quote:

That, my dear boobies, is the definition of consensus.

There was once consensus that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the galaxy.

quote:

This graph shows a greater extent of ice than last year, and within the standard deviation of a 30 year period (a rather short period of time, historically speaking).

Does man affect temperatures? Obviously, yes. Look at localized temps of urban vs rural regions, or even put 100 people in a small room. Is it statistically relevant? That's a different question. Are they the only variables that affect temps, local or global? Obviously not.

It is weather. It is climate. They change. It's normal.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Beard:

quote:

That, my dear boobies, is the definition of consensus.

There was once consensus that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the galaxy.

quote:

This graph shows a greater extent of ice than last year, and within the standard deviation of a 30 year period (a rather short period of time, historically speaking).

Does man affect temperatures? Obviously, yes. Look at localized temps of urban vs rural regions, or even put 100 people in a small room. Is it statistically relevant? That's a different question. Are they the only variables that affect temps, local or global? Obviously not.

It is weather. It is climate. They change. It's normal.

Gotta luv your logic Beard..

Dave

Don't waste your time. The Hoaxmaster believes something from a government that has done nothing but put out lies to cover its own bullshyt and he has bought into the whole money making bs. You give him facts and he comes up with a copy and paste(just like Boob job)of some link to a government supported PHD and thinks it the truth. Let this thing just die.

maybe English should not visit this topic with his idiotic 1 line responses.
It has to be pretty fawking quiet around his dinner table.

still waiting on that copy and paste list of the 100,s of thousands of scientist

its just these guys against 100,s of thousands of scientist and the QUEEN ....

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes





Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[50]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[51]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [52]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[53]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 67TSCHEVY2,

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:
maybe English should not visit this topic with his idiotic 1 line responses.
It has to be pretty fawking quiet around his dinner table.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Beard:

quote:

That, my dear boobies, is the definition of consensus.

There was once consensus that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the galaxy.

quote:

This graph shows a greater extent of ice than last year, and within the standard deviation of a 30 year period (a rather short period of time, historically speaking).

Does man affect temperatures? Obviously, yes. Look at localized temps of urban vs rural regions, or even put 100 people in a small room. Is it statistically relevant? That's a different question. Are they the only variables that affect temps, local or global? Obviously not.

It is weather. It is climate. They change. It's normal.

There was no “scientific consensus” that the earth was flat or the earth was the center of the universe. These were quite simply religious dictums to which everyone one was required on pain of death and damnation to believe, that is not a consensus, scientific or otherwise.

Science is often wrong, most often in the details, but science will be the very first to tell everyone when it has been wrong. Unlike those of the religious persuasion who in this case took around 600 years to admit their errors in the case of heliocentrism and Galileo. Part of the scientific method is to try to falsify a hypothesis or theory. Religion rarely if ever questions its own pronouncements, that job has been performed by science for just about 600 years or so. So don’t try and tar science with the same brush, which has been dipped deeply in the bucket of failed religious pronouncements, the majority of which were based solely on flights of fantasy compounded with much tortured logic. Science is the rock upon which all religions pronouncements are invariably dashed and destroyed.

Once again 97% of people working in the field of climate science agree that AGW/ACC is occurring while 0.7% disagree.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Full Text PDF

The most recent graphic of Artic sea ice extent was a response to point out that BS Billy is a liar of epic proportions, he having stated that the Artic Sea Ice extent was already increasing. Sans any citation as to where this info came from, meaning that it likely came directly from his all-purpose anal archive. If one makes a statement and then is presented with credible evidence to the contrary and then continues to make that same statement again and again, that by definition makes them a liar.

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Koski:

“WOW!!!!!

The Arctic summer is the shortest on record, less then half of the usual 90 days above freezing this year and the Arctic ice is already beginning to expand at a record rate!”

So from that point of view it is irrelevant if sea ice extent is within 2 SD’s or not. The statement made by BS Billy is verifiably untrue, or a lie. Just look at any of the Sea Ice graphs, none of which shows data more than 24 Hrs. old, the little blue line is still going down and will continue to do so until around the first or second week in September.

