Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

[keep gooose go]

dam. U all steal on dis TOPIC;-000

[Fair Game]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, but the CRU emails pointed that they had a different aim and it had little to do with improving scientific understanding.
Hear is something I sure you hate to remember, Climategate.

A lie of course.

Half a dozen independent enquires found no evidence.

[Fair Game]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure it did. And of course you went to a site known to be a propaganda front and has a proven track record of spinning the facts. Funny how skepicalscience site is anything but skeptical and realclimate is anything but real.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-sca...
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physi...

A lie of course.

Sceptikal Science and RealClimate discuss the scientific literature.

Wattsupmybum discusses any nonsense that seems to contradict AGW, however scientifically nonsensical, and attacks real climate science and scientists.

Not that an agenda driven ignoramuses like you know the difference- just which side you're on.

[BS from the DNC]

SpaceBlues wrote:

A Met Office spokesman said "this definitely doesn't mean any cooling - there's still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
"Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.
"And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point."
[bbc]

A "climate scientist" pushed a tale about 2012 being the hottest year in the US "on record", which was a news story today.

BS. And here's why.

First, there is no such category as "climate scientist". There IS meteorology, and these is "atmospheric science", but "climate scientist" is an informal term reserved for PR flacks.

Second, "hottest EVER in the US", means hottest since 1920. Reliable nationwide records did not exist before then. But we have plenty of evidence that much hotter periods existed in the past 1000 years - its just that we didn't have thermometers.

Third "hottest in the US" doesn't means there weren't colder regions within the US. And, curiously, they don't mention if there were any "record coldest".

Yes, indeed. You CAN have record highs and lows in the same year.

Fourth, a scientist does NOT jump to conclusions about the "past year" when the past year is less that two weeks from ending. They wait for at least a few more years to sort the data out.

And why isn't there a bit about "heating fuel consumption per capita lowest ever"?? Hmmmmm?

PS. No mention that 2012 was the hottest in Canada and Mexico. Why?

[Fun Facts]

BS from the DNC wrote:

<quoted text>
A "climate scientist" pushed a tale about 2012 being the hottest year in the US "on record", which was a news story today.
BS. And here's why.
First, there is no such category as "climate scientist". There IS meteorology, and these is "atmospheric science", but "climate scientist" is an informal term reserved for PR flacks.
Second, "hottest EVER in the US", means hottest since 1920. Reliable nationwide records did not exist before then. But we have plenty of evidence that much hotter periods existed in the past 1000 years - its just that we didn't have thermometers.
Third "hottest in the US" doesn't means there weren't colder regions within the US. And, curiously, they don't mention if there were any "record coldest".
Yes, indeed. You CAN have record highs and lows in the same year.
Fourth, a scientist does NOT jump to conclusions about the "past year" when the past year is less that two weeks from ending. They wait for at least a few more years to sort the data out.
And why isn't there a bit about "heating fuel consumption per capita lowest ever"?? Hmmmmm?
PS. No mention that 2012 was the hottest in Canada and Mexico. Why?

Wasn't it 2010 that was the hottest year?.55*G warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012. This is the year beginning November 2009 ending October 2010.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

the same time period for November 2011 to October 2012 was .44*C warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

[Fun Facts]

Here's 2009, same time period..48*C warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2007,.52*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2006,.47*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2005,.54*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2004,.46*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2003,.46*C warmer; 2002,.53*C warmer; do you need another picture? For those who like the graphs,

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

At least according to NASA/GISS 2012 was not the warmest. But just wait, they'll fix the data so 2012 can be on top. They regularly fix the data. Last time was July 2012, before that November 2011. Want to be the warmest, not hard with changing data.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

"And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point."

So you really really don't know climate change your contradicting yourself again.

[brrrrrrrrrrr]

Fun Facts wrote:

Here's 2009, same time period..48*C warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2007,.52*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2006,.47*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2005,.54*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2004,.46*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2003,.46*C warmer; 2002,.53*C warmer; do you need another picture? For those who like the graphs,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
At least according to NASA/GISS 2012 was not the warmest. But just wait, they'll fix the data so 2012 can be on top. They regularly fix the data. Last time was July 2012, before that November 2011. Want to be the warmest, not hard with changing data.

And the period from 950CE to 1350CE was the "Mediaeval Optimum", when grapes grew in Scotland and Newfoundland.

Followed by the "Little Ice Age" from 1350 to 1770, when glaciers advanced and the Hudson and Thames froze solid.

You caught a warm period, that's all.

Don't throw away the snow tires just yet.

[PHD]

Actually you should purchase more snow tires. When the money runs out global warming will change to global cooling.

