Now we KNOW pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement was the right thing to do

[SavedOnebyGrace]

More CO₂ produces more oxygen through the process of photosynthesis.  So if we would plant more trees and flowers instead of strip malls, we'd all be better off.  Clear-cutting forests in the Amazon, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere are the real problem.  CO₂ is not the problem. It is necessary for the production of oxygen.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Steve_S said:

Indeed. After an 18 year stretch of virtually no statistically significant increase in global temperatures based on their old model, they adjusted the model and, magically, the temperature is now rising again.

The proof is in the pudding as they say.   Nothing has happened that they predicted and yet people still hold on to this Liberal hoax.   The data is wrong and has been wrong for over a decade. 

It's not about climate, anyway.  It is about controlling what we buy and invest in.  

[Running Gator]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The proof is in the pudding as they say.   Nothing has happened that they predicted and yet people still hold on to this Liberal hoax.   The data is wrong and has been wrong for over a decade. 

It's not about climate, anyway.  It is about controlling what we buy and invest in.  

The data is not wrong, the extremist were wrong. 

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

People often confuse the science with the messengers. 

More from the article...

As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

[other one]

NOAA changed things in their models to show warming that wasn't there and if they will do that it kills trust in the data itself.

[Steve_S]

3 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

The data is not wrong, the extremist were wrong. 

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

People often confuse the science with the messengers. 

More from the article...

As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Well, the data is not the data. You have to look at how they achieve the data sets. In order to maintain consistent readings, models have been created in order even produce data that is usable. The numbers that climatologists use to determine changes in temperature are not the actual recorded numbers. 150 years ago when regular temperature readings in various locations started being taken, moving on up through 80, 90 years ago, into the 40-50 years ago range, the landscape was different in a lot of the areas where the readings are taken. If you were in phoenix 100 years ago, for instance, you could've placed a thermometer just outside of town and taken a daily temperature reading and gotten a number from that that was pretty consistently accurately without any environmental disturbance. To have a consistent temperature reading from that point forward, you need to record the temperature from that single spot going forward indefinitely. When a city expands and concrete is poured, stucko buldings and tile roofs are added, etc. etc. etc., you change the local thermal dynamics. You might get readings that are 30 or 40 degrees higher than they should be at 5 a.m. for instance or that are 5 or 10 degrees higher than they should be at 5 pm. This is just a single example, but there are several across the world with these reading stations. There are also local phenomena that can occur naturally or be created when taking oceanic temperature readings as well. The more humans build and expand, the more likely this is.

So, models have been created that attempt to factor in differences such as those above. The weight that is added or subtracted from the variables with regard to temperature can greatly influence the final outcomes in any given year. The model that was being used to equivocate these data sets led to a perceived increase in temperature until the late 90s and then a level-off from that point until recently, when the model that is used to weight the variables was changed. The newer model actually slightly increased the weight applied to the temperature variables in a lot of areas. As far as I understand it, if the old model is applied to the new numbers, it would still read a continued leveling or even slight decline in the net global temperature. However, since the new model has been introduced, there has been a net increase in global temperature roughly commensurate with the net increase that was recorded using the old model prior to the level-off.

I have no problem with applying modeling to data sets such as this. It is actually necessary to do so to actually draw conclusions. However, when you change a model that is not giving you results that you are looking for to a model that does produce those results, it is, at the very least, fishy. One would have to believe that there were 15 years of coincidences at multiple measurement stations that conspired to not give one statistically significant year's worth of increased net global temperature. One would also have to believe that an organization that is constantly sounding the alarm bell for global warming and who is very obviously sick of detractors using their own data against them would be incapable of gaming numbers in order to prove themselves right.

[simplejeff]

Sometimes there is a place to ski :

sometimes not >

 

Greenland's Jakobshavn Glacier is Moving 10 Miles Per Year ...

www.natureworldnews.com/.../greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-moving-10-miles-per-year-recording-breaking.htm - Cached - Similar

Feb 3, 2014 ... The massive Arctic glacier believed to be responsible for calving the iceberg that sunk the Titanic is moving from the Greenland ice sheet and ...

Landsat 8 captures the retreat of the Greenland's Jakobshavn Glacier.

https://www.facebook.com/ICESat2/posts/239877826206982

Jakobshavn is Greenland's fastest-moving glacier, and the flow rate is ... to speeds not seen before, surging at a rate of 17 kilometers (10 miles) per year.

[Guest shiloh357]

50 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

The data is not wrong, the extremist were wrong. 

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

People often confuse the science with the messengers. 

More from the article...

As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

But I am not talking about extremists. I am talking about the mainstream proponents.   Global Warming simply didn't happen as predicted and now the apologists are having to scramble for an explanation.  In true Hillary Clinton fashion, the mainstream proponents the MSM propped up are a liability and are now being jettisoned and getting eaten alive by those who used to promote them a decade ago.

[Running Gator]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But I am not talking about extremists. I am talking about the mainstream proponents.   Global Warming simply didn't happen as predicted and now the apologists are having to scramble for an explanation.  In true Hillary Clinton fashion, the mainstream proponents the MSM propped up are a liability and are now being jettisoned and getting eaten alive by those who used to promote them a decade ago.

What you call the mainstream proponents were the extremists.  Gore and his ilk misstated the data and made up things that the science never said was going to happen.   

It has happened as predicted, as the science predicted it, not as the talking heads did. 

Would it be fair of me to take someone's prediction based upon their reading of the bible that the world was going to end on certain day and then say the bible was wrong? 

[Running Gator]

38 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

Well, the data is not the data. You have to look at how they achieve the data sets. In order to maintain consistent readings, models have been created in order even produce data that is usable. The numbers that climatologists use to determine changes in temperature are not the actual recorded numbers. 150 years ago when regular temperature readings in various locations started being taken, moving on up through 80, 90 years ago, into the 40-50 years ago range, the landscape was different in a lot of the areas where the readings are taken. If you were in phoenix 100 years ago, for instance, you could've placed a thermometer just outside of town and taken a daily temperature reading and gotten a number from that that was pretty consistently accurately without any environmental disturbance. To have a consistent temperature reading from that point forward, you need to record the temperature from that single spot going forward indefinitely. When a city expands and concrete is poured, stucko buldings and tile roofs are added, etc. etc. etc., you change the local thermal dynamics. You might get readings that are 30 or 40 degrees higher than they should be at 5 a.m. for instance or that are 5 or 10 degrees higher than they should be at 5 pm. This is just a single example, but there are several across the world with these reading stations. There are also local phenomena that can occur naturally or be created when taking oceanic temperature readings as well. The more humans build and expand, the more likely this is.

The original data sets are available to download, with the actual recorded data from as far back as they have it.  And you can download the adjusted data as well as some of their models.  The amount of information and data that is readily available it really unprecedented as far as I know.  

 

[Steve_S]

24 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

What you call the mainstream proponents were the extremists.  Gore and his ilk misstated the data and made up things that the science never said was going to happen.   

It has happened as predicted, as the science predicted it, not as the talking heads did. 

Would it be fair of me to take someone's prediction based upon their reading of the bible that the world was going to end on certain day and then say the bible was wrong? 

Just so I can look into it, what climate researchers/experts do you consider to *not* be talking heads?