What voters think about global warming

[Robert]

You put words into my mouth again? ..........

You accuse me of putting words into your mouth and then you.....

For some reason you support draconian taxation and reduction of basic human rights in support of a for profit hoax

 

[faethor]

When you don't "hide the decline", you see there has been a decline in temps over the last 10 years and has not been a significant statistical warming over the last 100 years. For some reason you support draconian taxation and reduction of basic human rights in support of a for profit hoax, Whyzzat?

Red the facts betray you. For example, it was the USA's 2nd hottest summer. Another example, Texas in August broke over 4K record heat temps. This is something the USA does in a summer. In 2010 thousands died in the Russian summer heat. Man made causes or not the facts are this decade is the hottest ever recorded.

I think that you realize the facts betray your opinion. To excuse this event you interject the conspiracy theory that scientists are working cooperatively to cook the books, aka 'hide the decline'. Damning the facts lets you keep your opinion.

 

[redrumloa]

Red the facts betray you.

 

[faethor]

Red, I'm certain you realize this is not the facts but a statement of someone who is no longer at the UN. As I said man-made or not the temperature facts betray your claim of cooling for the last 10 years. Your image certainly doesn't rectify your claim in any manner.

In related local news Minnesota has been experiencing the warmest Oct to date with 20 degree+ higher than normal temperatures. It's fairly easy to verify the temps, unless this consipiracy is somehow sneaking in to secretly adjust my thermometer.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You can't vote about global warming. It doesn't care what people want. It's like voting on the existence of God (only the reverse). Democratically speaking, in the US, voters would say God exists and yet there is no God. Voting can't change facts.

 

[redrumloa]

In related local news Minnesota has been experiencing the warmest Oct to date with 20 degree+ higher than normal temperatures. It's fairly easy to verify the temps, unless this consipiracy is somehow sneaking in to secretly adjust my thermometer.

You keep doing that! You keep claiming weather is climate! When we had a pico - Ice Age in the northern hemisphere a couple years back, you and the media all chanted that weather isn't climate. Now that it has passed and the weather out your window is a above average, you claim weather is climate. Whyzzat?

 

[faethor]

If you get to claim England as the weather that dictates the globe certainly I can claim an even bigger region that does the same.

More seriously weather and climate are related but are not the same. Climate is the average weather events in a region over long periods of time. Weather is more localized and are the hour to hour and day to day events.

For example, the climate in the Sahara is a desert and the climate in Seattle is wet. Hot or cold weather happens in smaller parts of the region for a shorter period of time. And certainly just because Seattle is wet doesn't mean it can't be sunny and warm just as the desert can be cloudy and wet. Climate tells us the expected frequency of those sort of events over time.

Now what we are seeing because the climate of the world is warming is various changes that coorelate to the change in climate. While you believe the conspiracy is lying about the temperatures the world itself is more evidence that this is not true. Glaciers are shrinking, warmer. We have new bugs in MN because our climate has changed over the last 20 years to have warmer and shorter winters. Had our climate gotten colder those new bugs couldn't survive they would have died off due to the a longer and colder winter..

Climate is what you expect (we buy coats in winter as we expect snow). Weather is what you get (today it didn't snow.)

 

[Robert]

@Faethor:

I'm afraid you're arguing against circular logic, sir.
It is of absolutely no consequence if you can scientifically demonstrate your position; the goalposts will simply be moved.
It is equally inconsequential if you demonstrate the opposing claims to false; this will simply be ignored.
Then you'll probably see some irrelevant nonsense about Al Gore presented, with apparent sincerity, as though this somehow addresses science.

If I didn't know better I'd say it was trolling.

 

[faethor]

@Robert,
You're likely right. I've explained at least twice how the Climatologists do accept the LIA and WMP and it's clearly fallen on deaf ears here.

 

[redrumloa]

@Robert,
You're likely right. I've explained at least twice how the Climatologists do accept the LIA and WMP and it's clearly fallen on deaf ears here.

There you go again. The "accept" it in the fact that they minimize the entire events. Claiming that today is warmer than the MWP is hysterical.

