George

Chapmanville, WV

#38298 Jan 22, 2014
Another Damn Liberal wrote:
For George:
Let's look at the 'no global warming in the last 16 years' factoid.
The gist of it seems to be that Steve Goreham, executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, who came up with that started from an unusually warm year (El Nino), and ended in an unusually cold one (La Nina). Cherry-picking the data that way results in a flatter curve.
"Why start 16 years ago? It includes 1998, when an El Nino made surface temperatures exceptionally warm. When you start near an unusually hot year, there's a good chance that subsequent years will be cooler."
"There's another problem: When you get into temperature changes that small and time frames that short, the natural variability of climate can be so large that any "trend" might be the result of chance."
Why start 16 years ago? It includes 1998, when an El Nino made surface temperatures exceptionally warm. When you start near an unusually hot year, there's a good chance that subsequent years will be cooler.There's another problem: When you get into temperature changes that small and time frames that short, the natural variability of climate can be so large that any "trend" might be the result of chance."
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statem...
.
OK for starters "Why16 years ago"? Because that is when the global temperature stopped rising in contradiction to their theories that said it would continue to increase. There was no cherry picking. It is a fact and not manipulated by anyone. 16 years ago the global temp was warmer than it has been since. Actually they have been trying to manipulate and keep hush hush that fact to falsely discredit the reality of the 16 year truth. CO2 continued and yet the rise in temp stopped when these so called experts said it would continue to rise at an ever increasing pace. They were wrong. Look at their predictions from 20 years ago. Look at their computer models. Look at their theories. ALL were wrong. Yes 16 years isnt very long but neither is 100 years in the grand scheme of things. 100 years is cherry picking in itself considering if we go back millions of years there were times the planet was much hotter, times it was much colder, all with varying CO2 levels. The main driver of global temperatures is of course the sun, not CO2. That of course explains the stop in rise of the temps, the sun. But actually admitting the sun is what causes temperature change doesnt mend with their man made theories, so they ignore the obvious and instead try and spin the evidence to suit their agenda. That tells me alot about their theories.
For now lets try and keep this rather limited in scope if you dont mind because I have several things I would like to discuss. One is what we are discussing now, that global temps stopped rising 16 years ago despite their predictions that they would continue to rise. That is my first point. I should point out 16 years ago I also believed that they were likely right. Now with update facts I there is no way I can support spending billions of dollars on these theories.
1 post removed

“If you put your ear to this,”

Since: May 13

You can hear a conservative

#38300 Jan 22, 2014
Well Duh wrote:
Her name is Wendy Davis and not Clarck who is running for govenor of Texas. Hillary Clinton only stuck with Bill for political reasons. Any self respectable woman would have divorced him for all the sexual scanals. It has been proven that Hillary is willing to brush aside 4 lives for her own political gain. Hillary has no accomplishments, no backbone, no morals and has no common sense. This Wendy Davis took off on her kids and the ex husband has them and even the kid she had before him. She is nothing but a shinning example of what a woman should not be either. They are the same low life women trying to get there from opposite directions.
Hillary isn't in office. Can't talk about her anymore, remember? Same with the admitted international war criminal.
George

Chapmanville, WV

#38301 Jan 22, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
No one will try anymore with you George. Many have. But any intellectual with a basic understanding of science will quit the moment you start citing daily weather ups and downs, scientists who work for BP and tiny slivers of time as data that isn't just controversial, but totally debunks everything gathered. Add in the undeniable fact that you refuse to state ANY type of evidence you will accept that contradicts your "data" and that you call literally every piece of information provided by anyone "lies" regardless of what it is and what it comes from. If you want a "civil" discussion, you truly will have to stick with people that don't understand science or have very little information. I have had - and been recognized for - having more patience than anyone else when it comes to trying to get you to just acknowledge the mountain of evidence supporting man's impact on climate change. I'm out though man. You can't debate someone who refuses to accept data. It isn't a debate then. It isn't even a discussion. It's a waste of time.
I didnt expect a hostile narcissist like you to actually want a civil discussion. You have already admitted you enjoy being rude and obnoxious and fighting with everyone. And once again to show your narcissism, you think you speak for EVERYONE. Try speaking for yourself for a change instead of your delusions that your opinion represents everyone opinion. You do not decide what is a Democrat. You do not decide what a Democrats opinions are supposed to be. And you do not decide what other people might want to discuss global warming. I know it drives you nuts that YOU are NOT the great decider, but deal with it bub.You do not represent anyone but the voices in your head.
Dont look back

