Slashdot Mirror

Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.

They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.

That quote is wrong. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.

Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.

On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.

The reason is they're really easy to avoid.

Fake quotes are popular because they contradict the accepted persona of the person, for instance if a person is a Liberal the fake quote will be a Trump endorsement, a famous atheist will endorse religion, and if they're a climate scientist it will be an extreme prediction or admission of malfeasence.

But that also makes them really easy to spot, when you see a quote that's too good to be true all you need to do is check the sources and you'll figure out if it's real.

You got caught by that fake Hanson quote. Why is it?

Is your model of James Hansen and other climate scientists wrong, so you couldn't recognize a prediction they wouldn't give?

Or were you just too eager to use the quote that you didn't want to look too closely?

Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.

They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.

Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.

Let's try strong rope around their treasonous, faggot lying necks, and about 10 feet of drop beneath their feet. Let's see if that stops the cowards' bullshit denialism.

Just so that we're all clear here:

1. Calling them faggots puts you on the right side.
2. Threatening the hanging of someone, and seeing if that makes them stop talking, makes them cowards.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I think I now understand how Democrats keep electing sexists, racists, and bigots while decrying sexists, racists, and bigots. If you claim you aren't one loud enough, I suppose it makes you not one regardless of your actions.

On topic: I suppose if you constantly refine the source data material of your research, then you can pretty easily make that data say whatever you want. Weirdly that's exactly what NOAA and NASA are doing each year. Eventually it will look like the average day from the 50s was 2 degrees above freezing just to make it look like we're continuing to warm at the suggested rates.

The pauses were so significant, and the 21st century hiatus in particular, serious adjustments to the dataset were needed to hide them. Of course those pesky, original untampered data are still around.

Nobody wants to say fraud, but some things go unsaid.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/climate-scientists-manipulated-temperatu

Anecdotally, this summer has been the coolest and wettest I can remember in at least 60 years or more. The average first frost date is November 4th. We had a hard freeze of 27F three weeks early, which followed a 5" snow on Oct 14th. Elephants and Giraffe in Africa are wading through 10" of a late spring snow. While claiming such snow falls are common the news media are still making a big deal of it, so it must not be as common as some claim. How many times in the past have you seen photos of elephants in Africa wading through deep snow?
https://www.msn.com/en-za/trav...

And, why would he pay of the "winner" had the advantage of being supported by fudged data?

https://realclimatescience.com...

https://science.house.gov/news...

https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

AGW is all about dialectical materialism: the transfer of wealth from the West to Marxist countries via "Carbon Credits", which made Al Gore a millionaire.
http://variable-variability.bl...

... But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics . This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, ...

IOW, Climate Change is used by Globalists to justify their push toward Marxist "solutions" to all problems. They have their "Arm and Hammer" and they see every problem as a nail requiring hits from their hammer.

Thirty years ago we were told the Maldives were going to disappear by now, from Climate Change and sea level rise. In fact, the Maldives Cabinet met underwater to highlight their plight. However, they obviously are still there considering they just expanded their airport.

So before we consider the claims from a given set of models projecting sometime in the future, let's look at the accuracy of their previous claims. If they weren't very accurate (as we're seeing with this and 95% of the models in the IPCC), then we should ask for further justification why we should believe their models this time.

Sorry, you're wrong.

As a HS physics and math teacher during the 1970's I remember very well the alarmist warnings about the planet freezing due to natural cooling. Those alarmists were usually the sames ones who were spouting "nuclear winter" if we weren't more agreeable with the USSR concerning arms control. I include a link to a PDF of a Newsweek article
http://www.denisdutton.com/new...
because it contains a graph by the gov's NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) which showed the average temperature decline from 1940 to 1970. The graph is significant because this year NASA released their "data" for the same period and they have conveniently eliminated the 30 year drop in temperatures.
https://realclimatescience.com...

There was no Internet back then, as you should know, so mass communication was done through newspapers and periodicals. Those sources were about evenly divided politically, and editors filtered letters to the editor, sometimes making them appear just the opposite of what the writer actually wrote (from personal experience).

