 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 578/600) |
|
E.Furgal
|
OCT 22, 05:24 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by newf:
Yup, the science keeps getting better and better. Global surface temperature in 2015 easily beat the previous record holder, 2014, for the title of warmest year in the modern instrument record.
https://www.climate.gov/new...e-climate-highlights |
|
BAHAHA you use an agenda based, government link as proof..
if that was even remotely true, more than 200+ days it have to be the hottest on record, in 80% of the world..
hint it hasn't not even 20% of the days and under 10% of the world and not on the same days..
kinda hard to believe in global warming, opps, climate change, opps.. what is this years buzz wording..
When the media weather man/women tell every one todays record high was set in 1865 and it was 10-19+/- degrees higher than todays temp..
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 22, 05:43 AM
|
|
Re: E.Furgal
What is it that differentiates "climate" from "weather"..?
If you filled in that gap in your knowledge or understanding, then you would realize that your post (immediately above) does not make any sense.
The well known Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it during one of the Cosmos episodes. Not the original Cosmos, but the newer version of it. There was a scene where Tyson was walking across a sandy beach, and a dog was at his side, walking the same general path as Tyson, but in a meandering way, drifting away to the right of Tyson and then back across Tyson's path to his left, and then back to the right again.
I might post a YouTube of that later, if it's available.
|
|
|
|
E.Furgal
|
OCT 22, 05:49 AM
|
|
oh brother..
if the record highs for 80% of the year in 85% of the world didn't break the record highs on record, many set 50-100+ years ago.. then the earth didn't get warmer than the year before, or the year before that, or the air temp, or land temp or ocean temp..
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
OCT 29, 10:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
newf
|
OCT 29, 10:57 PM
|
|
Wow, a science advisor of the heartland Institute is a Climate Change skeptic. Amazing, thanks for linking the year old article, I will say it's more relevant than many of your links.
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
OCT 29, 11:12 PM
|
|
Didn't Wikileaks drop some email with democrats dismissing it as nothing more than a way to drive their supporters to the polls.....
The Clinton Campaign admits to fudging climate change data in an email released by Wikileaks.
How do we trust the data when it is sacrificed routinely for political gain....
Once the silty murky contamination of the democratic party has been removed from the data stream, then the science may appear more credible....
When the scientist divorce all political parties and partner with industry(s) to develop and apply real solutions that benefit both side, then you will see results....
|
|
|
|
newf
|
OCT 29, 11:43 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
Didn't Wikileaks drop some email with democrats dismissing it as nothing more than a way to drive their supporters to the polls.....
The Clinton Campaign admits to fudging climate change data in an email released by Wikileaks.
How do we trust the data when it is sacrificed routinely for political gain....
Once the silty murky contamination of the democratic party has been removed from the data stream, then the science may appear more credible....
When the scientist divorce all political parties and partner with industry(s) to develop and apply real solutions that benefit both side, then you will see results.... |
|
 How does this change any science?
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
OCT 29, 11:56 PM
|
|
|
When you lie about the numbers you then get news media repeating those claims. No one actually looks at "the science" as you call it. Then you get regular people who take them at their word and start throwing around "denier" when people question the numbers. I mean, other than being unethical and wrong, what difference does it make?
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
OCT 30, 12:10 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by newf:
How does this change any science? |
|
It is Not possible for the general public to know where the
lines between the science and politics are not the same.
Until the scientist separate themselves from the politicians,
we comon folks can not trust the data because of the amount
of potential manipulation being done to shape public opinion.
When the scientist quit dipping from the Government trough,
they will "call BS" when politicians misrepresent the data. Until
they are no longer dependent on Government grants/funding
none of them can be trusted to protect the accuracy of what is
released to the public instead of protecting their reputation, position
and income. Government agencies do not compete against one another
on the science. But if these same scientist where dependent upon
industries, competing industries would fund the exposure of false and
misleading claims of their competitors. The government gets the data
it pays for, it vets the data it pays for and it publishes the results it pays
for.
If we can not separate the science from the Government we could atleast
divide the money up and fund both lines of research to create a balance
that acts as a filter to cleanse the agendas from the data.
|
|
|
|
E.Furgal
|
OCT 30, 02:10 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by newf:
How does this change any science? |
|
Whom is granting the funds for the science gets the results they are looking for.. not what science results are..
And study can be made to get the outcome you are after.. if you opps forgot parts of the facts, of the study..
|
|
|
|