It is indeed hilarious that you would dismiss climateaudit because of your preconceived bias, instead of look at the article, and original study and make up your own mind about the facts.
You're spouting nonsense propaganda and slandering a website in a thread about defamation and slander.
CLIMATEaudit is a blog about climate science (be it skeptical or not) it has nothing to do with Big Tobacco and you know it. There are no BIG tobacco articles on that site.
Calling a Canadian science site a GOP shill, just shows your lack of intelligence and integrity. There is no such thing as the GOP in Canada.
Now, are you going to be a reasonable person and do your own research before spouting your hatred again? Or are you going to go back to sks, or desmogblog to look up a talking point to throw back at me?
Murder: Comment by Bluecloud https://twitter.com/RichardTol... There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.
This article was about slander and defamation of character. (which BTW, I did not read the offending articles, but trust that the Canadian judge punished the NP rightfully. I know how much mud slinging is done on both sides, and especially the NP).
So my comments are pretty much on topic. Especially in reply to the anonymous cowards post.
If you have nothing to say about my claims, then I think you should have just shut up. Because it makes you look petty and desperate.
Unless you agree with all the despicable things I attribute to (some) extremists in the alarmist camps. In that case, you have no defence, so you resorted to insulting me (just like the national post) instead of discussing the actual claims I made.
However I agree with your statement. Published false statements against a specific person should be punished.
Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.
It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist. Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.
How the hell are you supposed to tell if you are being told the truth if you will not read the dissenting voices? Again, DO NOT (except after the fact) read the rebutal blogosphere first. Go to the source, then research others opinions. Or else all you are reading is crapot propaganda with confirmation bias.
so goes for the other way around.
Instead of SKS Try WUWT, judithcurry and climateaudit
At their own risk, indeed. Many (not all I admit) sceptic scientists have been publishing good solid work "at their own risk", but there is no one there to protect them when they are bullied, harassed, rejected, fired.
The science is hard to get through some folks heads, even many scientists. Confirmation bias exists, on both sides of the debate.
You can take your hurt feelings about duplicity and personal attacks and look in a mirror. Read my first line.
Cherry picking is done all over the place. Especially in climate science and especially by the alarmist side of the debate.
Talking about money, how are those billions of dollars in grant money comparing to a few million dollars budget of sceptical organisations like the heartland institute?
"Passivity"... REALLY!?!?!?!?\ Alarmists and green organisations are DOWN RIGHT AGGRESSIVE. They always have been. They call for no less than:
- The death penalty - Jail time for people expressing their opinions - Murder - Exploding heads of those who dont tow the line (look at the propaganda video)
And you go and call this law suit the end of passivity? How you people look at yourselves in the mirror everyday shocks me.
The fact that you point to a poll on peoples views?
You thinking you have made any kind of a point is quite sad.
Now, can you point to what actually is different in the world because of Al Gores movie? Except for the fact that we spend billions and billions of dollars on the wrong causes?
And we are supposed to take you seriously when you post this kind of drivel?
Broke the chart? Its childish scaremongering.
The temperature increase is 0.09C, that is why they have converted to using "Ocean Heat Content" instead of temperatures and created an elaborate story to explain why joules (which is meaningless) is their new way to scaring people instead of the actual temperature increase.
This is unfortunately getting boring because you obviously know nothing on the subject but talking points and really dont care about the subject matter, other than wanting to "win points" for being right.
1. It doesnt need to be disproven, it has not been proven. A very very shaky theory was put forth, seemingly supported by some data. However, it is up to the authors to actually make follow up papers using empirical data from observations supporting their theory or to just drop it.
2. There is no debate from you. All the scientists on the AGW side, follow a mantra, very few argue with each other, they toe the line. The rebuttals HAVE to come from the other side, but you will ignore them BECAUSE... right wing... Which is a term that just makes no real sense outside of the US. You do not care for an actual source.
3. I didint mention water vapor, you did. Do you even "f**king" know what a strawman argument is? You are an example. Everyone of your posts has had at least 1 strawman argument. Look it up.