But the glaring falsity of BS Billy’s statements aside, simply because this year’s sea ice extent is within 2 SD’s (barely) does not portray a complete picture. Not only is the ice extent getting smaller, the six lowest records have occurred in the last six years. The ice is getting thinner and younger, with less and less multiyear ice, i.e. the total volume is going down. You ever hear of something called Westgard Rules? They are rules used for interpreting statistical data or values. I won’t bore you with the details, but any time you start seeing all the values falling on one side of the mean, things are most definitely not normal. Not even inside the concept that cyclic climate change is normal. It is, has been, and will continue to be the increased “rate” at which change is occurring that is worrisome.
Here are a couple of links to nice articles on multiyear ice, click on the graphics and watch as the ice disappears over the years.

http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...ting-thinner-younger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=player_detailpage

As to statistical relevance I’ve already pointed out above that it is not “normal” to see so many data points on the same side of the mean and as to the short period of the observational record for Sea Ice Extent, this is only one of many types of observations, both instrumental and proxy, many that extend back a whole heck of a lot further than 30 years, the vast majority of which trend in a direction that supports, AGW/ACC.

So it’s weather, yes. It’s climate, yes. They change, yes. It’s normal, NO!

Finely, if you still are of the opinion that the current “rate of change” in worldwide climate is normal, or the data is not statistically relevant, please do provide some form of “DATA” to support those positions, not just your unsubstantiated opinion.

all of the adults know we are accelerating climate change. Sadly brains are not needed in politics, money and BS are. So instead of focusing on clean energy and getting China and India into the current century we are talking about the mythical IRS scandal, fake birth certificates and impeaching a president because some don't like him. Oh and also shutting the government down if some don't get their way.

Queen one, your a good example of no brains. It was Bamy who said that the IRS was a scandal till he realized that he f up and then it was nothing.

quote:

Oh and also shutting the government down if some don't get their way.

That's a two way street. IF the house and senate were able to pass a bill with funding for EVERYTHING but obamacare, obama would veto it!

quote:

Originally posted by dirtpimp:
still waiting on that copy and paste list of the 100,s of thousands of scientist

its just these guys against 100,s of thousands of scientist and the QUEEN ....

Not that I remember you asking for a list of AGW supporting scientist, 100's of thousands or otherwise, I will bite.

http://scholar.google.com/scho...&as_ylo=1960&as_yhi=

You want a list here you go, that's over 572,000 papers referring to global warming since 1960, I will leave you to look up the authors names yourself. I don’t think this site's admin’s would be happy with me for posting a straight text list that long, no matter how much storage that they might have at their disposal.

Measure that against the Wiki list you have reposted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...nt_of_global_warming

Some on the Wiki list simply disagree with the accuracy of climate model predications, not that AGW is not happening.

That aside, less than ten of the total make their statements as part of the scientific record, as a peer reviewed paper, these represent roughly one thousandth of one percent (0.001%) of the scientific record, well at least that which is captured in the Google Scholar record, I would guess that the actual extent of the total scientific record is larger still.

“As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list (the Wiki dissenters you posted and I clipped) are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

Could this be the reason you chose not to include this quote or an attribution where your information came from with your post?

For instance, If you went to a beach and picked up a big hand full of sand, and if every grain of sand in your hand represented a Google Scholar citation, from a search as above on AGW, on average you would have to pick up about 5 hands full before you picked up your first dissenting paper. Does that give you even a remote clue of how big the consensus is and how few the dissenters are? No? Well you would have to pick up about 53 hands full of sand to find all your doubters.

WTFUDA

Copy and paste the hundreds of thousands , lol . More smoke mirrors ..wwld ..lol

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Poor "little man larry heathen" has to keep his nose buried in the propaganda distributed by the HOAXERS so he doesn't stumble onto REAL FACTS!!!!!
Like the abnormally cold "summer" in the Arctic and the REAL FACT that there has been ZERO warming in the past 15 YEARS!!!!!

SO, apparently East Anglican University moved from Great Britain while I was not looking?????
RETARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll guarantee F-ing tee anyone the hoaxees avoided finding out anything that was in these E-mails that exposed the lying, data switching and data manipulation that the HOAXERS routinely practice like they would avoid the plague!!!!!
If a hoaxee had they wouldn't be a duped boob hoaxee after that, they'd have seen the LIGHT!!!!!
The doofus that was really blown out of the water by the E-mails pulled a variation of President Richard M. Nixon's "I'm not a crook!"
Except he didn't deny really being a crook, just that the E-Mails made him look like a BIGGER crook!!!!!
Naturally the hoaxees swallowed this bull shyt WHOLE like they swallow all of the HOAXERS propaganda!!!!!!

SSDD!