Summersville, WV

#38302 Jan 22, 2014
Their is and abundance of oil in the arctic This might explain manipulation..
George

Chapmanville, WV

#38303 Jan 22, 2014
Melissa Harris The 2nd wrote:
http://iacknowledge.net/navy-s pent-670-million-on-a-combat-s hip-that-is-not-expected-to-be -survivable/
What about the hundreds of tanks that the army doesnt want but we forced to accept anyway. How about the trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle? A ridiculously expensive plane we dont need, doesnt work right, and nobody wants to fly? How about the umpteen millions wasted in changing camo patterns? Millions wasted on a pattern that preliminary testing revealed wasnt very good. They changed anyway. Then nobody wanted to use it so they switched back, wasting ever more millions. If we would tighten the military belt spending only on what we actually really need and cut the waste, we could shrink our military budget in half and still be safe.

“Gujarat, India solar farm”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#38304 Jan 22, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>OK for starters "Why16 years ago"? Because that is when the global temperature stopped rising in contradiction to their theories that said it would continue to increase. There was no cherry picking. It is a fact and not manipulated by anyone. 16 years ago the global temp was warmer than it has been since. Actually they have been trying to manipulate and keep hush hush that fact to falsely discredit the reality of the 16 year truth. CO2 continued and yet the rise in temp stopped when these so called experts said it would continue to rise at an ever increasing pace. They were wrong. Look at their predictions from 20 years ago. Look at their computer models. Look at their theories. ALL were wrong. Yes 16 years isnt very long but neither is 100 years in the grand scheme of things. 100 years is cherry picking in itself considering if we go back millions of years there were times the planet was much hotter, times it was much colder, all with varying CO2 levels. The main driver of global temperatures is of course the sun, not CO2. That of course explains the stop in rise of the temps, the sun. But actually admitting the sun is what causes temperature change doesnt mend with their man made theories, so they ignore the obvious and instead try and spin the evidence to suit their agenda. That tells me alot about their theories.
For now lets try and keep this rather limited in scope if you dont mind because I have several things I would like to discuss. One is what we are discussing now, that global temps stopped rising 16 years ago despite their predictions that they would continue to rise. That is my first point. I should point out 16 years ago I also believed that they were likely right. Now with update facts I there is no way I can support spending billions of dollars on these theories.
Had you bothered to read the page I linked to, instead of just my limited quote, you would have seen:
"If you shift the timeframe back by just one year, beginning with 1996, the increase more than doubles, to 0.351 degrees."
Cherrypicking.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statem...

“If you put your ear to this,”

Since: May 13

You can hear a conservative

#38305 Jan 22, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>I didnt expect a hostile narcissist like you to actually want a civil discussion. You have already admitted you enjoy being rude and obnoxious and fighting with everyone. And once again to show your narcissism, you think you speak for EVERYONE. Try speaking for yourself for a change instead of your delusions that your opinion represents everyone opinion. You do not decide what is a Democrat. You do not decide what a Democrats opinions are supposed to be. And you do not decide what other people might want to discuss global warming. I know it drives you nuts that YOU are NOT the great decider, but deal with it bub.You do not represent anyone but the voices in your head.
What data will you accept? NASA, USGS, IPCC, NOAA have all been liars whose data you refuse to accept. And please, stop saying you "doubt their theories." You call them lies.

Please explain how 16 years "debunks" 500,000 years of data? How is that rational? Why is it that 12 of those years are the hottest ever recorded AND oceanic temperatures continued to rise along with surface temperatures, but still you CHERRY PICK one sliver of data from one sliver of time to claim ALL climate change data is debunked?

ADL will be the exact same as me in 48 hours if he were to try to forward his data. You will call it lies and he will move on to more rational discussion.

“If you put your ear to this,”

Since: May 13

You can hear a conservative

#38306 Jan 22, 2014
George wrote:
These people are barbarians and dont want US style democracy. There is a reason these shitholes are always run by dictators, that is the only way to keep these baby murdering freaks in line. Time to say enough is enough and let them figure out their own problems without our money.
Yeah, you're a democrats like I am a cowboy. Democrats don't categorize entire populations of people as targets of ignorant racism.

