Okie, who shall we complain to about that? Clearly, some humans must be causing it! Maybe we should contact
al-Gore! :wink:
ican711nm wrote:parados wrote:Writing "fallacious" in big blue letters doesn't change anything ican. Your argument is still the same.
YES, MY ARGUMENT IS THE SAME VALID ARGUMENT.
I love your claim that it is "fallacious" for me to point you should use the global figures instead of the US figures if you are talking about global irradiance. It is quite funny for you to make such a claim.
FALLACIOUS! THE SUN'S IRRADIATION INTENSITY IS INDEPENDENT OF WHICH PART OF THE GLOBE IS EXAMINED FOR TEMPERATURE TRENDS. I'M SURPRISED THAT YOU DID NOT DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF THAT I DID NOT USE THE US TEMPERATURE TREND TO DETERMINE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND.
If the sun's irradiation is independent of the part of the globe then explain why the readings from NASA do NOT correlate with your source? :wink:
Quote:
NATURALLY MY FIRST SOURCE FOR THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND WAS:
image deleted fro clarity.
Trend in global average Temperature 1880 to 2007-- error corrected
Interesting since there is no way to accurately read that graph and claim the increase in temperature over the time frame you listed was only .5C.
That's interesting since your second source doesn't result in the .5C you claimed either.
Quote:
1900 -0.0281
1902 -0.1735
1903 -0.2929
1904 -0.3284
1905 -0.2159
1906 -0.1798
1907 -0.3467
1908 -0.3768
1909 -0.3808 +287.06°K
2005 +0.6046 + 287.06°K
2006 0.5394
2007 0.5484
So you used 2 sources but your math can not possibly result from what either source actually says?
Is your math really that bad or is it your reading skill?
Wow okie.. You mean that the solar irradiance may be about what it was in 1900?
Hmm.. interesting since Jan of 2008 was still .3C warmer than Jan of 1900.
So, will we get by someone the results from the World Climate Conferences, organised by the Heartland Institute?
parados wrote:
Wow okie.. You mean that the solar irradiance may be about what it was in 1900?
Hmm.. interesting since Jan of 2008 was still .3C warmer than Jan of 1900.
0.3 C, wow that is scary, Parados! And I'm sure that when your turn your oven off, it returns to room temperature immediately?
Is the global warmers bandwagon slowing to a crawl? Anybody heard from Al lately, or is he hunkered down somewhere near his fireplace?
I'm sure we should all consult Al Gore to find out if those dozens or hundreds of scientists gathering at the Heartland Institute 2008 International Conference on Climate Change have any credentials or not? After all, Al Gore invented the internet, and he has documented global warming beyond any shadow of a doubt as he jets around the world doing his research.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
Interesting article and graph:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg
okie wrote:0.3 C, wow that is scary, Parados! And I'm sure that when your turn your oven off, it returns to room temperature immediately?
I believe you to be only half joking. Which makes you half a joke.
Okie comes through for Walter (and water flows downhill)
Here's some bits from this morning's WP piece... I like the red bits.
Quote:Monckton, along with other high-profile global warming skeptics such as University of Virginia professor emeritus S. Fred Singer and Virginia state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, are gathered in New York this week for a conference aimed at challenging the idea that a scientific consensus exists on climate change.
Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank funded by energy and health-care corporations as well as conservative foundations and individuals,
the 2 1/2 -day session poses a stark contrast to the near-unanimous chorus of concern expressed by top U.S. politicians and most of the scientific mainstream.
Quote:After years of voicing doubt, President Bush has said repeatedly that he is convinced that humans are contributing to Earth's warming and that the nation needs to break its dependency on fossil fuels.
Definitely, the man is not a
real conservative. He's become a sort of Gore-terrorist.
Quote:Not so, say the skeptics. While the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore last year, this cadre of critics has formed a counter-group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which issued a report yesterday arguing that recent climate change stems from natural causes. (While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.)
Well, what the heck does that matter?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302781.html?hpid=moreheadlines
okie wrote:I'm sure we should all consult Al Gore to find out if those dozens or hundreds of scientists gathering at the Heartland Institute 2008 International Conference on Climate Change have any credentials or not?
