I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Mad Mike]

That sounds like what the Communists do, with the proper instruction all things are possible. 

 

I see. Education now equals communism. 

 

Poof... there goes another brain cell.

[twa]

I see. Education now equals communism. 

 

Poof... there goes another brain cell.

 

 

Since ya seem to assert only the uneducated are AGW skeptics perhaps ya have already lost too many.

 

I'm trying to give ya the benefit of doubt by assuming you just want to indoctrinate them with your brand of education. 

[tshile]

 

The majority are idiots, no matter the subject 

 

See, I knew we had some common ground to start with

[Jumbo]

That was some good n fun back n forth. 

[tshile]

There is only one way to fight ignorance... education.

 

You're starting with the bar too high.

 

A basic understanding of the scientific method, how research works, and peer review would probably be more appropriate

[Predicto]

I think I can actually feel brain cells dying from reading TWAs posts.

 

 

He's not here to hunt bear.

 

(hunting bear in this context meaning honestly discussing most issues)

 

twa is mostly here to poke around and cause a ruckus.   He doesn't believe half of what he says

 

(or more often implies, he's too smart to actually say some things with certainly but just likes to throw out open ended baloney and leave certain "impressions" behind)

 

IHOP, on the other hand, reads the CanadaFreePress and actually believes it.   

Edited April 28, 2015 by Predicto

[Mad Mike]

Since ya seem to assert only the uneducated are AGW skeptics perhaps ya have already lost too many.

 

I'm trying to give ya the benefit of doubt by assuming you just want to indoctrinate them with your brand of education. 

 

And you assume that it is every major scientific organization in the world, including NASA, and backed by the US military, NOT the republican party backed by big oil and gas who kiss the rings of their masters for political donations who are doing the political indoctrination.

 

Poof... poof... poof... poof.... 

 

 

Oil & Gas | OpenSecrets

 

 

 

Political donations from the industry - which includes gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline stations, and fuel oil dealers - have taken on an increasingly conservative tint over the past two decades. In the 2012 cycle, 90 percent of its contributions went to the GOP.

 

Koch brothers set $889 million budget for 2016

 

Republican hopefuls appear at billionaire Koch retreat | Reuters

[twa]

You're starting with the bar too high.

 

A basic understanding of the scientific method, how research works, and peer review would probably be more appropriate

 

Ya might add the limits of those.

[Mad Mike]

He's not here to hunt bear.

 

(hunting bear in this context meaning honestly discussing most issues)

 

twa is mostly here to poke around and cause a ruckus.   He doesn't believe half of what he says

 

(or more often implies, he's too smart to actually say some things with certainly but just likes to throw out open ended baloney and leave certain "impressions" behind)

 

IHOP, on the other hand, reads the CanadaFreePress and actually believes it.   

 

I disagree. He's trying to hunt bear. He just doesn't have a big enough gun. 

[twa]

Don't need a gun, I charm em.

 

Sometimes even make them dance.

[mcsluggo]

i knew i recognized you from somewhere....

 

[tshile]

Ya might add the limits of those.

 

That would hopefully be part of the conversation, yes

 

I maintain the discussion in the scientific community is completely different than the one in the political arena... in many ways. Both sides have exploited it for their own motives.

 

Not to be confused with thinking that the motives on both sides are equal, because I do not believe they are

[twa]

 

 

I maintain the discussion in the scientific community is completely different than the one in the political arena... in many ways. Both sides have exploited it for their own motives.

 

Not to be confused with thinking that the motives on both sides are equal, because I do not believe they are

 

 Most certainly, though not w/o rancor and excess.

 

Equality is a overrated condition. 

[IHOPSkins]

IHOP, on the other hand, reads the CanadaFreePress and actually believes it.   

Hard not to.....

 

This Longtime IHOP Owner Sold His 16 Restaurants Because of Obamacare

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70635

 

Edited April 29, 2015 by IHOPSkins

[Predicto]

Hard not to.....

 

This Longtime IHOP Owner Sold His 16 Restaurants Because of Obamacare

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70635

 

 

 

Nicely done!   

[twa]

Ok I'm bored

 

Did they change the data or not?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.PmA26Nn5.kBtOJZaV.dpbs

 

Here in the U.S. I have documented manipulations similar to those in Switzerland and other locations worldwide that NTZ wrote about yesterday.

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history between 2013 and 2015 (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs NOAA 2015 climate data after when they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).

 

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.PmA26Nn5.kBtOJZaV.dpuf

[PeterMP]

Ok I'm bored

 

Did they change the data or not?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.PmA26Nn5.kBtOJZaV.dpbs

 

Here in the U.S. I have documented manipulations similar to those in Switzerland and other locations worldwide that NTZ wrote about yesterday.