[Fun Facts]

brrrrrrrrrrr wrote:

<quoted text>
And the period from 950CE to 1350CE was the "Mediaeval Optimum", when grapes grew in Scotland and Newfoundland.
Followed by the "Little Ice Age" from 1350 to 1770, when glaciers advanced and the Hudson and Thames froze solid.
You caught a warm period, that's all.
Don't throw away the snow tires just yet.

Won't find me throwing away the snow tires. Well we really don't use snow tires here, but I get your point.

I am on record here as the one who does think this is all natural cycles. I think we have completed the 'warm up' and now are looking at the 'cool down'.

The graphs I post are to demonstrate the very small variance in the average temperature of the years posted. When you consider that this is a single number that represents all the world's temperatures with variances less than half a degree, it's hard to get excited about 'global warming'.

[tina anne]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>You be the judge of that. Senate more empty chairs.

Actually Congress has more empty chairs and a lower approval rating than cockroaches. Then again the Senate also has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

[tina anne]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>You are confused.
Go visit your friend in Spain.

Am I confused or just reminding you of things you rather forget.

[tina anne]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
A lie of course.
Half a dozen independent enquires found no evidence.

Independent? Far more inquiries found plenty of evidence.

[tina anne]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
A lie of course.
Sceptikal Science and RealClimate discuss the scientific literature.
Wattsupmybum discusses any nonsense that seems to contradict AGW, however scientifically nonsensical, and attacks real climate science and scientists.
Not that an agenda driven ignoramuses like you know the difference- just which side you're on.

Sure skepticalscience and Realclimate discuss scientific literature. Science fiction literature is more like it and they write a rather large portion of it. You complain about Whatsupwiththat discuesses any nonesense that contradicts AGW while ignoring the fact that many scientist have already declared AGW a dead letter. You refer to them as agenda driven ignormauses and yet RealClimate and SkepticalScience are just as much agenda driven to try and resusitate AGW dispite the weath or research that has buried it.

A lie of course. Then again for you, anything that disproves what yo believe in must be a lie because for it to be true would mean that you have believed a lie. Dispite the wealth of facts/research/data to prove that it was a lie.

RealClimate and SkepticalScience discuss facts the way that Goring discuessed them. With an agenda to advance and people to hoodwink.

[PHD]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Congress has more empty chairs and a lower approval rating than cockroaches. Then again the Senate also has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

Well I never said you were correct but you do an excellant job giving the "pinheadlitesout" and spacedoutblues a good spanking.Ahh the roaches the GOP and Blue Dogs have many.

[aaaaaarghhh SCHUMER]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Congress has more empty chairs and a lower approval rating than cockroaches. Then again the Senate also has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

I would rather have my home infested with cockroaches than with Schumer and Pelosi.

[litesong]

phud feces face wrote:

you(tiny-minded anne) do an excellant(sic) job......

'tiny-minded anne' made a friend with 'phud feces face'.'phud feces face' even misspelled another of his many misspelled words, so 'tiny-minded anne' would feel at home.'tiny-minded anne' will clean the face of 'phud feces face', but not very well or often. With many toxic topix AGW deniers leaving toxic topix AGW forums because their funding dried up after romneyhood, romesia & romney who(?) lost, toxic topix AGW deniers, even tho enemies, are friending each other & circling the wagons, unable to attack anymore.

In truth, most toxic topix AGW deniers never could attack, except for their slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms &/or alleged & proud threats. toxic topix AGW deniers didn't have any upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc to mount any arguments against scientists that had 10-16 years more mathematics & science training than toxic topix AGW deniers chose to have.

[litesong]

tiny-minded anne wrote:

Am I confused........

Yes.

[Fair Game]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure skepticalscience and Realclimate discuss scientific literature.

Glad you acknowledge that.

[PHD]

pinheadlitesout wrote:

<quoted text>
'tina anne' made a friend with 'PHD'.'I "pinheadlitesout' even mispelled another of his many mispelled words, so 'tina- anne' would feel at home.'tiny anne' wouldn't clean the face of 'MY "pinheadlitesout" feces face'. With many toxic topix AGW deniers like me leaving toxic topix AGW forums because MY funding dried up after romneyhood, romesia & romney who(?) lost, toxic topix AGW deniers, even MY enemies, are friending each other & circling the wagons,om me I'm unable to attack anymore.
In truth, most toxic topix AGW deniers like ME never could attack, except for their slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms &/or alleged & proud threats. toxic topix AGW deniers like ME didn't have any upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc to mount any arguments against scientists or science that had 10-16 months more mathematics & science training than toxic topix AGW I "pinheadlitesout denier chose to have.

Well there you have it folks the only truth "pinheadlitesout" Above has ever posted.