Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@okie,

None of your suggestions explain why it would create a warming trend. In fact IF, and it is a rather large IF, those things do create a trend it is as likely for it to introduce a downward trend as it is upward.

(parking lots are lucky to resurfaced every 20 years in my part of the country, okie. How often do they resurface them where you live?)

But you can't show me any science at all, can you?

1 Reply

@parados,

Question Parados, do you place your thermostat for your home right above the kitchen range? That would make just as much sense as the parking lot climate stations, right? For the master of logic, the great parados, it would not surprise me if you might do something like that, based upon your arguments so far.

1 Reply

@okie,

A thermostat is NOT a thermometer.

If I place a thermometer above my kitchen range and took temperature readings every hour of every day for a year. I bet the trend of those readings would closely match a thermometer I put in my bedroom and recorded readings for every hour of every day.

There would be days when the thermometer in the kitchen would be higher than the one in my bedroom but over 365 days and 24 hours in a day, the anomalies created when I use my range would disappear in the trend line.

1 Reply

@parados,

Why don't you conduce that experiment okie..

Place 2 thermometers in your kitchen and bedroom. Take the readings and post them here for a year. THen we can look at the trend lines. I'll bet they will be almost identical unless you cheat and try to mess with the numbers.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

you would need to show that the site for the temperature has been moved over time to force the data to show an increase that isn't really there.

Exactly what is the shortest time needed to show the whole planet is getting hotter ?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

you can't figure out that a parking lot is not a stable environment to take readings? You actually think the error will be straight line,

Yep.

He does. I have struck that wall before. Errors dont matter to Parados.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Place 2 thermometers in your kitchen and bedroom.

And that will be just about as useless as the current sites for proving Global Warming.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

I didn't say the error will be a straight line. I said that both would show the same trend line.

If you guys don't understand the difference between the 2 then you have no business arguing how thermometers even work.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why don't you conduce that experiment okie..

Place 2 thermometers in your kitchen and bedroom. Take the readings and post them here for a year. THen we can look at the trend lines. I'll bet they will be almost identical unless you cheat and try to mess with the numbers.

I would have never believed it if I was unable to actually read in black and white what you have just written, Parados. Now I understand a little more clearly just what the world of reason has to contend with when contending with your world of liberal unreality and unreasonable arguments, all based upon emotional attachment to an idea like global warming. Such helps explain why some of the most unexplainable and horrendous things done by leftists of history will never be explainable, but they are simply a fact, thats all we know. Emotion trumps reason, and the emotions of unreality trump reality in the minds of liberals. I feel sorry for you somewhat that you are a person that has fallen victim to your pattern of thinking, but rest assured I will try to do everything in my personal power to defeat your political philosophy, chiefly at the ballot box, and at places like this trying to speak the truth and argue for common sense.

1 Reply

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010.
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010, the average and mean annual global temperature increased less than 1°C (1.8°F).

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

390
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, of the faculty of science at the University of Hull in the UK who served as a Reader at the University's Department of Geography, is the editor of the science journal Energy & Environment. Boehmer-Christiansen, who has worked with emission modelers and published numerous peer-reviewed articles on the politics of global warming with special reference to the role of science and research lobbies, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "I am pretty certain that the link between fossil fuel use and climate remains speculative and hypothetical," Boehmer-Christiansen wrote on December 10, 2007. "Neither [the] Stern [Report] nor the IPCC final summaries reflect true academic opinion; they are the products of civil servants and UN policy ambitions. They have been exaggerating the climate 'threat' in order to serve the interests primarily of fossil fuel-poor industrialized countries," Boehmer-Christiansen continued. "As it stands, the Climate Change convention and the supporting rhetoric about catastrophe and serious future risks to humanity, and even to 'the creation,' serve a number of political, ideological and now financial interests that far outweigh the influences of 'science,'" Boehmer-Christiansen added. "The UNFCCC did not ask for a scientific examination of climate and climate variability. It did not ask for an examination of the natural influences on climatic variability. As a result the so-called science of climate change consists to a large degree of 'cherry picking,'" Boehmer-Christiansen wrote. Boehmer-Christiansen warned, "Beware of the [UK] Stern Review. This is not an independent piece of academic research, but a UK government document closely tied to a major diplomatic effort."

