The Final Straw on Climate Change Lies???

[XJEEPER]

On a related note......the Obama Admin and John Kerry attempt to mix religion with climate change. Which proves my previous statement to be 100% accurate.

Kerry reiterated his view that the science is incontrovertible and implied that anyone arguing otherwise lacked “conscience or common sense.”

“Today, all the scientific evidence is telling us that we cannot afford to delay the reckoning with climate change,” he said. “With each passing day, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to contemplate.”


“In the face of these risks and these warnings, it is time for all of us to do what the science tells us we must, to do what our faiths require of us, and to do what our fragile planet demands of us: It’s time to take strong action to combat a truly life-and-death challenge,” Kerry stated.

My faith requires me to recognize truth from lies and not to mock God.

Global redistribution of wealth is the agenda. Stop with the Climate Change bullcrap.

 

[WB9YZU]

I think you got that backwards chief. Man has historically leveraged god to gain wealth, power, and control. Every religion in the world comes to mind.....

You are entitled to your opinion.

Actually, he had it right. Religion has been used to control the masses ever since day one.

The difference between god and science is that science to many is the new God.

If it has scientific method or proof behind it, no matter how refutable or bogus the science is, it is good.

Actions in the name of science recieve a "Carte Blanche" just as acts acts of State in the middle ages were forgiven with the same instrument.

 

[Vanimal]

On a related note......the Obama Admin and John Kerry attempt to mix religion with climate change. Which proves my previous statement to be 100% accurate.

Kerry reiterated his view that the science is incontrovertible and implied that anyone arguing otherwise lacked “conscience or common sense.”

“Today, all the scientific evidence is telling us that we cannot afford to delay the reckoning with climate change,” he said. “With each passing day, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to contemplate.”


“In the face of these risks and these warnings, it is time for all of us to do what the science tells us we must, to do what our faiths require of us, and to do what our fragile planet demands of us: It’s time to take strong action to combat a truly life-and-death challenge,” Kerry stated.

My faith requires me to recognize truth from lies and not to mock God.

Global redistribution of wealth is the agenda. Stop with the Climate Change bullcrap.

Of course the powers are going to try to use science to gain leverage over us. Now that there is enough indisputable evidence of how the earth and man were created, it's getting harder and harder to put fear into people with god to keep them in check, so a new approach is necessary. However, that does not mean all science is false, it just means they pick and chose what facts or research they want to use to support their agenda. It's up to you to do your own research and find the real facts, if you chose to.
However, it still seems far less manipulative and deadly than the bible, or any other piece of religious literature. So far, i have yet to see any massive casualty in the name of science. In fact, science has increased the average lifespan of man, significantly.
So kill people, or save people. Your choice.

 

[XJEEPER]

You lost me.....

 

[XJEEPER]

Grab the popcorn...... The Great Global Warming swindle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ#t=19

"Climate scentists need there to be a problem, in order to get funding"
Dr Roy Spencer, NASA Satellite Team leader

"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because money will then flow to climate science"
John Christy PhD Alabama State Climatologist and IPCC Lead Author

"The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics."

 

[Rod Knee]

Now I'm a relativist on this issue. As was expressed a while back by another poster, there are multiple variables that factor into climate that are untestable independently, so uncertainty, IMO, should be the order of the day. I put absolutists that think humans are 100% responsible in the same grouping with those absolutists that think humans are 0% responsible. And both groups are probably indeed politically driven.

So in the interest of "fairness and balance" I suggest clicking on the link:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

 

[XJEEPER]

Follow the money......

 

[tbburg]

My first question:
What is the average of the following numbers:
23.25, 22.98, 23.49, 24, 23.17, 22.72, 22.99,23.1, 22.8

23.17

You have just made a common error. I'm not being a smarta**.

The number 24 has 2 significant digits. The numbers 23.1 and 22.8 have 3 significant digits. All the rest have 4 significant digits. For standard statistical purposes, you use the lowest number of significant digits in the group. You can't assume the 24 is 24.00. It could be anywhere from 23.50 to 24.49

The average is 23, plus or minus 0.5.

In terms of global temperature, if half of your thermometer readings are from analog bar thermometers(which measure in one degree increments) your margin of error is roughly 1 degree(plus or minus 1/2 deg) This is mathematically problematic if you're going to claim a 1/10 degree temp rise. Keep in mind we're talking about a data set comprised of thousands of point readings, taken over multiple years using various equipment, merged with data sets that were extrapolations based on things like tree ring samples and ice core readings.