4. About skeptics and goal posts. Its easy to put everyone who disagrees with AGW theories in 1 basket. When in fact there are 2,3,5, 10 baskets. Yes, some denied it even was warming, some still do. But many of the current prominent skeptics where actually climate scientists who where part of the IPCC in AR1 or 2. They have come to see how wrong the AGW theories are and are trying to show this scientificaly. You wont listen to them, because? Your side is "righteous"!!!
5. Nice one about the publishing. They publish ALL THE TIME on the internet. But you ignore them because its not "peer reviewed". So... re-read your self and lets see if your circular reasoning and idiotic thinking makes your head explode.
6. Rush limbaug?? WHO the... what the fuck...?? Why would you bring that idiot up?
7. So what if Australia had a hot summer, you damn idiot. Weather isnt climate RIGHT??? RIGHT???? Fuck, you cant even follow your own instructions.
8. Considering all the points about, your last sentence is hollow. You have no beliefs, as you are completely ignorant on the matter. You also have no idea which leg to stand on and what kind of shit to fling. Stop debating, start reading.
In the above, there is a section called TOP 10 Warmest Years (1988 to 2014).
The anomaly is the divergence from the 20th century average, which is how they compare the global mean temps for one year to each other.
2014 is warmer by 0.04c compared to 2010 and 2005.
If you look further down, it shows the global mean temp for 2014, January to December. It shows the anomaly in C (+0.69) and next to it you will see a + and - indication, that is the ERROR BAR. The error bar is 0.09C.
So to recap. 2014 is the WARMIEST of all the super duper warm years. By 0.04C. But the error can be + or - 0.09C. You see, 0.04C gets wiped right out by the error bar.
Your bank account is NOT a good comparison example. Because it is hard currency, there is no error bar. The bank will never say, you havea 1000$ in your savings account, + or - 50$.
Now, if you pay close attention to the anomalies for top 10 warmest years, you will find that they all, from 10 to 1 fall within the error bars of the empirical data.
The reason for error bars is, there is no way to be sure with 100% certainty down to a hundredth of a degree C what the global mean temp is. Its scientifically impossible with current technologies and measurements.
Now, one last thing. And probably the most important.
The NOAA's NCDC states that the change of 2014 being the warmest year on record is 48%.
48% in NCDC speak means "MORE UNLIKELY THAN LIKELY".
Meaning, "we honestly believe, it was NOT the warmest year on record". That should have been the first thing on the front page of the report. However, they preferred their report to mislead, so as to get alarmist headlines in the news.
I believe you are frothing at the mouth. And would deny anything that contradicts your believe. Your language clearly demonstrates this. You would ignore anything, regardless or the source.
Global average MAX temps have not changed in that period of time.
Only global average minimum temps have risen, which has risen the global MEAN temp.
To reiterate, there has been no change in average maximum temperatures. This is not a denier talking point, asking any NASA, NOAA, NCDC or IPCC scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing against vaccines, GMO's, or Darwin.
Next.
And I quite like your ad hominem attacks.
It is indeed hilarious that you would dismiss climateaudit because of your preconceived bias, instead of look at the article, and original study and make up your own mind about the facts.
You're spouting nonsense propaganda and slandering a website in a thread about defamation and slander.
CLIMATEaudit is a blog about climate science (be it skeptical or not) it has nothing to do with Big Tobacco and you know it. There are no BIG tobacco articles on that site.
Calling a Canadian science site a GOP shill, just shows your lack of intelligence and integrity. There is no such thing as the GOP in Canada.
Now, are you going to be a reasonable person and do your own research before spouting your hatred again? Or are you going to go back to sks, or desmogblog to look up a talking point to throw back at me?
Are you trying to associate me to the anti-vaccine movement?
tsk tsk. You really are desperate.
The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...
Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.
Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...
