The unmolested data is available...I've shown it from NASA...they and the IPCC are both global warming advocates and both agree there has been no warming in the last 17 years. But that doesn't stop CollegeDoog from trudging away in idiocy...
And you are years behind on the Hansen models being discredited with his scenerios...they are already on a next generation of models that have also been discredited (one link among many...)
Keep swinging CollegeDoog...I haven't seen this many softballs in years. I will say you've inspired me...I'll post a couple more stories on the idiots of the global warming religion this evening to make you feel better (you aren't alone...).
CollegeDoog finally got one thing corrrect..."promote". These are not unbiased scientists analyzing data using the scientific method...these are advocates promoting a view using any and all means, including selective data, hiding analysis, and even more unethical means (Gleick). And idiots like CollegeDoog lap it up without even blinking (or thinking).
I'll try and keep it simple...you are taking blog posts from a guy who's admitted having huge ethical lapses to promote his position to say you have (cherry-picked) data that proves reality wrong...even the head of the IPCC Climate disagrees:
and even your boy Hansen says you are wrong (from his paper published in 2012) "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." (Global Temperature Update Through 2012.)
You ignored the discussion on the climate models...maybe you are finally accepting those are wrong too? (True saying...all models are wrong, some models are useful. Unfortunately these haven't reached that level yet).
And yes, now 97% of the scientist have read, reviewed, and analyzed all of the climate data and agree. You are even dumber than you type.
Houston Husky is a scientist. Collegedoog has done......well......norhing
When Houston Husky posts accurate data he can be taken seriously.
All of your graphs prove Houston's point except for the made up Hansen vs Lindzen fantasy flow chart.
Temp's while rising and falling in between periods are nearly identical to what they were in 1997.
All the while you ignore the FACT that Co2 has risen 40ppm which is what is supposed to make temps increase and they haven't.
Noone here is saying that the rise in temp's aren't related to human's in some way. However all of the alarmist global.. er Climate changer's predictions simply haven't been true in these last 15 or so years.
With China, India and Brazil's economies growing, there will be more coal plants and more Co2 released. And given the fairly large increases in the last decade or so, one would think that temps would rise accordingly in the future. But.... the last 15 or so years do not point to that.
You need to realize that there is much more at work here than human spewed Co2. The data proves it.
Middlebury, my company is doing a fair of amount of export biz with the Chineeze (btw, total pain in the ass. they are a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act nightmare. I feel like we need legal counsel to follow the guys around over there. At every fucking turn there's an issue, and the business guys wind up spending as much time on the phone with me (for pretend) as they do with their business counterparts.
anyway, feedback I get from them is that it's a very dirty place. air quality is an oxymoron there.
I would never trust the Chineeze.
I don't trust them but they shouldn't be a deterrent or an excuse for inaction.
maybe not. but everyone should know if they're taking five steps backward every time they take one forward.
CollegeDoog finally got one thing corrrect..."promote". These are not unbiased scientists analyzing data using the scientific method...these are advocates promoting a view using any and all means, including selective data, hiding analysis, and even more unethical means (Gleick). And idiots like CollegeDoog lap it up without even blinking (or thinking).
I'll try and keep it simple...you are taking blog posts from a guy who's admitted having huge ethical lapses to promote his position to say you have (cherry-picked) data that proves reality wrong...even the head of the IPCC Climate disagrees:
and even your boy Hansen says you are wrong (from his paper published in 2012) "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." (Global Temperature Update Through 2012.)
You ignored the discussion on the climate models...maybe you are finally accepting those are wrong too? (True saying...all models are wrong, some models are useful. Unfortunately these haven't reached that level yet).
And yes, now 97% of the scientist have read, reviewed, and analyzed all of the climate data and agree. You are even dumber than you type.
Uh. No. I followed your link. It's from a Rupert Murdoch owned paper. That should have been your first red flag. The only quote she provides says that warming has not risen at the same rate. Red flag number 2. She never says that it has paused, or that it is even statistically significant, which it isn't. Fail.
This slower growth has been attributed to more frequent La Nina events in the 2000s, even though the "plateau" has been at record levels and in no way disproves global warming.
Also, do I have to tell you why the no warming since '97/'98 line is so bullshit? It was a fucking hot year due to an El Nino event and is a huge outlier on the overall trend. No fucking retard draws a line starting at the top of the '97 bar flat across and claims that accurately reflects the graph. That is what you are doing. It's hilarious. La Nina/El Nino is also the natural variability in temperatures. You can see 3 of the last 5 years have been La Nina so any unbiased observer would tell you that insinuating that shows that temp increases have stopped is FS. The La Nina temps are also increasing and at record levels for 2012. That should also tip you off but you've already shown piss poor graph interpreting skills.