Most trusted were the talking heads of the TV news casts. In the early 1980s 8' satellite TV dishes were set up in villages and at farm houses in rural areas because city based cable TV companies would not string cable out to those locations for economic reasons. When properly aligned (installing and aligning them was part of my business) the viewer could swing across the sky to tune in channels transmitted by 5watt transponders (thus the need for 8' dishes) on various satellites. One satellite was Westar IV, which contained the ABC news feeds. Folks would watch Max Robinson and Frank Reynalds discuss how they would present the news. One could watch the live feed, which was never broadcast and didn't include ads, then watch the actual news cast which was later broadcast. The difference between what one saw watching the live feed versus what the two talking heads said had happened destroyed my faith in the integrity of the evening news broadcasts. They had an agenda and they didn't mind lying about the news to spread it.

Folks in the rural areas began protesting to local TV affiliates, especially with tape recordings comparing what actually happened with what was presented. One I remember very clearly was President Reagan arriving at a NOW convention. He walked onto the stage and got a 10 minute standing ovation. He spoke for about 20-30 minutes and, as was customary with Reagan, he interspersed about a dozen jokes. All but one received raucous laughter. He got another 5 minute standing ovation as he left the stage. That's what I saw. The 5pm ABC World News Tonight started off with "Reagan received mixed approval at the NOW convention", played the video clip where the woman didn't laugh at that one joke, and then followed it with a 1 minute and 47 second rant by Eleanor Smeal about how Reagan was going to drag women by the hair back into the stone age. If Reynolds and Robinson were to be believed Reagan barely got out of the NOW convention alive. So it was with every political story, always slanted to favor the Democrats.

The national TV corporations began encrypting their transponder signals so the common folk could not see the ACTUAL news for themselves and make up their own minds. The response was a brief market in decryption chips, which Congress made illegal to make, sell or buy in the US, following intensive lobbying by the broadcasting companies. So, rural folks have not trusted national news for the last 30-40 years, which explains, in part, why rural areas are conservative. That big cities got their info from slanted news casts explains why they are mostly "Liberal".

With the Internet the big corporations and social websites do not control ALL of the news. Local news shows (radio or TV) and videos taken by

Don't want to listen to Mr. Coleman? Need text? Need to be shown how they're changing facts? Check this out:
https://realclimatescience.com...
if you dare.

The Roman thing I have no idea if it's right or not. They are archaeologists and that was their claim. That's out of my field. Maybe that's why it was taken down. Who knows. What I can tell you is that sea levels have been rising, for a very long time. I found journals where they were trying to keep the Adriatic out of Venice in the 14th century. Of course they failed.

As for your experiment, that's funny. You don't even know what you don't know with that one. Just put air in them and it'll warm up. Usually warmer than with the CO2. What's going on is about two lectures in college. I bet you think green houses are warm because of CO2, as if they pump CO2 in or something. Let me know, I've never seen a CO2 tank near one nor any other source of co2 for a green house. It's not warm because of co2.

If by now especially with the references I've given you, you don't get it you probably never will. Especially where that site shows how they've changed data to support MMGW. Whenever they change data, they lose. It's fake science.

That was a start. I see I have to supply the supplemental material. Fair enough.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Physics behind it - http://www.earth-climate.com/

A site that has put together a whole lot of research - https://realclimatescience.com...

How did we get here? A D science student from Harvard -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Once you look at this stuff, it's hard to not see he fraud that has been put upon us at great expense. So the question is - will you allow yourself to be fooled again by guys like Al Gore?

So where is this proof that man has any effect on climate? We have some models, that over the years haven't worked out based on the current level of CO2. As Einstein said - once there is on counter example your proof/theory is no more. Yet they keep trying to prove it is instead of realizing it's not CO2. CO2 is a symptom, not the cause and history going back millions of years proves that. Paying Al Gore a whole bunch of money won't change that. It'll make his get rich quick scheme work, however. It's helped shoddy science that we should all be upset about prevail. Science where we can never reproduce the results that some people received a PhD for.

One really good indicator that MMGW is a scam is we know the nuts at NASA have been changing the data. All you have to do is look at the way back machine and you can see definitively that the 1930s is not as hot as it actually was. Stubborn facts, so they changed them.

https://realclimatescience.com...