It appears that BS Billy has gotten too lazy to even make up new lies.

I know "Preparation H" is, some how going to argue this point but, hey Prep there's a program on the History Channel called Ice Road Truckers and every year during the winter, hundreds of trucks haul supplies across frozen lakes and rivers in the far north. That's in Canada and Alaska and every year the ice melts when the weather gets warm, you know, above 32 degrees and refreezes when the temperature gets below 32 degrees. These lakes and rivers freezes thick enough to support 80,000 lb plus trucks. Yea Prep the ice melts and freezes with the seasons....go figure

quote:

These lakes and rivers freezes thick enough to support 80,000 lb plus trucks.

I worked on the North Slope for a couple of years. I visited an operation where a land rig was set on the sea pack ice. I would hate to guess the weight of a rig sub structure, drill floor, derrick and drill string weight. On sunny days when you drove to the rig the solar heat on the saltwater ice would leave it mushy on top!!! Sorry.....

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
As poor "little man larry heathen" shows his true colors!!!!!
He accuses me of lying but absolutely refuses to look at places where the truth is published! The East Anglican University E-mails absolutely eviscerated the HOAXERS claims showing how they lie, manipulate and manufacture data!!!!!
Of course poor "little man larry heathen" could claim it was not FACTUAL because the HOAXERS hand-maidens, the left-wing lame steam moron media, refused to report anything on the subject!!!!!

Then here comes poor "little man larry heathen" beating the drum for the serial perjurer Whitewater queenie!!!!!
This demonstrates once again how little respect poor "little man larry heathen" has for TRUTH and FACTS!!!!!

Poor "little man larry heathen" has to keep his nose buried in the propaganda distributed by the HOAXERS so he doesn't stumble onto REAL FACTS!!!!!
Like the abnormally cold "summer" in the Arctic and the REAL FACT that there has been ZERO warming in the past 15 YEARS!!!!!

SO, apparently East Anglican University moved from Great Britain while I was not looking?????
RETARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll guarantee F-ing tee anyone the hoaxees avoided finding out anything that was in these E-mails that exposed the lying, data switching and data manipulation that the HOAXERS routinely practice like they would avoid the plague!!!!!
If a hoaxee had they wouldn't be a duped boob hoaxee after that, they'd have seen the LIGHT!!!!!
The doofus that was really blown out of the water by the E-mails pulled a variation of President Richard M. Nixon's "I'm not a crook!"
Except he didn't deny really being a crook, just that the E-Mails made him look like a BIGGER crook!!!!!
Naturally the hoaxees swallowed this bull shyt WHOLE like they swallow all of the HOAXERS propaganda!!!!!!

SSDD

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:
[QUOTE]These lakes and rivers freezes thick enough to support 80,000 lb plus trucks.

I worked on the North Slope for a couple of years. I visited an operation where a land rig was set on the sea pack ice. I would hate to guess the weight of a rig sub structure, drill floor, derrick and drill string weight. On sunny days when you drove to the rig the solar heat on the saltwater ice would leave it mushy on top!!!

But still solid enough to run a loaded semi on

quote:

But still solid enough to run a loaded semi on

You bet, that's how all the materials get in and out, to include the rig itself. The cummulitive weight of the rig components I mentioned must be at least 6 or 7 loaded semi's. And that's just the single heaviest subassembly there is many more times that weight setting close by.

For years now, BS Billy has posted lie after lie.

He is just an angry old man who has seen his life slowing down and he wants to complain and spread BS every chance he gets to get attention.

His neighbors ignored him and his fellow co-workers ignored him.
Even his fellow racers don't want him around.
A fellow racer posted he was a BIG complainer at Norwalk when he stormed up to the tower.
Do you know what they told him?????

Yep.....some things never change.

BS Billy is what he's known for in these topics.

Yep, keep reading those e-mails BS Billy.

The manipulation of instruments and data by the HOAXERS was on prominent display in the Las Vegas, Nevada area yesterday AND on several other occassions this year!!!!!
Areas in the valley have received over an inch of precipitation on several occassions this year and the HOAXERS have posted the amount as a TRACE or a few hundreths of an inch! The official rainfall for the year is 1.08 inches?????
As a large portion of the nation has seen there was flooding, roads washed out and 18 "rapid water" rescues yesterday!
The "OFFICIAL" amount of rainfall was "A TRACE!!!!!"
Where the Hell have the HOAXERS hidden the rain gauge?????????????????????????