Now if we go back to our chart:

Where exactly are they getting clean worldwide data to within 0.05deg(C) today? How about in 1970? 1950? 1900?
(Actually the lines on the chart appear to be along a 0.01 graduation, as most of the data points don't line up with the 0.05 hash marks on the left and right)

This brings me to the other question in my prior post:

Second question: What are the odds we can have a meaningfully accurate global temperature measurement to less the 1/2 degree today, let alone any time prior to 1970?

It sounds like I'm trying to be nit-picky, but they call it "science", say it's settled, and are spending literally trillions and revamping entire economies based on this data.

And there's this:
http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1108701

It would be kind of funny if we saw a two or three degree drop over the next 20 years.

 

[Rod Knee]

Those are not temperatures. They are temp anomalies which are temps compared to baseline values, but your point about significant digits is a good one. The label on the left side of the chart perhaps should only display numbers carried out to the tenths digit which might make the chart less chattery, but I don't think it would change the big picture.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

 

[Rod Knee]

The graphs on this website only carry out numbers to the tenth digit which, as you point out, properly considers sigfigs considering, if my recollection is right, late nineteenth century thermometry was precise only to that digit. Today temps can be read to the thousandths if my recollecton is right.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

 

[Rod Knee]

"The accuracy of the conventional thermometer record hasn’t changed and the weakness is still the person taking the readings. It’s standard practice to take readings to one decimal place and in this respect the accuracy today is the same as it was some 200 years ago; the thermometers themselves are generally accurate to 0.01°C. The digital, automated and satellite readings are more accurate and these make up an ever greater proportion of the modern global temperature record.

Although one single measurement may only be accurate to 0.1°C, by the time there are several hundred or thousand readings from a site, any slight inaccuracies will be averaged out. Over time, a correctly sited and maintained station should be accurate to within 0.001°C. "


http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100516095446AAtgmPk

 

[XJEEPER]

Sigh.......12% is a majority? So goes the narrative of the junk scientist, to protect his grant funding.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...Himalayan-glaciers-not-disappearing-after-all

 

[XJEEPER]

June 17, 2014
Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”


I've said it before, follow the money.........

"As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding.

All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences."

Truth!

http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/17/scientist-reveals-inconvenient-truth-to-alarmists/

 

[Rod Knee]

The Ice Ages (that is plural) taking place during Pleistocene and Holocene times are marked by major advances and retreats. These fluctuations have long been recognized and named (i.e. Wisconsin, Nebraskan, Illinoisan, and Kansan in North America). Superimposed on the major advances/retreats were innumerable minor advance/retreats as has also long been established. There is nothing new here save perhaps the specious suggestion that the current retreat is thought in some quarters to be unprecedented.

 

[XJEEPER]

Correct. Nothing new..... and nothing mankind has any control over.

 

[XJEEPER]

I love this quote.....
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

[Rod Knee]

The essential contention expressed in the link listed in the post immediately above this one is that warming since the 1930's is an artifact of data fudged by disreputable scientists. The author asserts that "the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record". It is curious then that glaciers in North America including the lower 48 states have been dramatically shrinking as has been photodocumented. An example of successive photos documenting this phenomenon can be viewed in the link below. As stated in the narrative within this link: "Repeat photography of the glaciers, such as the pictures taken of Grinnell Glacier between 1938 and 2009 as shown, help to provide visual confirmation of the extent of glacier retreat".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

 

[Rod Knee]

"When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds."

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

 

[Rod Knee]

Toward the bottom of this link you can see dramatic photodocumentation of the melting of a glacier in Olympic Natl Park from 1936 to 2004. The author of the article in the Telegraph ought to be embarrassed at his lack of diligence.


http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/glaciers.htm

 

[XJEEPER]

From NASA's website
"Throughout the centuries, attempts have been made to produce forecasts based on weather lore and personal observations"

Some things never change. The main difference between 200 years ago and now, is folks are leverage the ever changing climate for financial gain, power and control to the extent of manupulating world economies and driving social agendas.

Anyone declaring that science is settled is not a scientist, but a propagandist with an ulterior motive.