0 Replies

@okie,

But you won't conduct the science? It's pretty simple okie. All you have to do is observe it and write it down.

I'll bet you that I am right.

Quote:

Emotion trumps reason, and the emotions of unreality trump reality in the minds of liberals.

Actually, it is YOU that lets your emotion trump reason okie.
How often do you use your range daily okie? If you take readings every hour, how often will the use of the range actually affect your readings?
If you use your range daily, what is the likelihood that it will cause the kitchen to heat or cool differently than the rest of the house over time?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you use your range daily, what is the likelihood that it will cause the kitchen to heat or cool differently than the rest of the house over time?

Amazing!! You are a piece of work, Parados!!!!

I think I just might start calling you "Paradox" instead of Parados.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

If you use your range daily, what is the likelihood that it will cause the kitchen to heat or cool differently than the rest of the house over time?

Amazing!! You are a piece of work, Parados!!!!

I think I just might start calling you "Paradox" instead of Parados.

You don't actually point out what is fallacious about what he's saying, I notice. Just make these amazed sounds as if he's spouting idiocy.

But, he isn't, and if you actually did the experiments, you'd quickly see that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You guys are not the brightest bulbs in the house, are you?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

You guys are not the brightest bulbs in the house, are you?

At least we can give straight answers to questions. This laughing and dancing you are doing is foolish.

If you think he is inaccurate in some way, describe it. Otherwise you're just avoiding doing so by putting on a fake display of jocularity. Nobody is fooled by it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The inaccuracy, or the fallacy of his reasoning should be self evident, cyclops, to anyone with an ounce of common sense. You just do not place a thermostat above the kitchen range and expect it to function accurately or properly, period. If you cannot figure that out, you have a problem with intelligence, period.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

The inaccuracy, or the fallacy of his reasoning should be self evident, cyclops, to anyone with an ounce of common sense. You just do not place a thermostat above the kitchen range and expect it to function accurately or properly, period. If you cannot figure that out, you have a problem with intelligence, period.

Why would the thermostat be either inaccurate or improper? What about the trends over time - would those be inaccurate as well?

I am asking you these simple questions, because in the process of answering them you will learn the error you are making, so humor us.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

To put it as simply as possible, the environment around the kitchen range is a corrupted area, temperature wise, relative to reading and controlling house temperature in the general living area of your house, such as your living room or family room, or even in the dining room away from the range. And the corruption is not straight line in terms of degree of corruption with time, got that? You are probably scratching your head wondering why it is corrupted, ha ha? Have you ever heard of the concept of burners emitting heat? Yes, cyclops, that is how things are cooked. Have you ever done anything in the kitchen with your range, such as when you heat water for tea, coffee, whatever, and perhaps fry some eggs or pancakes on a griddle? How about baking some pies occasionally, or have you never heard of this sort of thing?

My grandson at age 6 has more cognitive ability than you guys seem to have. I am compelled to ask, is this discussion and your questions a joke, or are you actually serious? Do you really not get it?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Emotion does trump reason. By miles. Reason is the same everywhere so if reason was king all societies and all individuals would be identical in cultural practices.

Okie is right. People even get emotional about their own reasoning. It might be argued that reason is the most unreasonable thing on earth. Entirely emotional.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I read about an American couple who started as a gas jockey and a bed-pan emptier and when the became garage manager and staff nurse decided to move to a posher neighbourhood.

Thet spent the day moving their kit into the new house and watched a bit of TV and went to bed to "wet the baby's head" so to speak. The next morning there was a knock at the door and a snooty lady told them that we don't draw our curtains at night. So the next night they watched TV with the curtains back. The next morning there was another knock at the door and the same lady told them that they had all their furniture arranged incorrectly.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know