Actually, the sea ice extent was LOWER in 2006, for NASA's own data. Further, this years ice extent is roughly equivalent to a couple years, over the past decade. What's happening hear is that several thousand people whom rely on the climate change scam, for their paycheck, are ramping up the BS so they can remain on the gravy train.... Here's the graph of the MASIE data.... feel like a real scientist, review it for yourself! https://realclimatescience.com...

North American is experiencing some of the coldest months on record. https://realclimatescience.com...

I've been studying this for literally 30 years. [yawn] Still waiting for the flood. Sure see a lot of Noah wannabees though. You'd think 30 years of fearmongering, failed models, and blown predictions would've lessened the fanaticism on the Left. But like they like to say: never let a crisis go to waste. And this crisis literally can hand them control over the entire human race. So, needless to say - you're all pretty motivated. You're so motivated and think you're all such geniuses, that you don't even bother to notice when NOAA posts obviously contradictory data in the same release. https://realclimatescience.com...
Get back to me in 30 more years, and we'll do this again from my yacht in Utah. m'kay?

I've been asking the same thing for years.

https://realclimatescience.com...

Oh wait, those aren't the PARTICULAR lies we're talking about? I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a faux-objective-but-actually-political-rant?

How many times have I heard it's weather not climate applied to the U.S. Regional numbers ?

Anyway, It's kind of amazing that 100% of the reported warming in the U.S. comes from adjustments to the raw data

https://realclimatescience.com...

Whats more those adjustments perfectly correlate to the increase in CO2 levels

Oh my

Amazingly enough, if you remove the original data and ONLY show the adjustments it maps exactly to the warming that they show.

Whats that? Someone took their data, compared it to the original data, and mapped their adjustments? And they got the warming trend shown EXACTLY?!?! That must be unpossible.
Story
So if we remove the adjustments, there is no warming at all and we have a stable temperature. I wonder what that means?

I brought up a tough point to counter. I bet its time for some name calling and down modding. I'm willing to bet you never knew this and deep down you are beginning to wonder which side is the denier of science.

I have a feeling you didn't listen to the presentation. He IS a scientist. He explains his credentials in the beginning if you listened, or maybe you don't recognize them? He founded the weather channel. He explains how we've all been lied to. There is no mountain of evidence. There is no scientific consensus. He explains how they came up with the 97% of scientist claim - they are anonymous "scientists" by the way and there weren't even 100 of them. So we have no idea if it was just a number pulled out of someone's mind or not. Probably is just a made up number.

Here's a reporter that looked into this as well. He shows you the game they're playing so no matter what happens, they "predicted" it. - http://vernalutah.org/EnergySu...

Here is a site where a guy has methodically documented the fraud - http://realclimatescience.com/...

To quote you - "Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality." - such as the models not working time and time and time again. Einstein put it well - you don't need hundreds of scientists to prove him wrong, you just need one. It only takes one counter example to prove your theory wrong. We've proven Man made GW is wrong, many times and you know it if you've been paying attention. Do I need to send you links to Al Gore's hurricane/weater predictions of 10 years ago? Pull up the laughable predictions from the 1990s? We've had fewer and weaker hurricanes.

You need to know when you're being lied to. That guy lying to you is Al Gore. He's made about 500 million off this lie so far. Not bad for a guy that got this idea from a science class at Harvard that he only earned a D in the class.

You're right. The claim of consensus has biased a large swath of people, particularly those in the community outside of the scientific realm (e.g., the media).

The reason for debate continuing to exist is pretty simple:

1. Scientists are just people doing a job. People doing jobs are capable of screwing up. In the case of climate change, people doing jobs tend to be in the academic field, where disagreement can lead to difficulty, particularly with securing tenure.
2. The outrageous claims continue to be proven untrue. The movie An Inconvenient Truth is itself an inconvenient truth for the climate change community.
3. Related sciences, like "simple" weather prediction is consistently proven inaccurate on the same day.
4. Most water level rising claims tend to be false-flags due to beach erosion rather than actually rising water. The fact that the community does not
5. The UN, one of the strongest proponents of climate change, has continuously shown itself to be a corrupt organization seeking retribution and taxes based on carbon emissions from first world nations. International treaties love to blame the US, which certainly is guilty of a lot of unclean climate practices, while ignoring manufacturing powerhouses like China, which has to consistently shutdown cities due to pollution.
6. The NOAA consistently massages its data to get the answer that it seeks. Data tampering is not okay in any other science, but it happens annually in the climate change field to "prove" statements.
7. Climate change cannot be questioned and falsehoods cannot be noted, except by lunatics and morons. This makes it incredibly unlikely that any real consensus will ever exist because one side has been silenced the entire time.

