bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Okay, please. Another member asked to see evidence of cooling, so I provided some evidence of cooling (however slight, and certainly no evidence of warming). Moreover, the data was obtained from USCRN sites specifically commissioned to avoid the pitfalls of older climate data collecting sites. The USCRN is managed by NOAA, from the "denier nation" of course. Similarly, we can find evidence of cooling (and warming) in Antarctica, impacting sea ice. See, the science isn't settled after all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I believe the questions were as to why you claim there is an over-reliance on data from the U.S. and why you call the U.S. the "denier nation." 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 (edited) I believe the questions were as to why you claim there is an over-reliance on data from the U.S. and why you call the U.S. the "denier nation." My claim was in the context of U.S. sources (including media) being used in the absence of other national data sets, either out of convenience or necessity, to sell the global warming religion here on MLW. If it's a global problem, where is the commensurate investment and commitment, starting with...ummm...Canada ? How did the "denier nation" (under President Bush) come to be the most often referenced source of climate change data collection and analysis on this forum ? The OP references the NSIDC, which is funded largely through NASA & NOAA for data archiving and analysis. Here is the Arctic as seen by NASA's Terra satellite....where are all the others ? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Edited June 16, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I'm confused. You still didn't explain why you call it the "denier nation." Are you implying the U.S. data is biased and skewed towards denying climate change? Your posts would suggest the opposite. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
waldo 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. your past ready go-to guy, ex TV weatherman "Tony Willard Watts" sure did speak to fraud, didn't he? Clearly, the way you're all over adjustments, casting aspersion toward NOAA, is your version of the same. I expect it wouldn't take me but a few search cycles to show just how you have not accepted Arctic sea-ice extent melting... do you really want to go there? and when the USCRN data begins to show a bias of some kind... attempts will be made to analyze how to remove/lessen that bias; i.e., homogenization! What a concept. As for your "believe what they report", I just provided you a graphic that speaks to a comparison of USHCN vs. USCRN vs. ClimDiv... a graphic that showed virtually no difference. What you should have said is, "you believe what you selectively want to believe". But hey now, that homogenization sure seems to be working quite well, doesn't it, hey Simple? You can gravitate all you want to your nonsense about USCRN being more representative... the point you can't ignore is that the official US CONUS temperature record is not based on USCRN; rather today, it's based on the ClimDiv data/dataset. . Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) 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 !!! all raw data is made available... in the past I've presented several graphs that provide a comparison of raw versus adjusted data; results that show the long-term trend is unaffected by adjustments made to remove bias/errors within the data. I also did so in this thread not that far back - here. There's no "gaming", there's no "monkey business", there's no BS, there's "nothing to hide"... there is no decline in global warming. and ole denier can spout off anything without supporting or substantiating statements/claims... you're a fine example of same. Edited June 16, 2015 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 ... compared to the "denier nation". you've now distracted this thread repeatedly... dropping your "denier nation" turd many times now. As I said to you in an earlier post within this thread: in the past this was an oft-repeated ploy of yours... to label the U.S. as the "denier nation". Of course it stems from past exchanges where you claim the label attachment has been made... and more pointedly, that it was I that did so. As I've posted several times in the past, I did no such thing and challenged you to provide a link to a quote of mine where such a label was provided in that regard. Of course, you have never done so. Instead you now repeat your ploy... incessantly, over and over and over, again! again, 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. It would certainly be most helpful to have you provide insight as to why you continue to purposely use the phrase "denier nation" in labeling the U.S. ... 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 Is this an attempt to hide the fact that you are unable to answer Waldo's polite request for clarification? he has no intention to that end. What he is doing is a well-exercised denier ploy intended to bury inconvenient posts... just watch how many the guy can drop while managing to never actually respond to my, as you say, "polite request for clarification"!!! Quote
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I'm confused. You still didn't explain why you call it the "denier nation." Are you implying the U.S. data is biased and skewed towards denying climate change? Your posts would suggest the opposite. Quote
WWWTT 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! LOL! Lots of details and specifics there. Your problem is that you don't like it! So your reply is typically "denier denier denier, pants on fire!" 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!