This article was about slander and defamation of character. (which BTW, I did not read the offending articles, but trust that the Canadian judge punished the NP rightfully. I know how much mud slinging is done on both sides, and especially the NP).
So my comments are pretty much on topic. Especially in reply to the anonymous cowards post.
If you have nothing to say about my claims, then I think you should have just shut up. Because it makes you look petty and desperate.
Unless you agree with all the despicable things I attribute to (some) extremists in the alarmist camps.
In that case, you have no defence, so you resorted to insulting me (just like the national post) instead of discussing the actual claims I made.
Bye.
Hottest by 0.02C (Globally) with an error possibility of about 0.1C.
Also the only truly global data sets (satellites) do not rank it as the hottest.
And finally, with a temperature difference of barely 0.05 on average for the last 18 years, the warming is basically nonexistent.
Hi there.
Anything else to say than to insult me?
I havent seen the original articles.
However I agree with your statement. Published false statements against a specific person should be punished.
Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.
Nice generalisation there.
It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.
Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.
How the hell are you supposed to tell if you are being told the truth if you will not read the dissenting voices?
Again, DO NOT (except after the fact) read the rebutal blogosphere first. Go to the source, then research others opinions. Or else all you are reading is crapot propaganda with confirmation bias.
so goes for the other way around.
Instead of SKS
Try WUWT, judithcurry and climateaudit
At their own risk, indeed. Many (not all I admit) sceptic scientists have been publishing good solid work "at their own risk", but there is no one there to protect them when they are bullied, harassed, rejected, fired.
The science is hard to get through some folks heads, even many scientists. Confirmation bias exists, on both sides of the debate.
You can take your hurt feelings about duplicity and personal attacks and look in a mirror. Read my first line.
Cherry picking is done all over the place. Especially in climate science and especially by the alarmist side of the debate.
Talking about money, how are those billions of dollars in grant money comparing to a few million dollars budget of sceptical organisations like the heartland institute?
"Passivity"... REALLY!?!?!?!?\
Alarmists and green organisations are DOWN RIGHT AGGRESSIVE. They always have been.
They call for no less than:
- The death penalty
- Jail time for people expressing their opinions
- Murder
- Exploding heads of those who dont tow the line (look at the propaganda video)
And you go and call this law suit the end of passivity? How you people look at yourselves in the mirror everyday shocks me.
You want to talk about lies and downright BAD scientific research, here is a recent example: http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
Actually I realised, my post was for the Anonymous Coward, not you. :)
I was in agreement with the post you are talking about.
Hence my confusion. Maybe you are set to not see the cowards !!
What hurt?
The fact that you point to a poll on peoples views?
You thinking you have made any kind of a point is quite sad.
Now, can you point to what actually is different in the world because of Al Gores movie?
Except for the fact that we spend billions and billions of dollars on the wrong causes?
Well, then... I retract my statement as being directed at you.
It wasnt exactly clear from your post :)
WTF is this idiotic retarded fear mongering logic of yours?
Do you even know how many people 50 million represents? Its LA and NYC combined.
You are making the claim. Please point to us with citations, the mass climate exodus you claim has been happening.
The world would be down right exactly the same as it is now if Al Gore hadn't made the movie.
And there is absolutely no proof otherwise.
This is what is wrong with you extreme alarmists. Exaggeration as a talking point. FEAR FEAR FEAR.
Honestly, you are down right dishonest.
Obviously.
And we are supposed to take you seriously when you post this kind of drivel?
Broke the chart? Its childish scaremongering.
The temperature increase is 0.09C, that is why they have converted to using "Ocean Heat Content" instead of temperatures and created an elaborate story to explain why joules (which is meaningless) is their new way to scaring people instead of the actual temperature increase.
This is unfortunately getting boring because you obviously know nothing on the subject but talking points and really dont care about the subject matter, other than wanting to "win points" for being right.
1. It doesnt need to be disproven, it has not been proven. A very very shaky theory was put forth, seemingly supported by some data. However, it is up to the authors to actually make follow up papers using empirical data from observations supporting their theory or to just drop it.
