The $100k Global Warming Challenge

The_Herban_Legend · Dec 16, 2015

Harrekin said:
Murica fuck yeah!

Most intelligent folk in the whole wide world...

"Town rejects solar panels, afraid will suck up all of the sunlight"

A fucking TEACHER leading the charge.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoren...-take-up-too-m?utm_term=.ks16EqbD5#.jiQzX8YBk

The 5 million Irish that immigrated to America, and their off-spring, are probably the biggest contributing factor.

bravedave · Dec 16, 2015

Bugeye said:

This is great. I have known about the Satellite vs. Surface temp differences for awhile but this gentleman added some heft to that difference.

The Senator in the previous obviously needs to be shown it. What a pompous, filibustering clown he was. Irish ancestry, he said, right?

Harrekin · Dec 16, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
The majority of the conservatives who post here. Usually on economic issues

The only issue you and I actually differ on is the issue of punitive taxation for higher earners...

The_Herban_Legend · Dec 16, 2015

Harrekin said:
The only issue you and I actually differ on is the issue of punitive taxation for higher earners...

Interesting, I like Pada, but he trusts the American government too much. You bash murica every chance you get.

Harrekin · Dec 16, 2015

The_Herban_Legend said:
Interesting, I like Pada, but he trusts the American government too much. You bash murica every chance you get.

I bash anything illogical, like proclaiming to be the land of the free but having the Prism Project, etc...huge restrictions to starting a business, senseless military spending, etc.

America and what it stands for are awesome, it's just not very like that at the minute.

The_Herban_Legend · Dec 16, 2015

Harrekin said:
I bash anything illogical, like proclaiming to be the land of the free but having the Prism Project, etc...huge restrictions to starting a business, senseless military spending, etc.

America and what it stands for are awesome, it's just not very like that at the minute.

We are definitely not the land of the free and I don't think most Americans think we are. Another point I might add is that whatever our government does abroad, is not the wishes of the American people. Living in America is kind of like being in the passenger seat of a Lamborghini. It's beautiful, fun, fast and all that good stuff but we are not in control and soon the Lambo will run out of gas or worse, crash.

Bugeye · Dec 16, 2015

bravedave said:
This is great. I have known about the Satellite vs. Surface temp differences for awhile but this gentleman added some heft to that difference.

The Senator in the previous obviously needs to be shown it. What a pompous, filibustering clown he was. Irish ancestry, he said, right?

Considering that the greatest warming, according to AGW theory and AGW modeling, should be occurring in the troposphere in the tropical region, it is pretty comical to me to see alarmists reject the satellite data showing the lull and rely on surface temp anomaly records of highly questionable value. I'll go with the satellite data over surface temps for my canary in a coal mine.

bravedave · Dec 16, 2015

Bugeye said:
Considering that the greatest warming, according to AGW theory and AGW modeling, should be occurring in the troposphere in the tropical region, it is pretty comical to me to see alarmists reject the satellite data showing the lull and rely on surface temp anomaly records of highly questionable value. I'll go with the satellite data over surface temps for my canary in a coal mine.

Yep.
Surface studies seem ripe for agenda-driven manipulation. Lots of possible hockey sticks out there. Of course, the people running around here who, like the senator, start quoting recent temperature records, probably look at this as a plus.

Bugeye · Dec 16, 2015

bravedave said:
Yep.
Surface studies seem ripe for agenda-driven manipulation. Lots of possible hockey sticks out there. Of course, the people running around here who, like the senator, start quoting recent temperature records, probably look at this as a plus.

I agree. If the data is fine then share source data, final data, and explanations of all adjustments.

heckler73 · Dec 16, 2015

Bugeye said:
I agree. If the data is fine then share source data, final data, and explanations of all adjustments.

That's a tall order to be making.

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2015

god1 said:
What's baffling is why you waste time with this nit-wit? He's an indoctrinated gullible loon.

He's exactly the kind of specimen the "political" machine requires. Political types have an aversion to science

.

actually, i am just quoting NASA's science back to you. you are the one claiming NASA is engaged in a conspiracy to steal your monies.

ya know, the same theory david duke espouses.

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2015

Bugeye said:
it is pretty comical to me to see alarmists reject the satellite data showing the lull

what lull?

last year was the hottest on record and last decade was the hottest on record too. the second hottest decade was the one before that.

are you referring to this imaginary, fox news talking point about an 18 year lull?

if so, congrats on being helplessly stupid.

Bugeye · Dec 17, 2015

UncleBuck said:
what lull?

last year was the hottest on record and last decade was the hottest on record too. the second hottest decade was the one before that.

are you referring to this imaginary, fox news talking point about an 18 year lull?

if so, congrats on being helplessly stupid.

I'm referring to the "hiatus" as described in the IPCC AR5. You heard of it?

heckler73 · Dec 17, 2015

Bugeye said:
I'm referring to the "hiatus" as described in the IPCC AR5. You heard of it?

Ppppfffffttt
I use Windows version 7, now! Oh you crazy LINUX people.

Padawanbater2 · Dec 17, 2015

Bugeye said:
I'm referring to the "hiatus" as described in the IPCC AR5. You heard of it?

How is 18 years long enough to definitively conclude "hiatus", but 135 years isn't long enough to determine the anthropogenic factor of climate change?

Bugeye · Dec 17, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
How is 18 years long enough to definitively conclude "hiatus", but 135 years isn't long enough to determine the anthropogenic factor of climate change?

I don't think the term "hiatus" is a conclusion, it is a description of data sets that have not trended upward at the expected rate.

Padawanbater2 · Dec 17, 2015

Bugeye said:
I don't think the term "hiatus" is a conclusion, it is a description of data sets that have not trended upward at the expected rate.

So it would be pretty unscientific for someone in 1965 to be claiming there is a warming "hiatus", right?

Bugeye · Dec 17, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
So it would be pretty unscientific for someone in 1965 to be claiming there is a warming "hiatus", right?

I miss your point. What is unscientific about forming a hypothesis?

OddBall1st · Dec 17, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
So it would be pretty unscientific for someone in 1965 to be claiming there is a warming "hiatus", right?

The issue brought up is never discussed for a reason, Where were those surface measurements made ?

Padawanbater2 · Dec 17, 2015

Bugeye said:
I miss your point. What is unscientific about forming a hypothesis?

I don't think you represent the general sentiment of the "hiatus" theory... Most conservatives have jumped on that 18 years to prove anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist at all.

There's nothing wrong with wondering why warming has slowed in a scientific context so long as you understand warming has slowed before, in exactly the same way, and then picked back up again a few years later - as will most likey happen to the current data trend

The $100k Global Warming Challenge

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads