When people have been living a lie for too long, they start to believe that they are correct and the gods are wrong.
They just need to make their lie a little larger and extend it a little longer, and eventually it will become the truth.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- conrad ziefle on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- Greg in NZ on The End Of Everything
- Bob G on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- Disillusioned on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- Disillusioned on Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Mac on The End Of Everything
I have strong doubts about their ability to collect accurate data and how they show it.
Due to the downward trend for the last 10 years here in the US, it just doesn’t fit.
Where are all the global warmers? They can’t handle the cold and snow!
The Heat Causes a Sled Boom in Germany
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/12/global-cooling-catches-sled-manufacturers-off-guard/
Hansen feels the need to explain why GISS is high in the midst of frigid air
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/hansen-feels-the-need-to-explain-why-giss-is-high-in-the-midst-of-frigid-air/
They need a new scare, here it is:
The new scare, this time joined by the US Army.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/12/weekinreview/12shanker.html?hp
For first time ever:
The Salvation Army, for the first time, canceled bell ringing in Minnesota and North Dakota.
Scores of events….Holidazzle parade…..high school hockey…basketball games…. ironically…a celebration in St. Paul of the 20th anniversary of Will Steger’s International Trans-Antarctica Expedition. The weather was just too foul to hold it.
http://www.startribune.com/local/111720484.html?page=2&c=y
this is chilling news too
Record deficit for one month: U.S. Posts $150.4 Billion November Budget Deficit…. President Barack Obama’s administration expects the deficit to top $1 trillion in this fiscal year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011683555582342.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLTopStories
If you have a big enough lie and say it over and over people come to believe it, a NAZI germany technique
OT, but is science
Navy’s sci-fi railgun breaks record for most powerful gun on the planet (super slo-mo videoVIDEO)
…..strike from more than 100 miles away…… sends a 20-pound projectile rocketing through the air at seven times the speed of sound……
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/12/2010-12-12_navys_scifi_railgun_breaks_record_for_most_powerful_gun_on_the_planet_video.html
Hmm, I guess they could take pot-shots at satellites with that 😀
now that’s bad ass.
if you are into puzzles, try to look into how a rail gun works
because according to theory, they shouldn’t
The Longest & Quietest Solar Magnetic Minimum in Recorded History
A key indicator of solar magnetic activity, the Ap Index (average planetary magnetic index) has reached the lowest absolute values, lowest 5 year moving average values, and by far the highest number of continuous months ? 10 since record keeping by NOAA began in 1932:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/12/longest-quietest-solar-magnetic-minimum.html
Yes, it’s a conspiracy! Scientists, the UN, governments have secretly all become commies after all and are now plotting to deceive the world so they can tax us to death! Paranoiacs of the world, unite!
Climate change was predicted to bring more extreme weather events, guys. Guess you missed that part.
Sense Seeker, Satellite observations show temperature anomalies for November of .38 for UAH, and .312 for RSS. James Hansen’s GISS shows an anomaly of .74 but worse than that, uses the period of 1950 to 1980 as the baseline from which the anomaly is derived. If GISS uses the 1980-2009 period like UAH and RSS, the anomaly would only be .46. Furthermore GISS extrapolates temperatures for 1200 kilometers away to “calculate” global temperatures where there is no data. Hansen and GISS are unscientific and their numbers cannot be believed nor relied-upon. Oh, and please define “extreme” weather events – you might want to read,
Di Baldassarre, G., A. Montanari, H. Lins, D. Koutsoyiannis, L. Brandimarte, and G. Blöschl (2010), Flood fatalities in Africa: From diagnosis to mitigation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L22402, doi:10.1029/2010GL045467.
Based on the results of both continental and at?site analyses, we find that the magnitude of African floods has not significantly increased during the Twentieth Century (Figures 2 and 3), and that climate has not been a consequential factor in the observed increase in flood damage. This is consistent with the results previously obtained [Kundzewicz et al., 2005; Bates et al., 2008; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Lins and Slack, 1999; Mudelsee et al., 2003] in different areas, such as North America, Europe, and Australia.
and this one for starters’
The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has just put online a review paper (peer reviewed) by Laurens Bouwer, of the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, titled, “Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?”.
Readers of this blog already know the answer to this question, and here is Bouwers’ conclusion:
The analysis of twenty-two disaster loss studies shows that economic losses from various weather related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, have increased around the globe. The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.
These are from Roger Pielke’s excellent blog, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/
When convenient, the evidence is warming. When cooling, the evidence is “extreme weather.” What a bullshit religion.
Sense Seeker says:
December 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Climate change was predicted to bring more extreme weather events,
It was warmer on earth 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now. It was colder on earth 500 years ago during the Little Ice Age than it is now. Nothing “extreme” is happening on earth now. You are exaggerating.
The Little Ice Age is indeed incompletely understood, but it seems likely that decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity contributed. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Well, SO FAR nothing really extreme happened, but things are changing. You can point to changes in times long ago, but either humans weren’t around to be affected by them, or they actually were affected.
And so far the IPCC has not exaggerated. Take sea level rise; their predictions in 2001 are more than confirmed by subsequent measurements. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
SkepticalScience is a propaganda web site. Why link to it?
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 1:52 am
Well, SO FAR nothing really extreme happened, but things are changing.
Give data that proves “things are changing”.
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 1:52 am
The Little Ice Age is indeed incompletely understood
It makes no sense, Sense Seeker, to say that.
What is happening now on earth is well within natural variability. Nothing unusual is happening, regardless of what caused the Little Ice Age. Whatever it was it was natural. And what is happening now is natural.
STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE. You guys are a pack of fear mongers!!!!
“SkepticalScience is a propaganda web site.” On the contrary, it is an ANTI-propaganda website. The difference between the two? The latter refer to scientific evidence, the former to anecdotal or selected partial evidence.
“Why link to it?”
Because it summarises the science and links to evidence.
Things are changing: e.g. 6cm sea level rise in the past 10 years, which is consistent with model predictions. Again, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm. Or check it out with NASA if you prefer.
Average sea level rise for all NOAA tide gauges is less than 1 mm/year. Far below what Cook claims and what the IPCC predicts.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
You did not link to peer reviewed works that back your claims about the Little Ice Age.
if you prefer.
I prefer data. And you are not providing any. You are only linking to a propaganda web site.
Sense Seeker
Is this, “Sense Seeker”, the only name you use for comments?
Steven Goddard,
you linked to data that can be read unlike Sense Seeker who linked a page that showed a graph and then told what to think about the graph.
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 2:10 am
Or check it out with NASA if you prefer.
What is it I am supposed to be looking for at NASA?
So you don’t believe the meteorologists when they tell you the average temperatures, saying they don’t measure them right. But you do believe a single snapshot, and on that narrow basis reject the averages based on the same method?
That’s called cherry picking. Disregard any evidence that doesn’t confirm your thesis. (“Readers of this blog already know the answer.” Right.)
You failed to respond to any of my points. It seems to me that the only one “cherry-picking” is Hansen with his baseline period of 1950-1980 to exaggerate the temperature anomaly. I would also be interested in your take on the systematic reduction of average temperatures from the 1930’s and 1940’s and the retrospective increase of temperatures since the 1980’s by NASA/GISS. I guess thermometers worked differently back then.
Okay, Chuck, here you go.
Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time.
Early and late 20th century warming has been explained primarily by increasing solar activity and increasing CO2 concentrations, respectively, with other factors contributing in both periods. So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants.
The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.
1. Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
2. A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).
Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising.
The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.
As a final point, it should be noted that in 1945, the way in which sea temperatures were measured changed, leading to a substantial drop in apparent temperatures. Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced.
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
So you see, your cooling period has already been explained and all the relevant factors are included in the present climate models. Which, of course, predict warming.
Nice description of confirmation bias. Seeking out facts that support the preconceived conclusion.
Sense Seeker
here some sense for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-B77WMFpxk
Sense Seeker
You remind me of Tony Duncan. Are you him? Or, maybe you all just talk the same.
What do you mean, Amino, when you say we all talk the same? You mean, backed up with evidence & all that?
And Steve, my confirmation is at least backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence. I am yet to see the evidence for your views, which so far seems to consist of carefully-selected snaps shots of the whole body of evidence, qoutes from the Bible, holiday pics and what not.
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 12:00 am
A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).
You say you use peer reviewed work for evidence. Would you list the peer reviewed works that are the basis for you claim about volcanoes.
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 12:00 am
1. Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War.
The price of stamps, and ice cream has gone up since the end of WW II. Stamps and ice cream cause global warming.
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 1:33 am
You mean, backed up with evidence & all that?
This response is just like I’ve read before. Are you using a new name today?
Sense, interesting history lesson but you still did explain the large discrepancy between GISS and satellite observations. Also, you did not prove nor justify your claim that climate change has caused “more extreme weather events,” whatever they might be.
did NOT explain the large discrepancy between GISS and satellite observations.
Nonsense Believer:
Thank you for a repeat of the Fairy tale that has been produced to support the activities of the Chicken Little Brigade!
You missed a few major points but your fantasy is alive and well in the minds of your fellow believers.
Nonsense Believer also did not explain how recent weather history appear to follow natural patterns that are evident in all but the Chicken Little Brigade fabrications that have earned the shared tile Progeny of the Hockey Stick.
Without proper Al-Gore-Rhythms being used on recent temperature records what you claim does not exist.
Calling names when you run out of arguments? Tsk tsk, that don’t look very good.
He ran out of arguments?
No, you’re right. He never had any.
Sense Seeker
your comments are exactly like other commenters here. Are you using more than one name?
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 2:11 am
No, you’re right. He never had any.
That is childish.
I just use the name best suited for the persona displayed by someone that needs to be anonymous.
If in fact you were seeking a sensible answer you would not be quoting Scepticalscience nor would you be defending Hansen’s GISS garbage! Your sources provide evidence that you are a true believer in the Church of CACC or whichever acronym you prefer.
If you use reports from the Pathological Science of Climatology there are no real world answers to a person who lives a fantasy because the truth backed by real world evidence is a lie to a true believer such as your self!
If you come out slinging BS expect BS back!
Sorry to intrude in your cosy little world, Mike. Keep up the faith. Sleep well.
Amino, if other commenters use the same arguments it is because those are the arguments that are backed up by scientific evidence.
If you can prove wrong, in peer-reviewed scientific publications, the current scientific evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming, I’ll gladly agree with you. Until you do, you’ll find people citing evidence that doesn’t support your points of view.
So what caused the almost identical warming from `1910-1940?
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 2:29 am
backed up by scientific evidence.
You keep saying that but you don’t give scientific evidence.
Sense Seeker
You must have overlooked this: do you use other names for commenting besides Sense Seeker?
Sense Seeker says:
December 13, 2010 at 2:29 am
the current scientific evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming
Would you list the peer reviewed works that back what you say?
No Amino, as I implied, I do not use other names. I am not a single-person conspiracy. The others are simply other sensible people.
As for the CO2-issue and the evidence, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
Now, if you go there, you’ll find links to scientific papers and other sources. I know this must be new to you because this site hardly contains any, but there’s your evidence.
Alternatively, you could actually have a look at the IPCC report, which reviews matters in more depth.
Of course, you’ll do neither, but I’m not going to make that my problem.
You linked to the same web site. I see where you are coming from.
You do the same thing, you talk a big talk but do not walk a big walk.
NONSENSE Believer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQNqk54HPdE&feature=related
If a person wants to discuss climate science they should at least know the difference between a Meteorologist, A Climate Scientist, and a Climatologist.
Using Meteorologist when talking about a group of Climatologists or Play Station Modelers. means you are just doing cut and paste to disrupt the conversation on this site!
“disrupt the conversation”
He’s done that a few times. He brings up things out of the blue.
AAM:
You might offend our guest by attaching a gender to an entity that came to visit. our entity used a non gender specific descriptor and that leaves us without a clue whether it is a S /HE/IT. To be polite and Politically Correct you should address the guest as it or a generic S,HE,IT!
😉
He seems to have disappeared without answering any of my questions, except for linking to John Cook’s web site. John Cook is the 1 that started as the 700 that were going to unite to protest to Washington about global warming. Then the 700 became 39. Then the 39 became 1, John Cook.
Other than that he didn’t answer any of my questions.
And you expected?
You probably hurt S,HE,IT’s feelings! 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kEjwm_me_s
Or maybe this for the believers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ICd6xj8nv8&feature=related
i think the were trying out one their new bots.
came canned responses
with no relation to reality.