2. There is no debate from you. All the scientists on the AGW side, follow a mantra, very few argue with each other, they toe the line. The rebuttals HAVE to come from the other side, but you will ignore them BECAUSE... right wing... Which is a term that just makes no real sense outside of the US. You do not care for an actual source.
3. I didint mention water vapor, you did. Do you even "f**king" know what a strawman argument is? You are an example. Everyone of your posts has had at least 1 strawman argument. Look it up.
4. About skeptics and goal posts. Its easy to put everyone who disagrees with AGW theories in 1 basket. When in fact there are 2,3,5, 10 baskets. Yes, some denied it even was warming, some still do. But many of the current prominent skeptics where actually climate scientists who where part of the IPCC in AR1 or 2. They have come to see how wrong the AGW theories are and are trying to show this scientificaly. You wont listen to them, because? Your side is "righteous"!!!
5. Nice one about the publishing. They publish ALL THE TIME on the internet. But you ignore them because its not "peer reviewed". So... re-read your self and lets see if your circular reasoning and idiotic thinking makes your head explode.
6. Rush limbaug?? WHO the... what the fuck...?? Why would you bring that idiot up?
7. So what if Australia had a hot summer, you damn idiot. Weather isnt climate RIGHT??? RIGHT???? Fuck, you cant even follow your own instructions.
8. Considering all the points about, your last sentence is hollow. You have no beliefs, as you are completely ignorant on the matter. You also have no idea which leg to stand on and what kind of shit to fling. Stop debating, start reading.
It will be my pleasure to edumicate you sir.
Error Bar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
This is from the NOAA Global Analysis - Annual 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
In the above, there is a section called TOP 10 Warmest Years (1988 to 2014).
The anomaly is the divergence from the 20th century average, which is how they compare the global mean temps for one year to each other.
2014 is warmer by 0.04c compared to 2010 and 2005.
If you look further down, it shows the global mean temp for 2014, January to December.
It shows the anomaly in C (+0.69) and next to it you will see a + and - indication, that is the ERROR BAR. The error bar is 0.09C.
So to recap. 2014 is the WARMIEST of all the super duper warm years. By 0.04C. But the error can be + or - 0.09C. You see, 0.04C gets wiped right out by the error bar.
Your bank account is NOT a good comparison example. Because it is hard currency, there is no error bar. The bank will never say, you havea 1000$ in your savings account, + or - 50$.
Now, if you pay close attention to the anomalies for top 10 warmest years, you will find that they all, from 10 to 1 fall within the error bars of the empirical data.
The reason for error bars is, there is no way to be sure with 100% certainty down to a hundredth of a degree C what the global mean temp is. Its scientifically impossible with current technologies and measurements.
Now, one last thing. And probably the most important.
Hidden in the supplemental information, found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
The NOAA's NCDC states that the change of 2014 being the warmest year on record is 48%.
48% in NCDC speak means "MORE UNLIKELY THAN LIKELY".
Meaning, "we honestly believe, it was NOT the warmest year on record".
That should have been the first thing on the front page of the report. However, they preferred their report to mislead, so as to get alarmist headlines in the news.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
48% confidence that 2014 is the warmest year on record. (Straight from the 2014 NOAA state of climate report)
Warmest year on record, by 0.04C with an error margin of 0.09C (Seriously?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
This year is warming (according to their data) by 0.02C.
The error bars for temperature readings would wipe that right out.
I believe you are frothing at the mouth. And would deny anything that contradicts your believe. Your language clearly demonstrates this.
You would ignore anything, regardless or the source.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
You can add woodfortrees.org to your kill file.
And what consequences are we seeing now?
So completely false, its not even funny anymore.
Global average MAX temps have not changed in that period of time.
Only global average minimum temps have risen, which has risen the global MEAN temp.
To reiterate, there has been no change in average maximum temperatures. This is not a denier talking point, asking any NASA, NOAA, NCDC or IPCC scientist.