold" and "biting cold" to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy "Storm Bowl."

The 197-year-old publication that hits newsstands Monday predicts a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. It also predicts a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.

"We're using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It's going to be very cold," said Sandi Duncan, managing editor.

Based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles, the almanac's secret formula is largely unchanged since founder David Young published the first almanac in 1818.

Modern scientists don't put much stock in sunspots or tidal action, but the almanac says its forecasts used by readers to plan weddings and plant gardens are correct about 80 percent of the time.

Last year, the forecast called for cold weather for the eastern and central U.S. with milder temperatures west of the Great Lakes. It started just the opposite but ended up that way.

Caleb Weatherbee, the publication's elusive prognosticator, said he was off by only a couple of days on two of the season's biggest storms: a February blizzard that paralyzed the Northeast with 3 feet of snow in some places and a sloppy storm the day before spring's arrival that buried parts of New England.
Click to expand...
 
Dr Easterbrook's fellow colleges at his own college outright reject his opinion.

We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker
Click to expand...
- http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/03/31/2943649/wwu-faculty-find-overwhelming.html
 
neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic.
Click to expand...


Yep, SLAM DUNK!
 
redrumloa said:
Of course they do. If you watch the video he states that he persoanlly does not receive any outside funding whatsoever. I'm sure this college is a whole other story...
Click to expand...
Proof of, or lack of, funding in no way confers a lack of bias, or an increase in accuracy. You need to give up your fallacy.
 
redrumloa said:
Here is the link to the full 2 hour video.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I really want to put in the two hours based on the preview. Just the fact that he said that the reason CO2 can't cause warming is that there isn't enough of it - and then followed that by saying that two times nothing is still nothing leaves me with the impression that we have here a person who is willing to resort to semantic tricks and lies to win his case. Clearly a small amount of something is not reason enough to dismiss it. Continuous exposure to CO (that's carbon MONOXIDE) at the same concentrations as the current atmospheric concentration of carbon DIOXIDE will give you a pretty bad headache after two hours and if you double the concentration it can give you convulsions in 45 minutes and unconscious in a couple of hours after which, if there is no-one around to move you to fresh air you end up becoming dead. Clearly small amounts of something doesn't automatically make them unable to have effects and clearly doubling a small amount of something gives you a larger amount and not the same amount. That statement alone was such a boner that I admit I have trouble taking anything else he has seriously.
 
He says that the antarctic ice sheets are not melting but are growing. This is not true - they are melting AND growing. He is mixing things up in a confused way. I guess I'll have to forgive his unclear speech at least until he reaches his area of expertise - the geological bit.
 
Yes, Don, the 1930s WERE very hot years ... IN THE US!!!! Hitting the pause for a bit.
 
AGW as presented by the media is unfortunately but necessarily DUMBED DOWN because ... well, the target audience really. That and the fact that science journalists tend to be journalists that didn't manage to get into the sport and lifestyle sections. The scientists, the people that actually live in the data and do the research are usually too busy to explain it to the plebs - sad, but the plebs mostly don't want to know as their eyes glaze over with too much information and they wander off to go look at what clothes Brittany can't fit into anymore.

Unfortunate side effect - dumbed down points are easy to knock down with dumbed down tactics. The dumbed down points really don't indicate the strength of the material they were derived from.
 
"tampered" with the data? I think NASA and NOAA have already addressed this one, no? The temperatures were not previously adjusted to account for the differences in the way that NASA and NOAA adjust for anomalies and heat island effects etc. After correcting so that the data sets are both adjusted the same way the total effect on global temperature for the US data is ... pretty close to nothing - the global temperature graph barely budges.
 
OK - we are at the CO2 part now. He's trying to bamboozle with (or is bamboozled by) numbers. He calls the concentration close to nothing again and uses the "doubling nothing" misdirection again. Then he says that the CO2 composition of the atmosphere has risen by only 8/1000th of 1% since the 50s (which is almost nothing and if you triple that it would still be nothing!!! - he says).

He also says that CO2 is 39/1000th of 1% - or 390 ppm which is approximately correct for 2009. The current CO2 as of May 2013 is 400ppm. When Don says that CO2 as a proportion of the atmosphere has only increased by .008% since the 1950s he is technically more or less right but a rise from 310ppm to 390ppm is actually a 25% increase - much more than nothing. The way he is presenting this data is very deceptive.
 
"The climate modellers depend on computer models, not real world data..." mm-hmm. He said that. Just like all those guys who use computer models to design fluid systems and airplanes and stuff, and all those engineers who use computer models to design bridges. And what about those folks who use computer models to fly space craft to landings on distant planets?

Models are made to reflect reality, and then they are tested against reality and then they are refined and tested again. The climate models are first tested by backtracking them over what has already historically been measured to have happened and tuning them up until they can successfully model what's already happened (a process which the anti crowd liken to cheating) before they are tested against the future. Geologists have models too and they generally had to be compared against the rocks and natural processes to validate them too, right? He can't seriously be so ignorant of how things work, can he? So far the whole presentation has been the same old talking points we've heard again and again from the anti-AGW PR machine. You might as well be hearing this from Lord Monkton - in fact, I think I have.
 
Slightly interesting point on water vapour amplification - he shows data that show that water vapour is decreasing in the atmosphere. There has been some decrease in the UPPER atmosphere but he doesn't mention that there has been an increase in the lower atmosphere and the net result seems to be an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere.
 
Hmmm. He now seems to be indicating that the amount of water in the atmosphere has increased because he has graphs showing increasing precipitation. If there isn't more water going up then there can't be more water coming down.
 
Ocean acidification. Don says that there isn't enough CO2 to turn the alkaline oceans into acid. While technically correct, he is mischaracterizing what is meant by ocean acidification. He repeats that the oceans won't turn into an acid even when he is asked whether the CO2 isn't making the oceans less alkaline (making the oceans less alkaline is what is meant by ocean acidification). In fact the surface waters of the ocean have seen falling pH (acidification) even though they are still alkaline.
 
Man - he won't let that go. It's stretched out to ludicrousness now. Are the oceans becoming more acidic now? "No, because before they can become more acidic they have to be acidic and the oceans will never become acids!" Perhaps he could use the same argument to explain why the Arctic cannot get warmer, because for it to get warmer it would already have to be warm!!!" I am now completely convinced that Don knows he's full of crap and pulling a con.
 
He references this petition to counter the idea of "consensus". Lot of engineers and medical doctors on there. Mathematicians too. In Atmospheric sciences are included astronomy.

Now he's going on about the last 15 years of global cooling - which holds up if you start with 1998, but we have had warming since 2000. Pick those cherries, Don, go pick them.

And that cooling prediction of yours? Sorry, those much maligned "models" and reality all have things being warmer than what your predictions would have said. By the standard you expect of others, you fail.
 
... and one last thing I need to say before I wrap up here - the font on the slides was "comic sans", naturally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top