^^^talk to the guy who made the graph 3 or 4 pages ago. he seems to know far more about this stuff than you do. forgive me if i trust him over you. and you've still yet to prove shit to me regarding the world being warmer in the 30s than the 90s. all you've proven is that a small section of the world was warmer and not even by all that much.

hahahah. and looking back over it you "contested" that graph when it was originally posted because you didn't know what temperature anomaly was and claimed it was manipulation of the data because someone had used some subtraction.

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM. Reason : . ]

7/14/2009 10:42:05 AM

Quote :

"Don't forget the one about the 5 children to froze to death in Peru."

Sorry, I misspoke. It was 250 children under the age of 5.

Quote :

"Al Gore, the former vice-president, has misrepresented the criticisms of a British High Court judge who found An Inconvenient Truth to be littered with "errors and exaggerations". Mr Gore made the claim in Australia where he is training volunteers to campaign about climate change which he calls an imminent threat to humanity. The former vice-president shot to prominence when his documentary An Inconvenient Truth which carried the claims won an Oscar in 2006. Shortly after Mr Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. However after a lengthy hearing the British High Court found that An Inconvenient Truth was inaccurate and contained at least nine significant errors and exaggerations. However, speaking on ABC Australia Mr Gore misrepresented the judges ruling stating: "Well, the ruling was in my favour". In reality the judge found at least nine significant errors which "were not in line with scientific consensus" or had "no evidence" to back up his alarmism."

Good old Al Gore, rewriting history again...lol.

http://noteviljustwrong.com/blog/9-general/123-al-gore-rewrites-history.html

7/14/2009 12:26:31 PM

Old.

Quote :

"In other news from people who don't get it,"

Quote :

"thank you, Mr Hannity, for reminding us that Chicago had a record low today."

7/14/2009 2:39:02 PM

Yeah, something that happened yesterday in Australia is old, you fucking moron.


And if I wanted to make some stupid (trendless) claim about weather I'd say that NYC didn't exceed 85 degrees in June for the first time since 1903, or that Pittsburgh is 4 degrees below average for the month of July so far.

7/14/2009 2:54:39 PM

^
What the fuck are you even babbling about?

I would think you might want to learn how to correctly punctuate or create a coherent sentence before referring to others as morons.

7/14/2009 3:08:08 PM

yeah b/c everyone cares about punctuation on teh intarnet

7/14/2009 4:43:26 PM

Quote :

"talk to the guy who made the graph 3 or 4 pages ago."

And, he made it for the US. Way to claim it was for the world, dumbass.

Quote :

"and you've still yet to prove shit to me regarding the world being warmer in the 30s than the 90s. all you've proven is that a small section of the world was warmer and not even by all that much."

So, you are saying it's going to be warmer only in one quadrant of the world while the rest of the world is cold enough to balance it out? Now who is taking absurd leaps?

As well, you failed to address the fact that there has been massive station dropout in colder regions of the earth. That wouldn't have any affect on the average, would it? Naaaaaaah...

7/14/2009 6:40:32 PM

^not to mention, as sad as the standards have been for US weather station measuring they are still better than anything else in the world. So yeah, the US is a good sample as you say.

7/14/2009 7:05:55 PM

Quote :

"one quadrant of the world"

The contiguous United States is hardly a quadrant. It 's more like 1.5%.

7,663,941.71 km²
vs
510,072,000 km²

7/14/2009 9:12:03 PM

point is still the same, dude. glad you missed it

7/14/2009 9:35:07 PM

Quote :

"as sad as the standards have been for US weather station measuring"

You can thank the FAA for that.

7/14/2009 10:08:29 PM

Quote :

"And, he made it for the US. Way to claim it was for the world, dumbass."

from the same guy two posts before the graph. maybe i'm missing something. i'm not going to go back through 50 pages of thread for this.

Quote :

"Yes, I plotted the global temperature anomalies."

7/14/2009 10:20:50 PM

If you had any reading comprehension, you would see that he is referring to the two graphs ABOVE that post, genius. In the graph you posted, he refers to the GISS, which is US. good work

7/14/2009 10:34:00 PM

Quote :

"point is still the same"

It is an idiotic point. 98.5% of the world can offset a record high year in the us.

7/14/2009 10:43:15 PM

^^ok

i'm not a big poster in this thread. i literally looked back through this thread to find something that went back further than 30 years and this was the first that came up. i thought it was for the world. it apparently isn't. that being the case, all the articles you linked showed that there was 0.29 degree difference in some years in the 30s (i think i haven't looked at them again). but looking at this plot, that still wouldn't be the hottest day on record. but even with THAT aside, if you're only talking about united states data then what in the world does that have to do with anything?

i find it funny that your entire goal seems to be to tell other people that they're stupid. i would actually like to be better informed and to have a give and take. is it that unreasonable for me to not understand exactly what a graph was because i didn't know what giss stood for (i'm not a big follower of this thread because there doesn't seem to be much of the give and take that i value)? am i an idiot for not knowing all the lingo that goes along with this topic? or have you just been posting in this thread longer?

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2009 10:47:31 PM

well, at least you now admit to not knowing what in the hell you are talking about.

Quote :

"It is an idiotic point. 98.5% of the world can offset a record high year in the us."

Only it's really not. The US makes up much of the land in the north-west "quadrant." It's entirely relevant to point out that much of the land-mass in one fourth of the world had record highs. I'm sorry that you don't think so.

But, let's play your game. Then what say you about the station drop-out of colder stations all over Russia and Canada? Do you think they might have an impact in the perceived rise of temperatures?

7/14/2009 11:42:08 PM

did i ever claim to be an expert on this? no i didn't. i deferred to someone who knows more about this than the troll that you are.

7/14/2009 11:50:23 PM

and you failed to even defer to what a knowledgeable person would say. Good work, man.

But hey, why did you defer to that one person? Why didn't you defer to Lindzen? Why didn't you defer to McIntyre? or, hell, why didn't you even bother to read up a little on it before coming in here and showing your ignorance?

7/14/2009 11:56:19 PM

oh i don't know. maybe because he made the graph that i was deferring knowledge about.

7/14/2009 11:59:29 PM

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

Quote :

"Dr. Gerd Leipold (outgoing director of Greenpeace): When we're confronted with a world, which, unfortunately, only recently has woken up to [climate change], that we as a pressure group have to emotionalize issues--and we're not ashamed of emotionalizing issues. I think it's effective. Stephen Sackur (BBC): You call it emotionalizing, others would call it scare tactics. Will you sit here now and tell me that you, in all honesty, do not believe that the Greenland ice sheet is going to melt by 2030? Leipold: I don't know--I don't think it will be melting by 2030. Sackur: So, in fact, would you say that it was a mistake for your organization to put that out? Leipold: That may have been a mistake. . . ."

Sounds familiar, right?

Quote :

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

--Al Gore, another global warming alarmist

http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/

[Edited on August 25, 2009 at 5:04 AM. Reason : Sweet Jesus. ]

8/25/2009 5:03:34 AM

^ Link for the first interview excerpt above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

8/25/2009 7:00:55 AM

An Inconvient Truth About Global Warming

Quote :

"Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool. 'People will say this is global warming disappearing,' he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference. 'I am not one of the sceptics,' insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. 'However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.' Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought. ...Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. 'But how much? The jury is still out,' he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase."

http://tinyurl.com/ljnlvc

9/22/2009 7:31:09 PM

Here is the whole article from the source, not an excerpt from some blog:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

And another piece for balance:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/05/stay-cool-about-short-term-climate.html

9/22/2009 9:30:56 PM

concise version: "our guesses are different than our previous guesses"

9/22/2009 9:38:47 PM

^ your forgot this: but you should really listen to our new guesses this time. We got it right this time. Honest

9/22/2009 9:42:14 PM

Quote :

" One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool"

shouldn't his status as one of the world's top climate modellers be revoked if he's kind of doing a complete 180 on the very modelling he did to attain that status in the first place?

9/22/2009 9:55:32 PM

Not a single one of those modelers has shown any competence, so I don't see what difference it makes.

9/23/2009 9:14:30 AM

oh, and in case you were wondering this was created by left wing activists.