Finally, a lot of climate change fanatics are basically Sith Lords that deal solely in absolutes. It's all humanity's fault doesn't go over well when you're then reminded that any volcanic eruption does a lot worse than humans. Frankly, I take the safe route: there's no reason to not recycle and cleanup the Earth and there's no reason to needlessly burn things or drive gas guzzlers. Similarly, there's no reason to have so much plastic and paper waste that we continue to pile up.

A few years back I looked into global warming to find out if it was real. The thing that threw me off was that the vostok ice core data in the original 1999 report showed that CO2 ROSE AFTER the temperature went up and FELL AFTER the temperature went down. They fixed the data in the later reports to not show this relationship, but I knew something was screwy. Here's a good article on the evidence that NOAA is faking their data for political purposes:

http://realclimatescience.com/...

The other thing that also is funny is that the answer to global warming is always a global carbon tax or cap and trade, which is essentially a new petrodollar since all carbon credits are payed for in dollars so the us government can buy unlimited carbon credits for its favored industry while other countries have to get our dollars somehow to be able to burn fossil fuels. It's a great way to run an empire and control Russia's power as a leading oil exporter. So I eee the reasons for letting all the useful idiots to believe all this stuff, but for us critical thinkers it's pretty obvious it's a ingenious scam.

In looking at the graphs you cite I see several "precipitous" drops in temperature of similar magnitude and steepness. Maybe the most recent one is the fastest but I can't tell without downloading and analyzing the numbers but it doesn't stand out to the point where it's obvious. What is obvious is the positive temperature trend during the period of record. If you think you can tell anything about climatic temperature trends over a less than about 20 year period you're wrong.

We agree, nothing of a timescale less than 20 years is significant. What is very significant is that the underlying trend started around 150 years ago - well before the IPCC's AGW could have been the initiator of the change. What is absolutely fascinating is that the IPCC claims that this underlying trend went for 100 years naturally and then 'suddenly' switched off the natural cause and switched entirely to a 100% human-caused effect. I don't believe in magic, but apparently the IPCC do as this is their official position, all warming since 1950 is human-induced. Why do you believe in this magic ? what switched the century of natural warming off and instantaneously changed it to human warming? you support the IPCC so surely you know what this miraculous mechanism is, right ?

Solar magnetic variability. LOL. When you first brought it up a few years ago I looked into it some but I didn't find that it held water very well. I'm not saying it's impossible but the hypothesis is going to have to have better evidence for it than it has now. And it has to be fleshed out to the point where it does at least as good a job as current climate theory does in explaining the results we see in the climate.

The Little Ice Age is correlated with solar magnetic variability. This is beyond dispute. The current thinking is explained by the variation in cloud cover which is strongly correlated with the solar magnetic cycle, as shown by the research of Svensmark. A collaboration with the theoretician Shaviv has improved the theory. Things have move along - and thank you for at least starting to look at the undoubtedly NATURAL causes of the beginning of global warming 150 years ago. Of course, the climate is far to complex a system to have a single effect in play. Because cloud cover changes the oceanic cycles (AMO being particularly important) and surface-properties dependent biospheric response are also significant effects. What is abundantly clear now is that human-emitted CO2 is not the principal driver of global climate. This is why the IPCC admits that if humans adopted IPCC policy and deindustralize back to African-like conditions then the effect on the temperature is will be around 0.04 K.

Your team wants to destroy the First World and all halt progress (technology requires energy abundance), and kill billions of poor around the World through energy poverty, and this will have a 0.04 K effect of global climate. Let me guess, they never told you the projected temperature change if all the IPCC's wishes were fulfilled, did they ?

