Continental drift is BS? Sounds plausible, particularly given the citations you provided.
Increased CO2 levels usually lead to a growth in vegetation... the opposite of desertification
Usually?
Is there a cite you can provide that demonstrates that global warming will not lead to increased desertification in arid and semi-arid regions, becuase arid/semi-arid vegetation is limited by CO2 availability (rather than H2O)?
But sure, please continue to believe the idiocy of the global warmist scare mongering
You've made the assumption that I believe the scare mongering that says the current warming trend is due to natural variation. Please provide a citation.
I cannot imagine why you think 4 billion years of climate history is relevant when humans, or anything that we would call human, has only existed for about 4 million years, and human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old.
Your mistake is to assume that thinking is part of the process. I imagine the process is more like
1. See another article on climate change
2. Panic!
3. Reach into bag of (now half rancid and definitely stale) denialist snacks and jam that indigestible mass into mouth to distract yourself
4. Aim mouth at article and spew half digested nonsense in the general direction
Wouldn't the fact that they specifically mentioned the EL Nino be evidence that the remembered the El Nino, rather than an indication that they forgot about it?
If the recent warming trend is due to the El Nino:
1. Why is 2016 hotter than every other year in which there was an El Nino?
2. Why was the trough of the last La Nina hotter than every La Nina that came before it: and indeed, so hot that that trough was level with the El Nino that happened 10 years prior?
3. Why do you accept the concept of an El Nino at all? Surely if the concept of atmospheric composition impacting climate must be reject for [error! no reason supplied], then El Nino (ocean temperature driving climate) ought to be rejected as well? Explain the logic behind that.
Irrelevant: and unproven. The OP said: They can't even handle the results of a democratic election. But it turns out, the Trump propaganda is confused here. If your link is true, then it wasn't a free and fair election. This means the OP is wrong, and every american should be on the streets protesting their liberty. You have a responsibility to protect the liberties of ALL Americans, without regard to how they vote. Why are you still in front of your computer? Do you not believe your own propaganda?
Did Bush get asked to step down while Gore fought his loss?
And the end result was Bush became president. Need I go on?
Right. They lover THEIR freedom to impose their ridiculous beliefs on rest of us, charge a tax for non believers, or just kill us if we don't convert (depends on circumstances).
If you can be killed by what someone is thinking on the other side of the world or their thoughts somehow impose themselves on your thoughts so that you are unable to sustain your pre-existing beliefs, then I'm - no, wait. No. No, No, I have no words for how stupid that sounds. Let me get back to you.
Those quotes are not Trump "being offended" like some silly safe spaces cupcake.
That is exactly what they are.
Those are Trump calling it like he sees it and telling off the lying leftists who have tried their damnedest for decades to destroy this country by turning it into a third world cesspool.
Trump is a sociopath, so "calling it like he sees it" is evoking his delusion, not some sort of reflection of reality.
He made lot's of other speeches as well e.g. you can grab em by the pussy. And they let you do it. I only included the information relevant to the topic at hand.
To expand:
"The election is rigged and I won't accept the result." sounds like whistleblowing.
"The election is rigged, and I won't accept the result unless I win" sounds like blackmail, or HE is the one attempting to rig the election.
I think you nailed it on the head right there. The amount of "I'm offended" from millennials is staggering.
I hear plenty of whining and taking personal offence from other generations as well. People taking offence at the notion of Climate Change ('it's a chinese conspiracy'). People taking offence at uppity women ( 'what a nasty woman she is' ) people getting offended when the media holds them to account and calls them on their bullshit.
This self of wounded self entitlement got Trump elected. Was it just millennials who voted for Trump?
They can't even handle the results of a democratic election.
Trump himself said the election was rigged and he wouldn't accept the result. Was he lying?
After (quite validly) pointing out that statistical error may mean that we are underestimating the observed warming, you asked why they might have not included this as error bars.
I suggested that one possible explanation is that they (recognising, as you did, the implication that we may be underestimating the observed warming) did not want to induce panic at that possibility.
Even if true, it does not follow that if a completely different group includes error bars that they want to induce panic. That is what we call a logical fallacy.
This page doesn't seem to indicate that the adjustments are large. Can you quantify "large" and "small" adjustments?
Instruments have been upgraded from mercury thermometers to digital sensors. The "scientists" claim that this introduces a cooling bias and adjust temperature upward.
Is there a reason to doubt their conclusions? What is this reason? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
The time of day in which observations are made has changed. The "scientists" claim that this change also introduces a cooling bias, so another upward revision is made.
Is there a reason to doubt their conclusions? What is this reason? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
"Urbanization" (basically heat from pavement) creates a warming bias, etc. etc.