 

[faethor]

There you go again. The "accept" it in the fact that they minimize the entire events. Claiming that today is warmer than the MWP is hysterical.

I'll bite. Give me a couple of items they minimize and how.

 

[redrumloa]

I'll bite. Give me a couple of items they minimize and how.

Do I really need to use Google for you

LINK

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.

This would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact the elites behind the green movement want to destroy the lower and middle class while enriching themselves exponentially.

 

[faethor]

Do I really need to use Google for you

LINK

Using Google to search for 'Red's argument' doesn't work. In all fairness this is your argument not Google's. Linking NOAA doesn't help. I've agreed I'm open to hearing what is discounted. NOAA is certainly not going to link what they discount, are they?

Here's another way to pose the question to you. What and which science do you believe that NOAA failed to consider or is minimizing?

As for the later part. You've made another suppostion that some 'elites' somewhere in the world are out to destroy the lower and middle-class. May be an interesting discussion point at some future event. How about we get to your last point first. How and what science are the Climatologists minimizing that display WMP is a warmer worldwide event than today's warming?

 

[redrumloa]

Using Google to search for 'Red's argument' doesn't work. In all fairness this is your argument not Google's. Linking NOAA doesn't help. I've agreed I'm open to hearing what is discounted. NOAA is certainly not going to link what they discount, are they?

Here's another way to pose the question to you. What and which science do you believe that NOAA failed to consider or is minimizing?

As for the later part. You've made another suppostion that some 'elites' somewhere in the world are out to destroy the lower and middle-class. May be an interesting discussion point at some future event. How about we get to your last point first. How and what science are the Climatologists minimizing that display WMP is a warmer worldwide event than today's warming?

So you believe NOAA's assertion that the MWP was not as warm as now? The very notion is laughable. It is not my responsibility to debunk an obvious hoax such as Global Warming which is in place for nothing other than gain of the ultra wealthy. In their own words, they want to cause the collapse of the industrialized nations. Why do you doubt their own words? As with any scam, you have to follow the money. Robert talks about moving goals posts but the funny thing is it is the Global Warming Cartel that keep moving the goal posts.

James Hansen, a climatologist and activist at NASA, predicted in 1986 that 2001 would be the hottest year in 100,000 years.

Michael Oppenheimer, wrote in 1990 that America's heartland would be ravaged in drought, leading to food riots.

English scientist David Viner said in 2000 that winter snow would be a "very rare and exciting event'' and that, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is.''

In 2000, the Chicago Tribune reported: "The four horsemen of this global Apocalypse are Thaw, Drought, Storms and Floods, carrying in their wake hunger, disease, devastation and death.''

In 1972 Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen said a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.

In 2008 Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University said "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,"

NASA 1989 - "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010."

You can point to this study, or that study, this model, or that model, it is all garbage for profit to keep the gravy train going. The IPCC got a Nobel Prize for work base on 22 models showing doom and gloom. The only problem is none of these 22 models could be independently verified by Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia.

Why don't you prove the existence of Man-Bear-Pig instead of asking me prove it does not exist.

 

[metalman]

For example, it was the USA's 2nd hottest summer. Another example, Texas in August broke over 4K record heat temps.

To excuse this event you interject the conspiracy theory that scientists are working cooperatively to cook the books, aka 'hide the decline'.

NOAA: leaving in bad data when it is known to be bad.

If you’re maintaining a database to represent a system, it is necessary to correct data points that are not representative of the system if they are influenced by effects that are not part of the system, in this case climate. Refusal to do so means the data does not represent the system, and is therefore is meaningless.

If local temperature can't be measured accurately, how can a meaningful global temperature be determined?

 

[faethor]

So you believe NOAA's assertion that the MWP was not as warm as now?

The various evidence I've seen indicates they are more then likely correct. But, here I'm asking about your reasons to come to the conclusion that MWP underplays the science. Again I ask what science are they underplaying and how?

The rest is basically a replay of your belief of a conspiracy and posturing. Sorry no proof there that NOAA is wrong. At best, if you're right, you've described a political reason that they might have to cook the books against the MWP. That's not proof they have.