Well you've never heard me say snow is a thing of the past.

No, of course not. But the claim that snow would be a thing of the past and the polar bears are going extinct because we 'evil First Worlders' use energy and resist control of the UN over our economic lives, and resist giving 'green taxes' to rich cronyists and unelected UN apparatchiks is going to "destroy the world!". The fear is the thing that was used to sell this evil plan by control freaks to the masses - and the end of snow was a propaganda meme. Just because you didn't say it does not absolve you of your support of those that did (and still do !). Here are some newspaper articles showing the PROPAGANDA that has been used to indoctrinate people (it shows the motives of the alarmists are deceptive)
http://realclimatescience.com/...
And the same deal saying g

Last year was very warm due to 'super El Nino' conditions. El Nino occurs every 4 years or so, and is then followed by La Nina conditions which are usually very cold. This is probably why temperatures have plummeted so much that it snowed in the SAHARA yesterday. This is all natural fluctuations on top of the gradual rise that started 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age (where solar magnetic activity started changing terrestrial cloud formation, see the work by Svensmark and Shaviv for example). A mere 2% increase in water vapor has the same effect as a 100% increase in CO2, water vapor really is the dominant 'greenhouse gas'.

Here are pictures of yesterday's snow in the Sahara for anyone who is interested, the last time it was cold enough to snow here was 37 years ago:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12...
So much for all the clueless new agencies that said 'snow is a thing of the past' a decade ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
and all the 'ice free Arctic summer' forecasts also made by clueless mainstream media outlets
http://realclimatescience.com/...
They are a bunch of liars ! Don't fall for the lies anymore, dear Slashdotters. Especially don't let the frauds take your hard-earned cash as 'green tax' or take your individual liberty away in the name of 'saving the planet'. They got the science wrong and think they can win by lying to you to continue their globalist One World Government (UN) scam - which they control and you do not elect.

With regard to the claim that the Arctic won't freeze I believe the people making the claims don't seem to understand that an El Nino often delays winter conditions by months, but when they do come and form La Nina conditions then they come with a vengeance. Expect next year to be colder than normal. And after that the 4-year El Nino/La Nina cycle driven by the Pacific Ocean will start again.

Here are data from the Arctic (Danish sources that are not fraudulent politicized entities like US ones):
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland...
We see that Greenland (in the Arctic) has massive amounts of MORE ice than normal. We also see normal variability in the ice cover data, things look fairly normal and ice cover is currently in an increasing phase both for this time of year and since 2012
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...

Have a great Christmas dear Slashdotters, and I hope each of you has a much better 2017 than this year.

http://realclimatescience.com/...

...and as a moron, he will likely do moronic things.

I don't think that the article is great journalism, but warning people about possible dangers is a valid function of the media.

They're not doing that. Their journalism is very one sided. Has been for decades. Otherwise, Hillary would have never seen the light of day with all of her baggage. We could have a qualified Democratic President Elect right now if it weren't for MSM as they put it - doing everything they could for her.

As for this article, they refuse to do their due diligence as well. We know the Romans grew grapes in England while they occupied England. It was a lot warmer then. Then we hit a mini ice age. Now we're coming out of it. Some people want to profit by something that is happening naturally.

Here is a site dedicated to setting this straight - http://realclimatescience.com/...

The judge that allowed this suit to proceed is likely unaware that the scientific data shows no warming over the past 58 years:

http://realclimatescience.com/...

I'm certain the government will figure out some way to sink money into this, but the better way to piss off the Global Warming deniers is to actually have some Global Warming. http://realclimatescience.com/

The only reason that global warming is so alarming is because the scientific community has absolutely no idea what is causing it

Yes they do.

if it is indeed happening

Yes it is

You may not agree with the positions that this blog poster makes, but he makes some pretty critical points about climate change: http://realclimatescience.com/... . You cannot change the data to suit your needs; that's not science.

There is very little data in that post. There is a graph, which he claims is erroneous, with a link to the data. Then a graph that he claims is the true state of affairs, with... wait for it... no link to any data.

Scientists are just like everyone else: they're people with a job. Some of them are good at it but, frankly, most of them are decent-at-best at it -- just like every other job.