And by the way, we are the barbarians. Just because we use technology to kill doesn't make us less barbaric. NO CIVILIZATION has ever been more war-like, killed more people, destroyed more homes and run the world through death than the good old USA. Even Stalin is only a close second, but at least he murdered his own people. We've nuked, used chemical weapons and burned down entire civilizations on EVERY continent, save for Antarctica (no brown people there though).

Let's end our own mass murdering ways before we go calling anyone else barbarians.

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

I'd love to any nation in the history of man compete with this list. And it's just from the end of WWII. We've killed about 60 million people.
George

Chapmanville, WV

#38307 Jan 22, 2014
"The Met Office has begun referring to the last 16 years as "the recent pause in warming." Officials there have issued three reports to try to explain the plateau. They stressed that the last decade was still the warmest on record and asserted that temperatures will likely resume their rapid rise soon, although the agency is not offering a timetable". >>>> Hence the truth and then the spin I mentioned. The fact is 16 years ago the temperature stopped rising, contradicting their predictions. They have tried to spin and manipulate this truth because it proves their theories are wrong, seems obvious their motives for trying to discredit this reality.

"He and other warming skeptics argue, with some justification, that the newest global readings are so far afield from the alarming temperature increases that were once predicted by climate computer models, it raises serious questions about whether scientists understand Earth's changing climate as well as they think they do, and whether it's worth spending trillions of dollars to try to influence it.">>>> >>So we know their predictions and models were wrong and the temp did stop rising 16 years ago. That is fact and an important one when we move on to another question I have. Should we be spending trillions of dollars based on their "theories" that have already been shown to be mistaken? Yes it is true th temps have risen slightly , but is there any conclusive evidence that man is causing the rise? Enough proof to be spending trillions of dollars on? I say no. Economically reasonable policies to lower our emissions yes, that is common sense, but policies that cause serious economic harm to millions of people based on the mere possibility it might be our fault?

“If you put your ear to this,”

Since: May 13

You can hear a conservative

#38308 Jan 22, 2014
Another Damn Liberal wrote:
Meet The Climate Denial Machine
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-...
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but they all pale in comparison to Republican talking points.
All connected to the Koch Brothers. Or the few polluters that aren't connected to the Koch Brother's, whose industries contribute a huge percentage of all of man's CO2 into the atmosphere.

Sick. And idiots buy it, hook, line and sinker.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

---Upton Sinclair
George

Chapmanville, WV

#38309 Jan 22, 2014
A letter from 50 NASA employees saying thousands of other scientists agree there is no conclusive evidence man is causing a harmful rise in temps. These people are unbiased experts and not gas employees and the other nonsense some of the others try and discredit the truth with. Still worth spending trillions and causing great economic harm?

++++++++++

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
Signed 50 NASA directors, engineers, astronauts, etc. etc.

“If you put your ear to this,”

Since: May 13

You can hear a conservative

#38310 Jan 22, 2014
George wrote:
"The Met Office has begun referring to the last 16 years as "the recent pause in warming." Officials there have issued three reports to try to explain the plateau. They stressed that the last decade was still the warmest on record and asserted that temperatures will likely resume their rapid rise soon, although the agency is not offering a timetable". >>>> Hence the truth and then the spin I mentioned. The fact is 16 years ago the temperature stopped rising, contradicting their predictions. They have tried to spin and manipulate this truth because it proves their theories are wrong, seems obvious their motives for trying to discredit this reality.
"He and other warming skeptics argue, with some justification, that the newest global readings are so far afield from the alarming temperature increases that were once predicted by climate computer models, it raises serious questions about whether scientists understand Earth's changing climate as well as they think they do, and whether it's worth spending trillions of dollars to try to influence it.">>>> >>So we know their predictions and models were wrong and the temp did stop rising 16 years ago. That is fact and an important one when we move on to another question I have. Should we be spending trillions of dollars based on their "theories" that have already been shown to be mistaken? Yes it is true th temps have risen slightly , but is there any conclusive evidence that man is causing the rise? Enough proof to be spending trillions of dollars on? I say no. Economically reasonable policies to lower our emissions yes, that is common sense, but policies that cause serious economic harm to millions of people based on the mere possibility it might be our fault?
Who else's fault would it be? And please, don't say volcanoes. We output 200 times MORE than volcanoes. Over 27 BILLION METRIC TONS.