10/7/2009 4:28:03 PM

October 05, 2009
UN Climate Reports: They Lie

Quote :

"For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along. This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph.' The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium’s global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW). Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as gospel by all manner of proselytizers. In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that promise to be the Hockey Stick’s (HS) long overdue epitaph. And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart’s fraudulence, but also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and leading UN sponsors."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

10/7/2009 4:54:47 PM

hooksaw 9/21/2009 :

Quote :

"I swear to you on all that is good in this world that I don't read blogs--I fucking hate blogs. "

Yet, the last two posts you've made in this thread cite right-wing blogs.

10/7/2009 6:52:43 PM

it is pretty humorous that the dumbasses used the hockey stick at the UN

10/7/2009 8:43:16 PM

^^ Someone sent that to me.

Do you honestly think that I care what you think? If I routinely read blogs, I would tell you--I swear it. I only read or cite a blog when I happen to stumble across one--I don't need others to form my positions for me.

10/8/2009 12:25:29 AM

Quote :

"Do you honestly think that I care what you think? "

Yes. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to defend yourself. And fail at doing so, because you still are contradicting your declaration that "I fucking hate blogs." But not right-wing blogs, right? Because they say something you agree with.

Your credibility= -10

10/8/2009 1:15:57 AM

1.

Quote :

"Someone sent that to me."

2. I use various sources and will continue to do so. The thing is that I can't always find the coverage I need in The New York Times--imagine that.

10/8/2009 1:25:30 AM

I'm curious why people slam blogs as credible sources sometimes. If its something that is opinionated sure, but when the blog is conveying facts I don't think it really matters what the source is.

In this instance it is fact that the 3-4 separate studies used to first create, and then reinforce the hockey stick used fixed data. It's very significant b/c the Hockey Stick is one of the corner stones that the IPCC, James Hansen, Al Gore, etc have used to help build momentum into this misguided "green" movement.

But feel free to find a left wing blog that disproves this fact

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM. Reason : fact: bears eat beets. bears, beets, battlestar gallactica]

10/8/2009 11:09:00 AM

10/19/2009 4:25:01 PM

10/19/2009 4:25:01 PM

Do you work for Fox News? Funny, they were just promoting this.

10/19/2009 5:59:09 PM

funny, a lot of people/websites have been for months

10/19/2009 11:42:23 PM

A search reveals that the only mention of this "documentary" is on blogs and right-wing websites. And Fox News. So, of course hooksaw would plaster the poster for it here. Even though he has never seen it or been able to critique its claims.

I think they should have called it "The Inconvenient Lie." That wold have been much wittier, but they probably would have been sued. The name is so forgettable.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 12:20 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 12:10:10 AM

^A British court found gross errors in Al Gore's movie. None in this one though, so maybe you should figure out who's telling the truth.

(and stop drinking the kool aid)

10/20/2009 8:53:51 PM

but, it's important to exaggerate the facts in order to get people on board with the solution. Don't you remember this?

10/20/2009 9:01:35 PM

I don't care about establishing the truthfulness of either film. I think most political documentaries suck. Al Gore's film is alarmist crap, and this one sounds like it's going to be right-wing conspiracy bullshit mixed with gloating over the British court ruling.

10/20/2009 11:42:08 PM

yes, but which one will be used as a call to action by the UN?

10/21/2009 6:52:43 AM

Quote :

"I think most political documentaries suck."

Could you possibly generalize anymore, carquack? FTR, I've been aware of this film for sometime, but I was reminded of it when I saw that Phelim McAleer, the filmmaker, was asked to leave a press conference simply because he questioned Gore on the polar bear population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbj78civS-4

The eco-Marxists will attempt to silence any dissent.

10/21/2009 7:03:19 AM

Quote :

"Could you possibly generalize anymore, carquack? "

Damn, I made a generalized statement and the troll called me out on it. I feel silly.

10/21/2009 1:03:25 PM

has anyone said this movie sucked and I'm not gonna watch it yet? because those are my thoughts

10/22/2009 4:21:42 AM

Quote :

"eco-Marxists"

Really? This is low, even for you. But then again like with most of your other seemingly cute buzzwords and slogans I doubt you can claim credit for its origin.

10/22/2009 7:16:31 AM

^ I give credit where credit is due--and it's due in this case to Mark Levin.

10/22/2009 2:26:11 PM

I find his nasally diatribe rather nauseating. I am curious though, is his beef with the entire environmental movement or just certain people?

10/22/2009 4:13:50 PM