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I'm confused. You still didn't explain why you call it the "denier nation." Are you implying the U.S. data is biased and skewed towards denying climate change? Your posts would suggest the opposite. The answer is in your questions. The U.S. was/is a "denier nation" in politics and policies, yet arguably yielded the most global warming climate change data and analysis stemming from decades of resource investments that many other nations have not matched or even attempted. Time to put the "global" back into "global warming". For the record, I have never been a climate change "denier", but certain folk insist on using such labels as part of their climate change religion. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Another member asked to see evidence of cooling, so I provided some evidence of cooling (however slight, and certainly no evidence of warming). a reduced rate of warming is not your stated, "evidence of cooling"! And yes, your denier reliance on a most selective short period interval is noted... notwithstanding you're focused on localized regional land only data... the contiguous U.S. states... you know, what you consider "the globe"! and ya, you know, that short interval you prefer does not provide an adequate length of time to eliminate the influence of natural variability. In this most pointed of short intervals deniers like to choose, there have been a number of possible contributing influences... like a non-typical number of more cooler La Nina events, like the increased effect of cooling aerosols relative to the most significant increased Chinese industrialization, like a greater amount of aerosol related cooling relative to greater volcanic activity during the period in question, etc.. And, of course, the most recent NOAA adjustments include, for example, more representative global station inclusion. Pause? What pause? . Moreover, the data was obtained from USCRN sites specifically commissioned to avoid the pitfalls of older climate data collecting sites. The USCRN is managed by NOAA, from the "denier nation" of course. Similarly, we can find evidence of cooling (and warming) in Antarctica, impacting sea ice. See, the science isn't settled after all. oh my! Another of your "denier nation" turds dropped... more please... can we have another? Ah yes, perpetuate the denier "science is settled" meme! Well done! . Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) all raw data is made available... in the past I've presented several graphs that provide a comparison of raw versus adjusted data; results that show the long-term trend is unaffected by adjustments made to remove bias/errors within the data. I also did so in this thread not that far back - here. There's no "gaming", there's no "monkey business", there's no BS, there's "nothing to hide"... there is no decline in global warming. and ole denier can spout off anything without supporting or substantiating statements/claims... you're a fine example of same. Ya you see this is the big problem with the alarmists. They always point to data on graphs, tables and charts. Make grand claims that the data means this or it means that. Now lets compare that to other sciences like medical or aviation. If medical scientists say smoking is bad, then guess what? People who smoke a lot die of lung cancer or other related ailments. Have I lost anyone yet? Didn't really need a pie graph to tell me that my uncle who liked to smoke had a shitty last 10 years of his life and died in his early 70's as a result. Or when there's advancements in aviation, people can actually see the plane flying in the sky or better yet, safely ride one to an destination. Once again, no bell curve required or a bunch of numerous links pointing to miniscule numbers that's supposed to mean a plane can fly. Now lets look at global warming science. Lots of numbers, graphs and coloured charts. But where's the smoking gun? WWWTT Edited June 16, 2015 by 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 LOL! Lots of details and specifics there. Your problem is that you don't like it! So your reply is typically "denier denier denier, pants on fire!" no - my reply was to emphasize you don't know what you're talking about... to highlight your forte is to simply drop C&P links from denier blogs... to showcase that you don't add anything of your own interpretation... to indicate you're simply a denier Cut&Paste arteeest! again, you provided nothing to speak to the influence of the reference standard error in regards to ice-sheet measurement. You provided "no detail and no specifics there". Your problem is you don't like that I spoke to your C&P wizardry completely devoid of related detail/specifics relative to ice-sheet melting. Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 no - my reply was to emphasize you don't know what you're talking about... to highlight your forte is to simply drop C&P links from denier blogs... to showcase that you don't add anything of your own interpretation... to indicate you're simply a denier Cut&Paste arteeest! Your problem is you don't like that I spoke to your C&P wizardry Is this your debate tactic? Accuse fellow posters in every comment you make? Should I call you an alarmist quack science regurgitator in response each time? 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 Have I lost anyone yet? But where's the smoking gun? you keep blustering over this "smoking gun" of yours. As I said in an earlier reply to you mentioning this: there are many lines of empirical evidence... I even provided you a most recent example that moved from theory & lab to direct measurement ... and again, of course, within the context and balance of your precipitous "smoking gun", science/scientific finding includes assessments of error and uncertainty! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 your past ready go-to guy, ex TV weatherman "Tony Willard Watts" sure did speak to fraud, didn't he? Clearly, the way you're all over adjustments, casting aspersion toward NOAA, is your version of the same. I expect it wouldn't take me but a few search cycles to show just how you have not accepted Arctic sea-ice extent melting... do you really want to go there? and when the USCRN data begins to show a bias of some kind... attempts will be made to analyze how to remove/lessen that bias; i.e., homogenization! What a concept. As for your "believe what they report", I just provided you a graphic that speaks to a comparison of USHCN vs. USCRN vs. ClimDiv... a graphic that showed virtually no difference. What you should have said is, "you believe what you selectively want to believe". But hey now, that homogenization sure seems to be working quite well, doesn't it, hey Simple? You can gravitate all you want to your nonsense about USCRN being more representative... the point you can't ignore is that the official US CONUS temperature record is not based on USCRN; rather today, it's based on the ClimDiv data/dataset. . Boy - that's a whole lot of blather....... first, you tell me that the US constitutes only a minute portion of Global Temperatures.....but then go on to say what a big deal it is that the ClimDiv data agrees with USCRN - an agreement that confirms that the US has been cooling for the last 10 years. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Is this your debate tactic? Accuse fellow posters in every comment you make? Should I call you an alarmist quack science regurgitator in response each time? you're adding nothing of value/substance here... in line with your penchant for simply blindly linking to denier blogs, dropping direct quotes... but never actually adding any related interpreted understanding of your own. Now you're simply distracting from the fact your latest blusterbus routine had you providing no details/specifics in how you presume to speak to that positional reference standard impacting upon ice-sheet measurement/melting. Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 you keep blustering over this "smoking gun" of yours. As I said in an earlier reply to you mentioning this: there are many lines of empirical evidence... I even provided you a most recent example that moved from theory & lab to direct measurement ... and again, of course, within the context and balance of your precipitous "smoking gun", science/scientific finding includes assessments of error and uncertainty! LOL! More "measurements"? Yes I remember you posting your link to "measurements" of new found "data". But like I said before, why always measurements, data, graphs and coloured charts? Here's a good one! If say you get into a car accident through no fault of your own, and you claim you are injured. Go to court with only numbers graphs and coloured charts. Don't bother with actually trying to show pain and suffering to a judge. Just rely on the numbers! 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 Boy - that's a whole lot of blather....... first, you tell me that the US constitutes only a minute portion of Global Temperatures.....but then go on to say what a big deal it is that the ClimDiv data agrees with USCRN - an agreement that confirms that the US has been cooling for the last 10 years. the blather is yours, all yours! The, as you say, "big deal" is showcasing your rambling nonsense phrasing about, "zealots... True Believers... True Deniers", was you basing your blather on the fact you had no understanding of how adjustments to ClimDiv (or USHCN) parallel your postured, "best, most representative USCRN data" results! you've been advised many times over: a reduced rate of warming... is not cooling! And still, you choose to narrowly isolate on the 1.5% of the earth represented by the contiguous U.S. states!!! . Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 you're adding nothing of value/substance here... in line with your penchant for simply blindly linking to denier blogs, dropping direct quotes... but never actually adding any related interpreted understanding of your own. Now you're simply distracting from the fact your latest blusterbus routine had you providing no details/specifics in how you presume to speak to that positional reference standard impacting upon ice-sheet measurement/melting. In other words all you have is the same or more numbers, graphs and coloured charts. Or wait wait wait don't tell me, a link to some new DATA! How can anyone deny data? 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 (edited) But like I said before, why always measurements, data, graphs and coloured charts? yes, clearly... yet another denier with a phobia over presentation format! Keep dancing; soon you'll have the more significant posts recently put down buried beneath all your minutia! . Edited June 16, 2015 by waldo Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 yes, clearly... yet another denier with a phobia . When in doubt you can always call the other poster a denier. Does this mean I can sue someone using a pie chart now? 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 When in doubt you can always call the other poster a denier. Does this mean I can sue someone using a pie chart now? instead of more of your minutia... yet more of it, why don't you take up my direct challenge to you to provide details/specifics of the orbital positioning reference standard error as it affects upon ice-sheet topographical measurement and related conversions to mass reduction (melting) and sea-level rise equivalency. Why don't you do that, hey! Quote
WWWTT Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 So is there any word on who the "victims" of ice melting are and if they brought their cases to some kind of court? I'm sure waldo would be interested in putting a case together consisting of data,charts and coloured graphs together that should clearly prove damages. But who ever heard of such a strange thing as a court of law settling a dispute? 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!
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.