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history between 2013 and 2015 (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs NOAA 2015 climate data after when they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).

 

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.PmA26Nn5.kBtOJZaV.dpuf

 

First, they have "changed" the data multiple time and the changes to the data are reported, including the programs to changes the data can be freely downloaded.

 

The data is changed for different reason.

 

The biggest issue with looking at the raw data is that temperatures used to be collected at noon, and now they are collected in the morning.

 

And of course the raw data is still freely available.

 

The whole "conspiracy" component of what you posted is laughable

 

And of course, this is all described in the peer reviewed literature too, including a comparison of the earlier version (v1) and the latest version (v2):

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0248.1

 

"National-scale temperature trends in version 2 are comparable to those in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network whereas version 1 exhibits less warming as a result of historical changes in observing practices."

 

I mean its so awful, they've actually put it in the ABSTRACT of the paper on their data set and not just for Maine, but for the whole country.

 

But nobody thought that they'd keep the old data and compare them?

 

I'm guessing they thought that nobody would so stupid to think there was a giant conspiracy over some thing that was freely and clearly in the public domain.

 

(of course, you can still download the raw data as well as the programs used to create the "changed" data for v1 or v2 or just read the paper they wrote comparing them where they stated that v2 shows more warming than v1 and explains why.)

 

So yes the NOAA has changed the data in a continual effort to create a better representation of the global climate where they go out of their way to tell us what the changes were, what affects the changes had as compared to the old methods and why they were made as well as giving access to the underlying data and the programs used to change the data.

 

It is a real scandal.

Edited May 4, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

seems fishy , why noon now?

 

hungover?

[PeterMP]

seems fishy , why noon now?

 

hungover?

 

It is actually morning now.  The older temperatures had to be "cooled" because they were collected at noon.

 

I don't honestly know.  I don't think there was a single reason.

 

Though I think some of it may have been minimize shade vs. sun affects over time as the environment around the thermometers change, which is something else that the deniers had  made a big stink over.  If the thermometer is in the shade, and then somebody cuts down the tree, then that's less of an issue if you are taking temperature readings in the morning than at noon.

 

I believe part of it was out of concerns like that.  We've created a knowable problem now, but they did some work before the transition to see the difference between noon and morning and make the adjustments that will minimize siting issues in the future that are harder to control/track.

 

Also a lot of it is done by volunteers.  Maybe it was just more convenient for people.

 

I've never seen anybody claim it was for nefarious reasons.

 

We now have like 6 "global surface temperature data sets" where people are collecting raw data and analyzing it differently to determine a "global surface temperature", they are all run by different groups/countries (some cases the government like NOAA and NASA do one, but also academics/non-profits do some (e.g. the BEST data set)), and they all agree within error of the measurements.

 

And they all essentially agree with the satellite data (given the known issue of El Nino's affecting troposphere temperatures more than surface temperatures).

 

I'm still waiting for the skeptic to take the data and put together something that doesn't show warming.

Edited May 4, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

If it was a conspiracy to "promote" the concept of global warming, why lower the temps? Why not manipulate to raise them? 

 

The article is moronic. 

[Mad Mike]

Gravity Data Confirms: Antarctica Is Melting Faster Than Ever Before | Popular Science

 

 

  In flybys over Antarctica, the satellites were able to weigh the mass of Antarctica's ice cover. GRACE measures gravity by orbiting in formation around the earth. One satellite follows the other at a set distance, but when they pass over an area of greater gravity (an area with more mass), the lead satellite gets pulled away from its companion. By comparing gravity anomalies over time, GRACE can see where water is moving around the world. The data showed that between 2003 and 2014, Antarctica lost 92 billion tons of ice per year. That's the net amount of ice loss--some ice grew back in East Antarctica, but the gains were a drop in the bucket compared to the 121 billon tons of ice that the West Antarctic ice shelf lost during that time.

"The fact that West Antarctic ice-melt is still accelerating is a big deal because it's increasing its contribution to sea-level rise," Harig said in a press release. "It really has potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet."

[twa]

thinngs usually melt when ya put heat under them

http://news.utexas.edu/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

 

 

maybe we can nuke em

[tshile]

i would think getting an extra 1-2 meters of water would help with the water shortage issue

[Larry]

i would think getting an extra 1-2 meters of water would help with the water shortage issue

Yeah, because the oceans were running out of water, last year.

[tshile]

you realize i'm joking, right?

 

it's hard for me to tell with you sometimes

Edited May 6, 2015 by tshile