And when the top people in your particular field, having studied the information at hand, arrive at the same conclusion, do you immediately accuse them of collusion in a global plot to deceive everyone?

I asserted that Stern was an international communist,

Indeed you made that claim.

and produced research proving such.

No, you provided no such research. Perhaps you meant to and forgot to include a link? I'll give you a chance to provide one now.

You haven't offered one fact throughout any of this.

Then apparently you are not reading what I write. I can't fix that for you, you will choose to read what you choose to read.

.You just show up and wag your finger and lecture me about my "behavior"

Show up? I started this thread. I have pointed out many times before how hard to the right slashdot leans. You can pretend otherwise if you want. As for your behavior, you haven't provided any facts - while launching into one baseless attack against me after another - so it is about all you give me to reply to. If you would care to provide an actual fact, we can discuss it.

and pretend that your delicate sensibilities have been violated somehow by my "tone".

I never once claimed to be "violated", for whatever you think that means. You have, however, claimed more than once that I or others did that to you.

Try and add the FACT that temp data is being manipulated and corrupted to a conversation on global warming; see how that goes. http://realclimatescience.com/...

Where does the data come from? The blog claims it exists but offers no source whatsoever. Why should I believe them when they have a very obvious agenda?

Try to contradict a Black Lives Matter activist by giving proof that there is no such thing as "Driving while black" (at least in New Jersey) http://www.city-journal.org/ht... and see how that goes

First of all, that is from 2002 - it's well over a decade old. Second, it is discussing speeding on a stretch of freeway and it is discussing the rates at which drivers are pulled over for it - it is impossible to actually say how many people are speeding over a course of time as it is impossible to examine every one of them. Third, the "driving while black" pertains as much to driving through the city as anything, and more specifically is about being pulled over for a trivial - or even wholly fabricated - reason.

How in the world would you know if Slashdot was leftwing, if you've never offer a rightwing opinion?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Slashdot routinely shows itself to be hard-right. Why would I want to offer up a voice to the choir - especially when it contradicts my own beliefs?

For virtually every article on Slashdot where there is a leftwing opinion, try adding a rightwing one.

I don't have time to wait for "leftwing" articles, they show up extremely rarely here. I comment on generally 1-2 a week and I'm not going to hold my breath for the needle to fall into the haystack.

That's how lefties roll; they "moderate away" anything they don't want to hear.

You've shown repeatedly how you earn the poor karma score you have. Try discussing matters in a mature fashion, using actual facts, and we'll see what happens. Sitting around crying about your imagined conspiracy does not help you at all.

That's how they oppress.

In other words, it doesn't happen. I thought maybe you'd be able to provide facts to the contrary, but you have so far completely and utterly failed to do so. Care to try yet?

oh please. I asserted that Stern was an international communist, and produced research proving such. You haven't offered one fact throughout any of this.You just show up and wag your finger and lecture me about my "behavior", and pretend that your delicate sensibilities have been violated somehow by my "tone".

Try and add the FACT that temp data is being manipulated and corrupted to a conversation on global warming; see how that goes. http://realclimatescience.com/... Try to contradict a Black Lives Matter activist by giving proof that there is no such thing as "Driving while black" (at least in New Jersey) http://www.city-journal.org/ht... and see how that goes. How in the world would you know if Slashdot was leftwing, if you've never offer a rightwing opinion?

For virtually every article on Slashdot where there is a leftwing opinion, try adding a rightwing one. The results will surprise you. That's how lefties roll; they "moderate away" anything they don't want to hear. That's how they oppress.

How does he explain the melting polar ice cap?

I could tell you. However I want you to look for yourself. Understand what is going on. The site is that well done. It's not bullshit, it's backed with facts. Might want to start here http://realclimatescience.com/...
You need to know what you're talking about. When you try to inform other people, they are often crazy. It's very comforting knowing you are right. Let them know. Knowledge is power. Maybe we can keep a bunch of scam artists from taking a whole bunch more money globally.