So you are saying that urbanisation does not create heat islanding? Why not? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
There are also certain "quality control" adjustments.
And what is the net effect of these quality control adjustments? Are you saying they are not required? Why not? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
"If you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat."
See figure #5 at the above URL
Figure 5 is not a temperature record. How does it demonstrate that the temperature record is mostly flat.?
What does mostly mean?
What happened to the energy incursion predicted by Arrhenius et al? Did the energy just disappear?
Ever wonder why people are skeptical of claims like this?
Do you ever wonder why we are skeptical of your claims? I'll demonstrate:
Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments instead of basing these claims on anything resembling the raw data.
Where is the proof of this claim?
Sure, it's necessary to perform quality control, but the adjustments go far beyond that.
Where is the proof of this claim?
In fact, if you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat.
Where is the proof of this claim? What does mostly mean? mostly doesn't sound like it has a scientific definition.
However, the adjustments to the data set look like a hockey stick.
So what? Why would we care?
When you need to adjust the data in order to get a signal, you end up making ridiculous claims like vaccines causing autism. Global warming is about as credible, except that scientists have decided it's true. To their credit, organizations like the National Climatic Data Center are transparent about their adjustments, so we can actually determine that the adjustments are the source of the warming signal.
Where is the proof of this claim?
I respect the scientists at NCDC, though I think their research is very flawed. The problem is that, when someone points out these facts, people show up and aggressively attack anyone who raises these problems.
We ask you for proof, and you treat our request like an attack. It's your job to prove your assertions
Slashdot Mirror
I'm non-plussed to learn that clean energy technology is somehow not technology.
Because it's patent BS.
Continental drift is BS? Sounds plausible, particularly given the citations you provided.
Increased CO2 levels usually lead to a growth in vegetation... the opposite of desertification
Usually?
Is there a cite you can provide that demonstrates that global warming will not lead to increased desertification in arid and semi-arid regions, becuase arid/semi-arid vegetation is limited by CO2 availability (rather than H2O)?
But sure, please continue to believe the idiocy of the global warmist scare mongering
You've made the assumption that I believe the scare mongering that says the current warming trend is due to natural variation. Please provide a citation.
You speak as if countries industrialise *independently* of one another. Are you on the right planet?
So, do tell us why the climate would be the same.
Wait: The other guy just told me that there was no warming trend.
And another guy told me it was due to natural variation, without actually mentioning what had varied, which I thought was weird.
Now *you* tell me that it's warming, but warming will be good for us.
Which of you is telling the truth?
For how many of those billions of years have we been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and disabling carbon sinks?
Because apparently last year was the 'hottest year on record', even though it was a very mild summer in the U.K.
Aaaaand what percentage of the earths surface is covered by the UK?
And nothing like the drought of 1976.
Was there a worldwide drought in 1976?
And 'since records began' means 'in the past 150 years', and the planet has existed for millions of years.
Aaaand for how many of those millions of years have we been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and disabling carbon sinks?
I cannot imagine why you think 4 billion years of climate history is relevant when humans, or anything that we would call human, has only existed for about 4 million years, and human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old.
Your mistake is to assume that thinking is part of the process. I imagine the process is more like
1. See another article on climate change
2. Panic!
3. Reach into bag of (now half rancid and definitely stale) denialist snacks and jam that indigestible mass into mouth to distract yourself
4. Aim mouth at article and spew half digested nonsense in the general direction
5. Run off
6. ??
7. Profit!
If the recent warming trend is due to the El Nino:
1. Why is 2016 hotter than every other year in which there was an El Nino?
2. Why was the trough of the last La Nina hotter than every La Nina that came before it: and indeed, so hot that that trough was level with the El Nino that happened 10 years prior?
3. Why do you accept the concept of an El Nino at all? Surely if the concept of atmospheric composition impacting climate must be reject for [error! no reason supplied], then El Nino (ocean temperature driving climate) ought to be rejected as well? Explain the logic behind that.
Why would he?
Because it wasn't a free and fair election.
All of the vote stuffing was for Hillary.
Irrelevant: and unproven. The OP said: They can't even handle the results of a democratic election. But it turns out, the Trump propaganda is confused here. If your link is true, then it wasn't a free and fair election. This means the OP is wrong, and every american should be on the streets protesting their liberty. You have a responsibility to protect the liberties of ALL Americans, without regard to how they vote. Why are you still in front of your computer? Do you not believe your own propaganda?
Did Bush get asked to step down while Gore fought his loss?
And the end result was Bush became president. Need I go on?
In which case, I guess he intends to step down while a full investigation is carried out?
Your comment makes no sense.