I really waited for that ...
Nevertheless, since they've launched "an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming", this perhaps might give some her some new links to post.
okie wrote:parados wrote:
Wow okie.. You mean that the solar irradiance may be about what it was in 1900?
Hmm.. interesting since Jan of 2008 was still .3C warmer than Jan of 1900.
0.3 C, wow that is scary, Parados! And I'm sure that when your turn your oven off, it returns to room temperature immediately?
Does your oven take a year and a half to cool down? Or perhaps yours doesn't cool down at night. Mine takes about an hour no matter what time of the day I use it.
I did a cursory random check on a half dozen of the signatories and all came up as bonafide scientists with PhDs. By contrast, a lot of the lists provided for consenting scientists to AGW as a serious problem do not produce similar results--at least some of those people are either pretty small potatos or they are not scientists or they don't exist at all.
There are some big names on the pro AGW side such as Hanson. It's a safe bet though that they are scrambling to dispute this new information coming out because they will look so very much personally discredited should all that hype they have promoted for so long turn out to be badly flawed science.
Actually this has all been pretty much fun to watch. All of us like to be affirmed in our perceptions.
Foxfyre wrote:
Actually this has all been pretty much fun to watch. All of us like to be affirmed in our perceptions.
It is fun to watch. Always notice the global warmers play the profit card. If anything is funded by anyone that makes a profit, it is automatically discarded as useless. At the same time, bureaucrats are always without bias. What a laugh.
okie wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
Actually this has all been pretty much fun to watch. All of us like to be affirmed in our perceptions.
It is fun to watch. Always notice the global warmers play the profit card. If anything is funded by anyone that makes a profit, it is automatically discarded as useless. At the same time, bureaucrats are always without bias. What a laugh.
No question you've got this one figured out right, okie.
And that is why we really ought to extend the wisdom of your point above and encourage that judges in child molestation cases to be appointed by (and have their salaries paid by) NAMBLA and related entities.
Leave it to Blatham, master of the non sequitor.
Quote:And that is why we really ought to extend the wisdom of your point above and encourage that judges in child molestation cases to be appointed by (and have their salaries paid by) NAMBLA and related entities.
As long as they enforce the laws as written, without their own personal bias coming into play, then who cares who pays them or who appoints them.
mysteryman wrote:Quote:And that is why we really ought to extend the wisdom of your point above and encourage that judges in child molestation cases to be appointed by (and have their salaries paid by) NAMBLA and related entities.
As long as they enforce the laws as written, without their own personal bias coming into play, then who cares who pays them or who appoints them.
Well you don't want an entity that promotes a socially unacceptable, i.e. immoral, concept being in charge of any legislation or judicial appointments.
My problem is equating an industry that provides critical energy needs as well as jobs, investment, and important research with an organization like NAMBLA that contributes nothing to society but would tear down traditional values.
"Ok now. We are accepting nominations for henhouse guard... um...I see a hand at the back there...yes? Mr. Raccoon...you'd like to nominate yourself for the positions...and do we have a seconder?...Mr. Fox it is. Ok then, the next on our order of business is..."
blatham, are you proposing that anyone paid by tax dollars is not biased? For example, are you sure congressmen never make laws or never do things that are biased, that may benefit themselves or the states they represent, or particular voters that may vote for them again? I hope you aren't going to attempt that argument.
Actually you may be onto something, I think we should bar all lawyers from running for Congress, after all if they aren't foxes in the henhouse, who would be?
Exxon, via the Heartland Institute, tosses its public relations dollars to scientists arbitrarily and without forethought as to the consequences for its bottom line. It does so to forward truth which is Exxon's raison d'etre.
I think your attitude is an insult to any scientist that has ever taken money from a for profit entity, blatham. I don't think you have been around reputable scientists in private enterprise, or perhaps you would have your eyes open a little bit beyond your own bias. I won't say people don't tend to please the hand that feeds them in some cases, but I would propose that political bias is just as strong, if not stronger than bias created by for profit support. I would argue that scientists that do work with grant funding from non-profit or government entities that have policital axes to grind are ever bit as biased if not moreso. And most non-profits and government entities do have axes to grind, some with pretty big axes, blatham.
