• NAXJA is having its 18th annual March Membership Drive!!!
    Everyone who joins or renews during March will be entered into a drawing!
    More Information - Join/Renew
  • Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

The Final Straw on Climate Change Lies???

joe_peters

NAXJA Forum User
And he wouldn't have to run around dressed as manbearpig if we'd just quit doubting him and believe,...
 


SUPER SERIAL.

The jig is up the news is out they've finally found me
The renegade who had it made retrieved for a bounty
Never more to go astray
This will be the end today of the wanted man
 
Your source expresses concern over the ramifications of the loss of measuring stations in polar regions. You are aware that the most pronounced warming is occurring in the Arctic, right Joe? Kind of curious that someone wanting to skew the data toward warming would seek to eliminate stations that document that very effect, especially in that the primary concern is change in temperature rather than global distribution of temperatures at any one time.


“The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world, with the average annual temperature in parts of the Alaskan Arctic up 4 degrees Fahrenheit or more since the 1950s, compared to a global increase of a little more than 1 degree over the last century”
chttp://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/scientists_investigate_why_the.htmllimatologists say.


Your source goes on to say: “The report details other fascinating temperature biases. For example, Siberia has experienced one the greatest increases in recorded warming. A large drop in the number of stations and the some missing data can explain part of the change, but apparently during the Soviet-era areas with lower recorded temperatures received more fuel and money, creating a real incentive for weather stations to lie.”

Well, I wouldn’t have thought that weather stations themselves are capable of lying, but if it is on the internet I guess it must be so. But I thought the whole point was that the “cool” stations were being preferentially eliminated. Here the author says data was skewed toward cooling. Maybe he/she should just go back to the drawing board and figure out what it is he/she would like to convey. Whatever he/she decides, it might be a good idea to factor in the massive Siberian permafrost loss in addition to “lost data”, regardless of the number of weather stations in Russia.
http://www.physorg.com/news5769.html


While I am at it, here are some interesting links that I hope you will at least look at Joe, especially the parts on economic opportunities in green tech.

http://www.repamerica.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Game+plan:+what+conservatives+should+do+about+global+warming-a0164830927
 
Last edited:
Whats the winter been like in SD this year?


Lots of snow. I took a yardstick out to measure the snow depth, and there was ALOT. That proved to me that the world is getting colder. Then I layed my yardstick down on the ground in one of the few places where it had been cleared of snow. The yardstick layed flush on the ground, proving the earth to be flat!

What's the winter like in Vancouver for the Olympics?
 
Lots of snow. I took a yardstick out to measure the snow depth, and there was ALOT. That proved to me that the world is getting colder. Then I layed my yardstick down on the ground in one of the few places where it had been cleared of snow. The yardstick layed flush on the ground, proving the earth to be flat!

What's the winter like in Vancouver for the Olympics?

Why so aggressive? I was just curious about the winter in SD.
I don't really know what it's been like VC, I can check the weather channel for you, if you want me to.
 
Masterful attempt at twisting things, sorry it didn't work out for you--kind of like that whole Global Warming/Climate Change thing.

Your source expresses concern over the ramifications of the loss of measuring stations in polar regions. You are aware that the most pronounced warming is occurring in the Arctic, right Joe?

You are making a statement, not citing facts. Your argument is circular based on a statement. Eliminating weather stations in colder regions to create a statistical increase in temperature data, not supported by satellite monitoring--just another one of those irritating little inconsistencies that required "data manipulation".

Kind of curious that someone wanting to skew the data toward warming would seek to eliminate stations that document that very effect, especially in that the primary concern is change in temperature rather than global distribution of temperatures at any one time.


Another statement by you, not fact. Eliminating stations recording colder temperatures to create an increase in temperatures--fact.


“The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world, with the average annual temperature in parts of the Alaskan Arctic up 4 degrees Fahrenheit or more since the 1950s, compared to a global increase of a little more than 1 degree over the last century”
chttp://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/scientists_investigate_why_the.htmllimatologists say.


Not germane to the article we are discussing. Why try and change the subject to another article--you can just blame it on GW. All existing climate change data is suspect--original data destroyed, not peer reviewed, facts suppressed, books cooked, student papers cited as scientific evidence. Stick to facts.

Your source goes on to say: “The report details other fascinating temperature biases. For example, Siberia has experienced one the greatest increases in recorded warming. A large drop in the number of stations and the some missing data can explain part of the change, but apparently during the Soviet-era areas with lower recorded temperatures received more fuel and money, creating a real incentive for weather stations to lie.”

Well, I wouldn’t have thought that weather stations themselves are capable of lying, but if it is on the internet I guess it must be so.

Get real. You know the article is addressing manned weather stations. Why try and pull this kind of crap--really is beneath you. The Progressive Liberal Socialists--former Communists--cooking the books to get more money for their research. Wow, looks like the U.N., Brit universities, NASA, Al Gore are learning from the Commies--actually they are commies. Environmentalists are WATERMELONS--Green on the outside, RED on the inside.