And I'm not working off those scientists. I'm working off data provided by NASA, NOAA, etc. One activist doesn't discredit this data.
It's what you climate skeptics do. Attack the people not the data because you can't. You keep stepping in your own shit every time you post.
Middlebury, my company is doing a fair of amount of export biz with the Chineeze (btw, total pain in the ass. they are a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act nightmare. I feel like we need legal counsel to follow the guys around over there. At every fucking turn there's an issue, and the business guys wind up spending as much time on the phone with me (for pretend) as they do with their business counterparts.
anyway, feedback I get from them is that it's a very dirty place. air quality is an oxymoron there.
I would never trust the Chineeze.
I don't trust them but they shouldn't be a deterrent or an excuse for inaction.
The Chinese NOGAF and never will. Period. Hint - China is a communist country. Communist countries don't usually care about pollution/global warming, they care about 5 year plans to turn their economies into steamrollers regardless of the cost to the planet or to their proletariat.
Comments
If your example is climategate, we're all laughing at you.
Here is the blog post he has been posting most of his pretty pictures from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/
Here is some more interesting on the religious global warming zealot that is Peter Gleick:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
(i.e....he's as big a fraud as Hansen, and got caught so he had to resign all sorts of positions...and the stuff he leaked has serious factual errors so its likely he forged that as well). He also likes to cherry pick data after telling other people not too...sounds kinda familiar...
The unmolested data is available...I've shown it from NASA...they and the IPCC are both global warming advocates and both agree there has been no warming in the last 17 years. But that doesn't stop CollegeDoog from trudging away in idiocy...
And you are years behind on the Hansen models being discredited with his scenerios...they are already on a next generation of models that have also been discredited (one link among many...)
Keep swinging CollegeDoog...I haven't seen this many softballs in years. I will say you've inspired me...I'll post a couple more stories on the idiots of the global warming religion this evening to make you feel better (you aren't alone...).
I used that hard data from that blog post, nothing Peter Gleick wrote.
I'm starting to think you are incapable of reading a graph.
Talk about softballs.
To discredit that data is to discredit everybody.
Hth.
The Weekly Standard has encouraged conservatives to accept the science so we can actually get shit done.
Great ignorant liberal hate as always though.
I'll try and keep it simple...you are taking blog posts from a guy who's admitted having huge ethical lapses to promote his position to say you have (cherry-picked) data that proves reality wrong...even the head of the IPCC Climate disagrees:
THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises
and even your boy Hansen says you are wrong (from his paper published in 2012)
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." (Global Temperature Update Through 2012.)
You ignored the discussion on the climate models...maybe you are finally accepting those are wrong too? (True saying...all models are wrong, some models are useful. Unfortunately these haven't reached that level yet).
And yes, now 97% of the scientist have read, reviewed, and analyzed all of the climate data and agree. You are even dumber than you type.
And you lie like a rug
Other than that, you're doing great
All of your graphs prove Houston's point except for the made up Hansen vs Lindzen fantasy flow chart.
Temp's while rising and falling in between periods are nearly identical to what they were in 1997.
All the while you ignore the FACT that Co2 has risen 40ppm which is what is supposed to make temps increase and they haven't.
Noone here is saying that the rise in temp's aren't related to human's in some way. However all of the alarmist global.. er Climate changer's predictions simply haven't been true in these last 15 or so years.
With China, India and Brazil's economies growing, there will be more coal plants and more Co2 released. And given the fairly large increases in the last decade or so, one would think that temps would rise accordingly in the future. But.... the last 15 or so years do not point to that.
You need to realize that there is much more at work here than human spewed Co2. The data proves it.
This slower growth has been attributed to more frequent La Nina events in the 2000s, even though the "plateau" has been at record levels and in no way disproves global warming.
Also, do I have to tell you why the no warming since '97/'98 line is so bullshit? It was a fucking hot year due to an El Nino event and is a huge outlier on the overall trend. No fucking retard draws a line starting at the top of the '97 bar flat across and claims that accurately reflects the graph. That is what you are doing. It's hilarious. La Nina/El Nino is also the natural variability in temperatures. You can see 3 of the last 5 years have been La Nina so any unbiased observer would tell you that insinuating that shows that temp increases have stopped is FS. The La Nina temps are also increasing and at record levels for 2012. That should also tip you off but you've already shown piss poor graph interpreting skills.
And I'm not working off those scientists. I'm working off data provided by NASA, NOAA, etc. One activist doesn't discredit this data.
It's what you climate skeptics do. Attack the people not the data because you can't. You keep stepping in your own shit every time you post.
The worlds most un self aware man needs a fucking mirror
You misspelled climate true believers
MURDOCH!!!!!!11111!!!
Shit you're a cliche
It's amazing how brilliant you are in other areas, but severely lacking in this one.
Dude you sound fucking stupid.