eyeball Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 If it's being fixed on the public's dime, that's fraud. Why no perp walk? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 Show us this "cooling" BC. The claim that all of the world's data has been fixed to show something that isn't happening amounts to a conspiracy theory. Just use America's Google and find it...like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Keepitsimple Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Posted June 13, 2015 Just use America's Google and find it...like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/ Thanks BC - I forgot all about the USCRN results. Real world data like this should at least give pause to those non-zeolots who innocently swallow everything that the media plays up. But the zeolots - the True Believers? As I've said before - they are the true deniers and nothing will deter them from their belief that the world is warming and humans are almost entirely responsible. I guess all that CO2 that the US pumps out as one of the largest emitters must be floating over to other countries because it sure isn't heating up the US. Puzzling, isn't it? Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 Thanks BC - I forgot all about the USCRN results. Real world data like this should at least give pause to those non-zeolots who innocently swallow everything that the media plays up. But the zeolots - the True Believers? As I've said before - they are the true deniers and nothing will deter them from their belief that the world is warming and humans are almost entirely responsible. I guess all that CO2 that the US pumps out as one of the largest emitters must be floating over to other countries because it sure isn't heating up the US. Puzzling, isn't it? Try telling all that to the folks in the southern states as they gear up for the next heat wave while the crops are all failing due to yet another drought. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 Just use America's Google America's Google says the lower 48 are cooling, aka "the world". Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 America's Google says the lower 48 are cooling, aka "the world". So now you want to ignore American data and evidence of cooling? Fickle crowd. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 So now you want to ignore American data and evidence of cooling? Fickle crowd. Not at all. Until Waldo cruises by and blows your source out of the water as per usual, I will accept with skepticism the idea that there's some cherry-picked cooling period for the lower 48 states, otherwise known as "the world"... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Not at all. Until Waldo cruises by and blows your source out of the water as per usual, I will accept with skepticism the idea that there's some cherry-picked cooling period for the lower 48 states, otherwise known as "the world"... I don't live in fear of other members....it has been 'merkin data all around for quite some time but now you cry foul ? Rest assured that you and other members will be linking to NOAA, NSIDC, GISS, NASA, and other AMERICAN resources for so called climate change. I would link to more Canadian sources, but they are as scarce as hen's teeth. The USCRN data collection sites were set up to specifically cut through all the crap about how/where climate data is collected. Further, no more games with hiding the raw data sets or "adjusting" them after the fact. The "world" can start spending lots more its own money if it cares so much about data collection and analysis. Edited June 13, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 I don't live in fear of other members.... Of course not. Fear of being wrong isn't fear of other members, I would never suggest that. it has been 'merkin data all around for quite some time but now you cry foul ? Not at all. I love American things: Bob Dylan, The Grateful Dead, The Daily Show, BurningMan, Democracy, Gay Rights, Data, all of it... Keep doing what you do. Your vulnerabilities are your strengths, and we are forever tied to our southern friends, and doomed to live in perpetual frozen envy. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Of course not. Fear of being wrong isn't fear of other members, I would never suggest that. Then don't...I also don't live in fear of "being wrong". I don't need other members to rescue me. Not at all. I love American things: Bob Dylan, The Grateful Dead, The Daily Show, BurningMan, Democracy, Gay Rights, Data, all of it... Off topic....give yourself a warning point. The topic is sea ice and climate change data. You specifically asked for evidence of cooling. Suddenly U.S. data isn't good enough ? Keep doing what you do. Your vulnerabilities are your strengths, and we are forever tied to our southern friends, and doomed to live in perpetual frozen envy. No doubt....your country can't/won't even invest in climate data collection throughout Canada, or even let Canadian scientists comment without government approval. Environment Canada's budget has been slashed. No wonder there is frozen envy. Edited June 13, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Keepitsimple Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Posted June 13, 2015 Try telling all that to the folks in the southern states as they gear up for the next heat wave while the crops are all failing due to yet another drought. Yes - they are having yet another severe drought - like they seem to have every 10 to 15 years. As a matter of fact - Droughts have not been that rare in the US - but now, with the incessant need for immediate, sensational news - we can tie everything to cataclysmic Global Warming. But hey - don't let facts get in the way. Have a look at the history of droughts in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_States Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 The measurement you