Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you were less of a sheeple and could think for yourself, you'd quickly find out that the raw data used by CRU and then discarded came for many other sources. They still have all the original raw data. Now I understand for a ditto head that screws up your moment of outrage, but such is life.
Clearly you didn't look at the link. It was one of your heros runnig from tough questions. But hey you blindly follow Al. He didn't tell you to look at the link, you don't look at the link. I understand.
If you were less of a sheeple and could think for yourself, you'd quickly find out that the raw data used by CRU and then discarded came for many other sources. They still have all the original raw data. Now I understand for a ditto head that screws up your moment of outrage, but such is life.
Here you go, a true sheeple being interviewed. All she knows is what she is told and reads from orgs like Greenpeace.
Amazing. Fact after fact he gives her, data directly from temperature gathering entities (anybody can go and look at this data) and she is totally ignorant of the facts.
Just as she is reading the wrong stuff, so have you.
See if you can dispute ANY of the facts, that can be checked against the data.
This video is your typical AGW believer - totally ignorant of the facts.
Or how they are even accurate now. Satellites have been used the last thirty or so years I believe but what did they do before?? Did Wild Bill Hickock or Jesse James run around recording temps? Who did it in the Antarctic? How do they measure sea temps? Those ocean bouis? (spelling??) What if a whale pisses next to one wont that make the measurement higher? IPCC is howling about how this year was one of the hottest since 1880 or whatever but how the friggen hell do they even know.
I believe they're called thermometers. Look into it, why don't you?
I figured some greenies would be able to tell me how this was done but apparently not. Maybe they read the temp of ice core pulled out of al gore's arse???
Clearly you didn't look at the link. It was one of your heros runnig from tough questions. But hey you blindly follow Al. He didn't tell you to look at the link, you don't look at the link. I understand.
No your link isn't to a scientific website it's to a sheeple web site.
The Senior Editor of Science Magazine had an article in today's paper. He said something like: Those guys who changed the data need to be investigated. However, that said, their bad actions don't make any difference to the overall outcome of the climate studies. He said that there have been hundreds of studies supporting the conclusion of global warming. (OK). He also alluded to the viewpoint that much of it is man-made.
Maybe, just maybe, there is something to this. Accepting that, arguemento, then why do thay ALL fail to publish the standard errorr of measurements and the standard error of forecast???? Why???? Is it because the error margin is larger than the predicted rise in global temperature? Why do they refuse to provide all the information?
PS..."argumento" is latin. It means "for the sake of this discussion, whether or not it is accurate or true."
The Senior Editor of Science Magazine had an article in today's paper. He said something like: Those guys who changed the data need to be investigated. However, that said, their bad actions don't make any difference to the overall outcome of the climate studies. He said that there have been hundreds of studies supporting the conclusion of global warming. (OK). He also alluded to the viewpoint that much of it is man-made.
Maybe, just maybe, there is something to this. Accepting that, arguemento, then why do thay ALL fail to publish the standard errorr of measurements and the standard error of forecast???? Why???? Is it because the error margin is larger than the predicted rise in global temperature? Why do they refuse to provide all the information?
PS..."argumento" is latin. It means "for the sake of this discussion, whether or not it is accurate or true."
There's no "Senior Editor" of Science Magazine. Perhaps you mean the CEO of AAAS. This is what he wrote in an editorial submitted to the Washington Post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan I. Leshner
Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
.....
Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation -- stands at 389 parts per million (ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000 years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions. Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end of this century. Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level reaches 450 ppm. We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that level, devastating events. U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Copenhagen? Andrew Breitbart works for Drudge. Sheeple are so gullible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