Aught to check out this site - http://realclimatescience.com/ . Real science stands on its own. Fake science threatens other people, changes historical data and such. Things this guy can show you, using news paper articles you can go to your library and look up for yourself. I did. Not one of his citations was bogus. NASA obviously has an activist over there changing data so every month is a new record. Ever notice that?

Bottom line, co2 isn't the cause, it's a symptom.

Check out the site. Facts, stubborn facts will set you free.

Do you have anything to refute the data I have presented? I thought not.

1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.

According to the sea level data the sea level has been at approximate the same rate for a LONG time. Here is Data from the Australian CSIRO:
http://realclimatescience.com/...
Remember, before 1950 even the IPCC claims all the rise is natural, and only after 1950 is there any anthropogenic component. So, based on the ACTUAL DATA do you see any statistically significant change from natural to 'man-made' ? No, you do not.

Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people claiming that increases in Antarctic sea ice mean AGW isn't a "thing". The reality is that summer ice minimums keep decreasing.

I was an astrophysicist, and we real scientists are sick to the back teeth of climate so-called 'scientists' refusing to the use the Scientific Method, ignoring data they don't like (any contra-data falsifies a theory), and acting like righteous zealots against any 'heretic' who actually does objectively follow the Scientific Method and looks at ALL the data, including the paleo record.

Most scientists who actually study climate and are actually experts in the field are deeply worried. What they're saying publically mostly errs on the cautious side, simply because they get shat on politically when they start telling it like it is.

Nonsense. Recent surveys show that only 53% of scientists think that humans have any measurable impact on the climate (AGW) and much fewer think it will be catastrophic (CAGW). Even the internal emails revealed in Climategate I, II, and III show the pro-CAGW climate modellers understand that their models don't work but they cannot publicly admit this.

It is clear you have very little understanding of the skeptics position. The Scientific Method requires you to understand the skeptics' arguments *****from their own mouths**** and not the disinformation put out by the pro-CAGW loons. And I will say it again, you are also required to account for ALL THE DATA - not just the data you like.

My personal worry is the increasing risk of an anoxic oceanic event - which is something most climate scientists haven't considered (or won't discuss publically) even though the possibility was raised as far back as 1976. Again, they'll get shat on if they start bringing this up. It's bad enough when they point out the economic and ecological effects of coral bleaching and ocean acidification that's already occuring.

If you are worried about that then perhaps you should get a grip. How come you ecoloons completely lose perspective - you are even worse at doommongering than the islamicists who think the Day of Judgement is just about on us with fighting near Dabiq (the islamic version of Armageddon). It's like your life is not complete unless you can be miserable worrying about things that just aren't going to happen, all because you don't understand the ways how oxygen gets in the ocean in the first place.

Learn the Scientific Method. Use it. Listen to the arguments made against the CAGW hypothesis, from the skeptics themselves (not from pro-CAGW propagandists distorting the arguments), look at ALL the DATA. Get some perspective, and STOP BEING A MISERABLE DOOMSAYER. Complex mammalian life has survived multiple massive asteroids, all sorts of Solar variability (like the extremes of the Minoan Warm Period to the Little Ice Age), massive volcanic outgassing transforming the atmosphere, large periodic orbital distance changes, etc etc

Oh, and if you didn't know, the skeptics include the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China (who may know a thing or two), half the scientists of the West (that i

Just what is the temperature? http://realclimatescience.com/...

Nobody is denying that the records are being modified. The only contested issue is whether or not the modifications are correct or justified.

Here is a timely article explaining the fallacy of modifying scientific source data.

The NOAA historical data has been shown to have altered, this is different from the previous time it was altered. http://realclimatescience.com/...

In their 'hottest year ever' press briefing, NOAA included a graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.

http://realclimatescience.com/...

I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.

All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?

When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?

I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.

Thank you.

This paper from Berkeley Earth may shed some light on some of your concerns.

NASA, NOAA, Hadley/CRU, JMA, and the IPCC may also have some information regarding your areas of interest.

A little basic familiarity with statistics and thermodynamics will probably come in handy.

There are many good resources on the web for learning about statistics and thermo.

If you want to make a rational decision, it might require a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. You might need access to a technical library, if you have to go into a deep dive. Best of luck in your studies.

All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?

When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?

I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.

Thank you.