are doubting is in regards to "sea level rise". I'm not doubting any measurement. Again, you put forward a link that identifies the presence of spurious data introduced by satellite altimeter based measurement... and that spurious data reflects upon a required reference frame standard to support altimeter measurement. And yes... the ONLY measurement example given is with respect to radar altimeter satellite readings for sea-level rise... where a comparison is then drawn to tidal guage measurements. That's the point I keep making! Your (now dated) denier blog link presumes to attempt to undercut the published paper mentioned (now 2012 dated) that brings together 47 scientists from groups that previously disagreed on the amount of Greenland/Antarctic ice-sheet melting... as a part of the "Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE); a collaboration between 47 researchers from 26 laboratories --- supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But... again... your denier blog doesn't provide any accuracy figures for the impact of the reference standard error in regards to laser altimeter measurements for ice-sheet melting. I repeatedly emphasized the significant topographic scale difference involved in melting ice-sheets. now, again, this thread's focus and discussion was on the extent of sea-ice/ice-sheet melting... that's been my focus. You are the first to speak to a direct measuring of sea-level rise; you can certainly shift to a discussion of sea-level rise, but sea-level rise derived from ice-sheet melting is a calculation (sea level equivalent), not a direct measurement. In any case, if you choose to do so, any discussion on sea-level rise certainly isn't all-encompassing with just a focus on radar altimeter measurement. As for the discrepancy that is highlighted in your linked reference, the uncertainty is a known quantity and scientists identify it as a part of overall uncertainty. Certainly, the reference standard needs to be improved; however, as it stands the international body that oversees and maintains the standard has that very focus/mandate. Your linked article example draws upon two earlier standard iterations, not the most recent and not the latest coming into effect this year. As I interpret, this latest iteration continues to improve upon the reference standard accuracy but it still remains significant..... but again, a known quantity that will be a part of the overall range uncertainty. if you presume to question the real impact of that reference standard on ice-sheet (volume) measurements (and your sea-level rise focus), you'll need to step-up and qualify that related orbital positioning impact on the direct measurement of ice-sheet topographic differences and subsequent conversions to mass and to sea-level equivalence... whether related to radar altimetry, laser altrimetry, gravimetry... Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Until someone takes the time to verify your claims. WWWTT I took some time to examine the BS put forward in your latest (dated) denier blog link... what's stopping you, hey? Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Geez - don't get your shorts in a knot again - you'll blow a gasket......I just found it very odd that the hottest years on record are the most recent ones - yet no State heat records have been set - while three cold records have. I'm just one of those everyday, high school science guys.. I look at things pragmatically......especially predictions and resulting observations. As for the US representing just a small amount of the Globe's surface.....sure.....but that small amount just happens to have the most extensive, accurate, historical temperature measurement system......by far. no knotted shorts here! What you find "odd" is self-serving and selective... its kinda what you do. And yes, the contiguous U.S. represents only 1.5% of the earth's surface... and when you choose to purposely look at a small sampling... a self-serving targeted sample... a short-term trending sample, you're not looking at climate. But you know this! You've had this presented to you many times over - and yet you persist! Deniers gonna deny. Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 An over reliance on data from the U.S. and U.S. agencies further skews the perspective and analyses. from a global perspective the data presented via NOAA or NASA... is global data. Per moderator direction and template provision, please reconcile/clarify this, your quoted statement: Moderator Charles Anthony template (described as "the Canadian Way"): "Excuse me but what you said does not makes sense. Can you explain why it is so, in your opinion? Please, thank you and I am sorry you bumped into me." . The "dung heap" "denier nation" is also the climate change data hegemon...no irony in that. you continue to refer to the U.S. as the "denier nation". As I am aware, no MLW member has labeled the U.S. accordingly. Per moderator direction and template provision, please reconcile/clarify this, your quoted statement: Moderator Charles Anthony template (described as "the Canadian Way"): "Excuse me but what you said does not makes sense. Can you explain why it is so, in your opinion? Please, thank you and I am sorry you bumped into me." . Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/ Thanks BC - I forgot all about the USCRN results. Real world data like this should at least give pause to those non-zeolots who innocently swallow everything that the media plays up. But the zeolots - the True Believers? As I've said before - they are the true deniers and nothing will deter them from their belief that the world is warming and humans are almost entirely responsible. oh my, Simple! "True Believers... zealots... the True Deniers". Always refreshing to see you uncloak and present your real denial. so... yet another piece of tailored misinformation from the Heartland Institutes in-house lawyer, "James Taylor". Of course, he drops a buried one-liner caveat to acknowledge his 10-year snapshot is not adequate for appropriate longer-term climate trending... when he's taken as many trouncings as he has over the years, he's a tad gun shy and figures that will give him cover in everything else he pushes forward. Equally, he speaks (purposely) to the USCRN in a manner that casts aspersion toward the current surface temperature record. points in fact: the USCRN is not a recent undertaking... it recently finished deployment in 2008 but it associates and reflects upon a 1999 U.S. NRC report and its findings calling for greater integrity in temperature monitoring and analysis. More pointedly, the initiative dovetails with the 1992/1998 'mission' of GCOS (Global Climate Observing System). Those 114 stations of the USCRN represent the U.S. contribution to GCOS... re: within Region IV of this document... where you will also Canada's commitment. but really Simple, how can you trust the USCRN network/results... that's from NOAA, you know... those "fraudsters from NOAA"! Oh wait Simple, does the following graphic give YOU PAUSE? (note: the following graphic is a snapshot that reflects upon chosen criteria within an available NCDC/NOAA presentation tool): note Simple: USHCN has been usurped by ClimDiv... you know, by those wascally NOAA types! Now what was it you were saying about, as you stated, "True Believers... zealots... the True Deniers"? Hey, Simple? . I guess all that CO2 that the US pumps out as one of the largest emitters must be floating over to other countries because it sure isn't heating up the US. Puzzling, isn't it? hey Simple, does the U.S. have its own isolated atmosphere? Is global warming the same as localized regional U.S. contiguous warming, particularly cherry-picked for short-term focus/trending results? The same Simple? . Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I took some time to examine the BS put forward in your latest (dated) denier blog link... what's stopping you, hey? For something that you claim is BS on one hand, you seem to give quite a bit of credit and acknowledgment to on the other! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 nope, sorry... you be wrong! I fully qualified the BS; as in attempting to undercut the highlighted paper (that speaks to ice-sheet melting), by speaking to a positional focused reference standard... without giving any details, specifics, measurement inaccuracy attached to satellite based topographic ice-sheet measurement. Of course, you fell in lock-step with your grandiose Cut&Paste wizardry... notwithstanding you have no idea what you're talking about! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 but really Simple, how can you trust the USCRN network/results... that's from NOAA, you know... those "fraudsters from NOAA"! I've never called the NOAA "fraudsters" - I actually have no opinion on them. I've long followed their ice-extent reporting and haven't had anything to complain about. As long as USCRN results are not "adjusted" or "homogenized" for anything but error-correction on a case-by-case basis, I'll believe what they report. Purity of data has not been the hallmark of Global Historical Temperature Anomoles. Quote Back to Basics
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I've never called the NOAA "fraudsters" - I actually have no opinion on them. I've long followed their ice-extent reporting and haven't had anything to complain about. As long as USCRN results are not "adjusted" or "homogenized" for anything but error-correction on a case-by-case basis, I'll believe what they report. Purity of data has not been the hallmark of Global Historical Temperature Anomoles. That's for sure....all data should be made available in pure, unadulterated form, complete with errors. If the research requires some translation, adjustment, or other monkey business that's fine for alarmist propaganda, but don't try to game us with the data anomaly BS as before. What are these guys trying to hide? The decline !!! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 What are these guys trying to hide? The decline !!! Is this an attempt to hide the fact that you are unable to answer Waldo's polite request for clarification? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Is this an attempt to hide the fact that you are unable to answer Waldo's polite request for clarification? No, polite or not (and usually not), said member has been on ignore per mods direction (and common sense) for a very long time. I have already clarified the matter as originally presented by another member. Here's hoping that Canada can contribute more resources and data to the game compared to the "denier nation". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) I have already clarified the matter as originally presented by another member. Here's hoping that Canada can contribute more resources and data to the game compared to the "denier nation". Yes, I have found that posters often use the ignore function when they feel out of their league and unable to defend themselves. But seeing as you knew what I was talking about despite claiming to have ignored it, can you clarify what you meant again, seeing as it still makes no sense? Edited June 16, 2015 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Yes, I have found that posters often use the ignore function when they feel out of their league and unable to defend themselves. But seeing as you knew what I was talking about despite claiming to have ignored it, can you clarify what you meant again, seeing as it still makes no sense? Only if you say please. I don't have to defend myself or my "denier nation" climate data. The forum is much more peaceful when following the mods directive to ignore (and report as needed). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Okay, please. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.