“If you put your ear to this,”

Since: May 13

You can hear a conservative

#38311 Jan 22, 2014
George wrote:
A letter from 50 NASA employees saying thousands of other scientists agree there is no conclusive evidence man is causing a harmful rise in temps. These people are unbiased experts and not gas employees and the other nonsense some of the others try and discredit the truth with. Still worth spending trillions and causing great economic harm?
++++++++++
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
Signed 50 NASA directors, engineers, astronauts, etc. etc.
50 out of 18,000. The ratio is about right. And they're "employees," not climate scientists. I still have yet to hear from a credible climate scientists who doesn't work for a polluter deny man-made climate change. Judith Curry. That's who you've tried. Dozens of times. But she works for BP.

Ridiculous.

“Gujarat, India solar farm”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#38312 Jan 22, 2014
Here, George, maybe this will help.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1...
You have to look at the first chart, as it flips between two displays. One is How Realists View Global Warming, with a rising red line tracking through spiky data points. The other is how Deniers View Global Warming, with six short declining blue lines tracking through the same spiky data points, 1973 to 2010. The Denier seizes on short-term trends to prove his point. The Realist looks at the long term trend, which is rising. Think of the stock market. People who react to sudden trends often lose money. People who stick with long-term investments usually come out ahead.
The other nine charts are worth looking at too.
I think this all goes back to manipulation of public opinion by big corporations wanting to slant the game in their favor, and they're scaring you with all your favorite boogeymen, and your getting the rush from it just like a little kid playing peekaboo or hide and seek.
Grow up, already.

Since: Sep 13

Ravenswood

#38313 Jan 22, 2014
George

Chapmanville, WV

#38314 Jan 22, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
What data will you accept? NASA, USGS, IPCC, NOAA have all been liars whose data you refuse to accept. And please, stop saying you "doubt their theories." You call them lies.
Please explain how 16 years "debunks" 500,000 years of data? How is that rational? Why is it that 12 of those years are the hottest ever recorded AND oceanic temperatures continued to rise along with surface temperatures, but still you CHERRY PICK one sliver of data from one sliver of time to claim ALL climate change data is debunked?
ADL will be the exact same as me in 48 hours if he were to try to forward his data. You will call it lies and he will move on to more rational discussion.
Why dont you stay out of our conversation and let the adults talk now so we can have a productive and civilized discussion. I know your narcissism and hostility makes that difficult but why dont you butt out.
George

Chapmanville, WV

#38315 Jan 22, 2014
I knew it was pointless to even try. The delusional narcissist and habitual LIAR cant keep his lies, hostility, and big nose out of other peoples conversation. He is mentally ill and cant control himself. Desperate for attention, any kind of attention so he can belittle others and thus reinforcing his delusional superiority. Textbook narcissist.

“Gujarat, India solar farm”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#38316 Jan 22, 2014
Here's the statistic we've all been guessing at:
CHART: Only 0.17 Percent of Peer-Reviewed Papers Question Global Warming
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/1...
George

Pratt, WV

#38317 Jan 22, 2014
Fun fact: The status quo doesn't usually advance science. Being right trumps being in the majority, as Dan Shechtman could tell you.
Well Duh

Ashburn, VA

#38318 Jan 22, 2014
Bacon.....Bush is not in office because he is no longer president. Plus you use Bush as a crutch everytime Obama screws up, which is alot. Hillary is no longer in office sense she screwed up being secretary of state. Plus she and others want her to become president. So she is still in the running. Besides you love talking about her stupidity so you can be in practice just in case she makes it so you can defend her like the current moron called Obama.....lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charleston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Snitch "Joshua L Holbert" on parole 45 min Not the snitch 45
suddenlink dropping nick,comedy cen,mtv 2 hr bif 14
wanna f*** this chic 2 hr want to know 2
Trayvon 3 hr TPB 2
state police out sugar ck 4 hr whodey 16
what happened to the thread about the police on... 4 hr wanda 1
Wonderful West Virginia to get new publisher 4 hr West Virginia 1
RIGHT HERE: The reason Lt. Shawn Williams is su... 8 hr CHAD 7
Top cop in the kkk 8 hr CHAD 8
So Trivillians was a pill mill afterall 16 hr MsKamish 48
Charleston Dating
Find my Match

Charleston Jobs

Charleston People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Charleston News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Charleston

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]