But I thought the whole point was that the “cool” stations were being preferentially eliminated.

Wow, you did get the message!!

Here the author says data was skewed toward cooling. Maybe he/she should just go back to the drawing board and figure out what it is he/she would like to convey.

And then you lost it--read the article again.

Whatever he/she decides, it might be a good idea to factor in the massive Siberian permafrost loss in addition to “lost data”, regardless of the number of weather stations in Russia.

http://www.physorg.com/news5769.html

Again, statement not fact. Why do you insist on clinging to falsified data in non-peer reviewed articles?

While I am at it, here are some interesting links that I hope you will at least look at Joe, especially the parts on economic opportunities in green tech.

Opportunities in stealing from people based on lies, deception, cover-ups? You related to Al Gore?

http://www.repamerica.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Game+plan:+what+conservatives+should+do+about+global+warming-a0164830927

When science replaces wishful thinking/lies/data manipulation, when there are peer-reviewed facts available, I will consider any reasonable arguments.

I suggest we start with an Independent Prosecutor, give him $500 million dollars for an investigation of this whole stinking rotten mess.

The cockroaches will start running then.


I am sorry that you are an un-repentant "True Believer", I don't think there is any hope for you. However, I wish you no ill will, and please stay away from the Koolaid.
 
Joe, sorry I’m just not tracking with you when you bring up the topic of closure of atmospheric stations in polar regions as evidence of conspiracy and then you state climatic conditions in the Arctic to not be “germane” to the topic at hand. Here are some “facts” that you contend I’ve not cited, since you apparently chose to disregard my previous link:

“Observations from instruments on the ground, balloons, and satellites show the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407132120.htm

“the Arctic is merely the trendsetter—the northern-most latitudes are among the fastest-warming parts of the globe due to various feedbacks.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-reverses-arctic-cooling

If you want peer review references they are of course available but I suspect you will contend that the reviewers are all just in on the conspiracy. I’ve reread the article at your suggestion and can’t find a retraction by the author on the statement that Soviet weather stations recording cooler temperatures were given preferential treatment.

I, of course, bear you no ill will either, Joe. I think on these internet discussions people come across a lot more tersely than they really intend to. This is just a technical issue on which we disagree. While I don’t think that there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists to assert more government control, I do think the jury is still out on the long term effects of warming, which is a verifiable fact. I’ve said several times before that a concern of mine is that the cure for GW may be worse than its symptoms, and that warming may even be beneficial in some ways.
 
Joe, sorry I’m just not tracking with you when you bring up the topic of closure of atmospheric stations in polar regions as evidence of conspiracy and then you state climatic conditions in the Arctic to not be “germane” to the topic at hand. Here are some “facts” that you contend I’ve not cited, since you apparently chose to disregard my previous link:

“Observations from instruments on the ground, balloons, and satellites show the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407132120.htm

“the Arctic is merely the trendsetter—the northern-most latitudes are among the fastest-warming parts of the globe due to various feedbacks.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-reverses-arctic-cooling

If you want peer review references they are of course available but I suspect you will contend that the reviewers are all just in on the conspiracy. I’ve reread the article at your suggestion and can’t find a retraction by the author on the statement that Soviet weather stations recording cooler temperatures were given preferential treatment.

I, of course, bear you no ill will either, Joe. I think on these internet discussions people come across a lot more tersely than they really intend to. This is just a technical issue on which we disagree. While I don’t think that there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists to assert more government control, I do think the jury is still out on the long term effects of warming, which is a verifiable fact. I’ve said several times before that a concern of mine is that the cure for GW may be worse than its symptoms, and that warming may even be beneficial in some ways.

I do appreciate the links to the articles, they are a good read, I just always find them to be just that--articles without specific citations or no statement of peer review. And with the current track record of abuses within the climatic research field, well, everything is suspect. It is going to be a "B", but I won't trust anything without a completion of an Independent Prosecutor's investigation, and full disclosure of original data.

There has been big money made in this. Without peer review people have gotten very comfortable, careers and reputations made, tenure granted, etc. I read Al Gore's net worth went from 6 million to 90+ million, and he stands to make about 500 million more off of cap and trade--but that is from magazine articles and just as suspect as the science journals.

I do believe MAN can have a huge impact on the environment--deforestation, pollution, erosion. Those are established facts. However, when there are too many issues that have yet to be addressed, and way to many exaggerated claims--proven exaggerated claims--to take anything on face value.

As always, fun bumping heads with you. :cheers:
 
climate change. Its its real, it isn't real. Its getting warmer, its cooling down...blah blah blah.

They have already proven that any scientific data can be manipulated. I prefer to look at the big names trying to push their agenda and go against the one who seems most likely to lie to me.

Al Gore??? hahahaha.
 
Back
Top