2015 Warmest Year on Record

[Whiskey_Clear]

I don't plan to let anyone pull the wool over my eyes just because they wear a NASA patch, got a degree from Tech, or anything else. IF they appear that be fudging or cherry picking data they got some explaining to do. I ain't a sheep but I understand why some others feel more comfortable blindly following the flock.

 

[AE 87]

Maybe?

Probably.

I guess my point is that there ought to always be room for rebuttal. If you read that NASA is correcting temps downward, I think we all owe NASA the curiosity to seek why without letting some other source speak for them.

And I mean that in general, for all things. Much more so for a group that has a history of incredible engineering feats, a sterling public service history, and ranks filled with our brother and sister Jackets.

One other thing: I have a visceral reaction to 'news' sites that gleefully suggest you give them christmas money because they make those damn sissy college kids cry.

It sounds an awful lot like a U (sic)gA point of view. The message there is the same as the classic dwag: there's no need for progress, folks. Technology and change aren't needed, thats an unmanly, foreign affront to your values and place in soceity. Its as enemical to the GT spirit here as it was when the dwags said the same about building carpet mills in Georgia.

Yeah, the last paragraph undermines some good sense in the first few. Don't make straw men of those with whom you disagree.

 

[BuzzStone]

I don't plan to let anyone pull the wool over my eyes just because they wear a NASA patch, got a degree from Tech, or anything else. IF they appear that be fudging or cherry picking data they got some explaining to do. I ain't a sheep but I understand why some others feel more comfortable blindly following the flock.

Not saying you are a sheep but you have toted a party line like a good sheep. Between this thread and the religion thread you seem to be following many beliefs that have no supporting scientific data, sounds like a sheep to me

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@ buzzed and stoned. Stop trolling.

Try keeping threads separate. If you want to go back to the religion thread and discuss your evidence of the missing link or the origin of life do so. I've expressed multiple times that my belief in God is based on faith. Feel free to go there to discuss that topic further.

There is opposing data to be evaluated and discussed in this thread. If you choose to turn a blind eye to it and take comfort in "the 98%" of scientists beliefs then do so, that's your free choice. But stop trolling.

 

[BuzzStone]

@ buzzed and stoned. Stop trolling.

Try keeping threads separate. If you want to go back to the religion thread and discuss your evidence of the missing link or the origin of life do so. I've expressed multiple times that my belief in God is based on faith. Feel free to go there to discuss that topic further.

There is opposing data to be evaluated and discussed in this thread. If you choose to turn a blind eye to it and take comfort in "the 98%" of scientists beliefs then do so, that's your free choice. But stop trolling.

I was simply referring to a quote you made in this thread, drawing conclusions from other threads you have been a part in. And I would discuss the missing links your talking about but we are all missing links and after every link is found people like you say see now there is a missing link between A and B. If you would like to throw out what 99% of all scientist say about climate change based on faith feel free but I for one will listen to the evidence.

 

[collegeballfan]

People believe what they want to believe. If they have no reason for their belief they simply make up a reason.
NE has a good point about the ability to discuss an issue without name calling has really declined over the last decades.

 

[LibertyTurns]

People believe what they want to believe. If they have no reason for their belief they simply make up a reason.
NE has a good point about the ability to discuss an issue without name calling has really declined over the last decades.

Below is a piece from GT's Judith Curry. You can argue either side & find statistics to back up your claims. What I don't understand is the reluctance from the "Climate Changers" to provide the "Climate Deniers" the data for peer review. If there's nothing to hide there than they should just hand over access to the data & let them derive their own conclusions.

From my experience every issue devolves into 3 buckets: power, money & sex. I think we can rule out sex here. This issue is most clearly about power & money. On one hand you have the "Climate Changers". They want power to tell you & me what I should be doing, ie not diving a car or at least driving one that meets their requirements (electric, low emissions, high MPG, etc), not flying a personal jet around, not eating beef, etc. This power base just wants their way so they can promote their agendas. One the other hand you've got the "Climate Deniers" that want at drive their SUVs, eat a nice juicy ribeye, jet off to Aspen when they feel like, etc. It's the eternal struggle for power & money. If the "Climate Changers" get more of their way, oil companies for example have more of their power & money taken away and it's redistributed to solar panel builders for example. If the "Climate Deniers" get more of their way environmental regulations are relaxed & they make more money for example.

Now I'm a Libertarian. I hate people telling me what to do despite having served in the military for most of my career. If I want to not pollute the environment because you've convinced me I'm going to leave the world a better place for my kids then I'll make that decision. If I think that eating a big hunk of beef makes me happy & my kids are still going to be fine then that's my choice. We're supposed to be a country of laws. What's happening here is the system is being undermined outside of the constitutional processes that's supposed to govern us by I believe "well intentioned" people making decisions for us the majority of us don't care for. I don't impugn their motives, they just do not have the authority under our laws to do what their doing & the adults in the room have not provided adequate oversight to properly govern them.

I believe in America we have the God given right to make free choices within the bounds of the constitution. Where all this stuff hacks me off is when I have people trying to prevent me from doing what I want with my life. It's particularly annoying when they get caught red handed lying & cheating to do so. It has been like this throughout world history, just now the elites are subjected to exposure of their deeds more easily because of a much more educated population & an information delivery system via the internet they cannot suppress as easily- gotta love Facebook for trying to tell me what I can think!