Number of people killed by Rumsfeld+Cheney's war in iraq over a 110000. A difference of 2 orders of magnitude.
Right. They lover THEIR freedom to impose their ridiculous beliefs on rest of us, charge a tax for non believers, or just kill us if we don't convert (depends on circumstances).
If you can be killed by what someone is thinking on the other side of the world or their thoughts somehow impose themselves on your thoughts so that you are unable to sustain your pre-existing beliefs, then I'm - no, wait. No. No, No, I have no words for how stupid that sounds. Let me get back to you.
You're an idiot.
You voted for Trump. Who is the idiot?
Those quotes are not Trump "being offended" like some silly safe spaces cupcake.
That is exactly what they are.
Those are Trump calling it like he sees it and telling off the lying leftists who have tried their damnedest for decades to destroy this country by turning it into a third world cesspool.
Trump is a sociopath, so "calling it like he sees it" is evoking his delusion, not some sort of reflection of reality.
To expand:
"The election is rigged and I won't accept the result." sounds like whistleblowing.
"The election is rigged, and I won't accept the result unless I win" sounds like blackmail, or HE is the one attempting to rig the election.
Any particular reason for that?
I think you nailed it on the head right there. The amount of "I'm offended" from millennials is staggering.
I hear plenty of whining and taking personal offence from other generations as well. People taking offence at the notion of Climate Change ('it's a chinese conspiracy'). People taking offence at uppity women ( 'what a nasty woman she is' ) people getting offended when the media holds them to account and calls them on their bullshit.
This self of wounded self entitlement got Trump elected. Was it just millennials who voted for Trump?
They can't even handle the results of a democratic election.
Trump himself said the election was rigged and he wouldn't accept the result. Was he lying?
After (quite validly) pointing out that statistical error may mean that we are underestimating the observed warming, you asked why they might have not included this as error bars.
I suggested that one possible explanation is that they (recognising, as you did, the implication that we may be underestimating the observed warming) did not want to induce panic at that possibility.
Even if true, it does not follow that if a completely different group includes error bars that they want to induce panic. That is what we call a logical fallacy.
Learn what burden of proof of means.
Why do you think they might be?
"Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments"
http://berkeleyearth.org/under... [berkeleyearth.org]
This page doesn't seem to indicate that the adjustments are large. Can you quantify "large" and "small" adjustments?
Instruments have been upgraded from mercury thermometers to digital sensors. The "scientists" claim that this introduces a cooling bias and adjust temperature upward.
Is there a reason to doubt their conclusions? What is this reason? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
The time of day in which observations are made has changed. The "scientists" claim that this change also introduces a cooling bias, so another upward revision is made.
Is there a reason to doubt their conclusions? What is this reason? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
"Urbanization" (basically heat from pavement) creates a warming bias, etc. etc.
So you are saying that urbanisation does not create heat islanding? Why not? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
There are also certain "quality control" adjustments.
And what is the net effect of these quality control adjustments? Are you saying they are not required? Why not? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
"If you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat."
See figure #5 at the above URL
Figure 5 is not a temperature record. How does it demonstrate that the temperature record is mostly flat.?
What does mostly mean?
What happened to the energy incursion predicted by Arrhenius et al? Did the energy just disappear?
There's huge uncertainty in the amount of warming that is supposed to result from CO2 being added to the atmosphere.
So it could be worse than the current measures suggest?
More importantly, not adding error bars makes it look like you're an undergrad, and don't even deserve the title 'scientist.'
Perhaps they are trying not to induce panic.
Is there an alternative theory for the observed behaviour of CO2 that we are unaware of?
Ever wonder why people are skeptical of claims like this?
Do you ever wonder why we are skeptical of your claims? I'll demonstrate:
Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments instead of basing these claims on anything resembling the raw data.
Where is the proof of this claim?
Sure, it's necessary to perform quality control, but the adjustments go far beyond that.
Where is the proof of this claim?
In fact, if you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat.
Where is the proof of this claim? What does mostly mean? mostly doesn't sound like it has a scientific definition.
However, the adjustments to the data set look like a hockey stick.
So what? Why would we care?
When you need to adjust the data in order to get a signal, you end up making ridiculous claims like vaccines causing autism. Global warming is about as credible, except that scientists have decided it's true. To their credit, organizations like the National Climatic Data Center are transparent about their adjustments, so we can actually determine that the adjustments are the source of the warming signal.
Where is the proof of this claim?
I respect the scientists at NCDC, though I think their research is very flawed. The problem is that, when someone points out these facts, people show up and aggressively attack anyone who raises these problems.
We ask you for proof, and you treat our request like an attack. It's your job to prove your assertions