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html

 

[awbuzz]

When Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore start taking commercial airlines to fly on a regular basis I'll be more apt to buy into their "concern" about CO2 emissions.

Should we strive to be more energy efficient and have clean air and water? No doubt.

Should we do so to the point of being ridiculous and regardless of cost? Hell no.

Until the "Hollywood elite" - including DiCarprio, Sigourney Weaver, George Clooney, James Cameron, et al - start LIVING what they "preach" when it come to Global Warming prevention, then follow the $ (Al Gore makes big bucks off this single issue) ...

 

[AE 87]

If all those who really believe that CO2 production is a threat to the future of our planet would simply stop the expulsion of CO2 into the environment for which they are individually and directly responsible, then the problem would go away.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I was simply referring to a quote you made in this thread, drawing conclusions from other threads you have been a part in. And I would discuss the missing links your talking about but we are all missing links and after every link is found people like you say see now there is a missing link between A and B. If you would like to throw out what 99% of all scientist say about climate change based on faith feel free but I for one will listen to the evidence.

You were simply trolling. Your comments here about missing links are imbecilic and placed in the wrong thread. Go to the appropriate thread with them or stfu.

The Lord is my shepherd not 99% of any group of men. I know you have a problem with this but you should try and deal with it as you have no power to change this fact.

 

[BuzzStone]

The Lord is my shepherd not 99% of any group of men. I know you have a problem with this but you should try and deal with it as you have no power to change this fact.

Your comments here about "the lord" are imbecilic and placed in the wrong thread. Go to the appropriate thread with them or stfu.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Mod please clean this thread up as buzzed and stoned has successfully derailed it. My apologies for feeding the troll.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

@bke1984 obviously isn't the religious radical you are attempting to paint him as considering he cited a 4.5 billion year old earth rather than a 10k age of the earth. This attempt doesn't make you appear as open to countering opinions as you lament.

You missed the whole point. But that is to be expected on the internet.

I was simply pointing out that there are those who are opposed to the notion of climate change, no matter what. So the argument changes constantly depending on who you are talking to. It is never an apples to apples conversation. At least that is my experience with it. So the conversation goes round and round in circles.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I guess my point is that there ought to always be room for rebuttal. If you read that NASA is correcting temps downward, I think we all owe NASA the curiosity to seek why without letting some other source speak for them.

This is way too reasonable. It removes heaping doses of paranoia which is what makes the internet go round.

 

[AE 87]

People believe what they want to believe. If they have no reason for their belief they simply make up a reason.
NE has a good point about the ability to discuss an issue without name calling has really declined over the last decades.

I agree. However, you have to be willing to discuss the data. If you just accuse the other side of ignoring the science or of buying into a conspiracy, then you are doing the equivalent of name-calling.

It's okay if you just accept a position by faith. That's reasonable. However, it's not reasonable to say that your position is based on science rather than faith if that's what you are doing.

For example, if you don't understand why NASA is saying that the globe is warming while the satellite data says it is not, then you are just accepting their data by faith. If you don't understand why NASA says the early part of the 20th century was colder than what they said it was in 1999, then you are taking them by faith against common sense.

 

[cyptomcat]

I agree. However, you have to be willing to discuss the data. If you just accuse the other side of ignoring the science or of buying into a conspiracy, then you are doing the equivalent of name-calling.

It's okay if you just accept a position by faith. That's reasonable. However, it's not reasonable to say that your position is based on science rather than faith if that's what you are doing.

For example, if you don't understand why NASA is saying that the globe is warming while the satellite data says it is not, then you are just accepting their data by faith. If you don't understand why NASA says the early part of the 20th century was colder than what they said it was in 1999, then you are taking them by faith against common sense.

We have had satellite readings since 1979. Red and Green lines below show the global mean temperature constructed from the satellite data according to two different groups.

They both show a positive trend over 1979 - 2016.

 

[AE 87]

We have had satellite readings since 1979. Red and Green lines below show the global mean temperature constructed from the satellite data according to two different groups.

They both show a positive trend over 1979 - 2016.

It shows no sig warming over last 18yrs. Last 2 yrs are largely el nino, iiuc.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It shows no sig warming over last 18yrs. Last 2 yrs are largely el nino, iiuc.

1998 was El Nino too. So we really can't make 100% definitive conclusions. It could be that we are warming, or the last year+ could turn out like the other El Nino event in 1998 and then we fall back down in line with the previous decades. The other thing you have to watch for is scale. Look at this scale - we're making decisions on if the temperatures have risen or not by parsing within 0.2 degrees. That is such a minor minuscule amount of temperature change, especially given all the variability in temperature readings and climate worldwide that at some point it borders on the ridiculous. Even the most ardent global warming folks offer a net change over the last 100-125 years of barely 1 degree Celsius.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

ClimateGate 2.0?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

One of the better summations I've seen. I assume he is a Nobel laureate but that doesn't matter as he is apparently part of the irrational 3% climate scientist deniers. Hold that, he's a scientist but may not specialize in "climate science" so is likely not "qualified" to comment on this topic.

Interesting also that he spoke of his concerns just prior to Paris....and thus just prior to Climategate 2.0. I think Dr. Judith Curry was getting lambasted by lib U.S. senators at about this same time for her "irrational denial of AGW."