Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

Joule count of human fuel was not the question I was talking about, it was merely a philosophical question I'm not claiming anything.

What I am asking is: do you really believe that humans have no global impact on environment?

It's an easy Yes or No question man 

  Sure, I will answer your rigged question.

The answer is of course humans have an impact on the earth, and the subset of the earth known as the environment.  We have an effect on the entire universe at least for a hundred light year radius.  Just think, we've polluted that sphere with traces of our radio waves.

Your question is rigged by way of the Zero.  If we had 1.7 10^-15C effect on temperature, then the answer would be YES.  Therefore, for a universe with one cockroach, that cockroach would have an effect on the universe, measurable out to a light cone whose distance is proportional to it's age.   

What you really want to address, I would think, is something like "a significant impact" or "a statistically significant impact."

These are really the practical questions. 

It was not meant to be rigged, not everything is a hidden attack 

Of course the idea was "significant"! But you're misled in my attempt. What I wanted to show is not that human have a significant impact.

Only two solution:
-we have a significant impact. Then it's important to control this impact and to be aware of it. Thus your position is a bit weird as you promote the inaction or at least the non coordinated action.
-We don't have a significant impact, then why not letting us trying to control it? It won't hurt anyone to try to be ecolo friendly even is it might be a bit useless no?

It's a bit like the Pascal bet, but with much less flaws 

Actually I wasn't implying mal intent in saying the question was rigged, just noting the "zero" effect.

Yes, actually, if you put politicians in charge of "trying to control it" they certainly can have an effect that is the reverse of their stated goals.  For example, shutting down activities that require power in countries that have sophisticated coal plant scrubbers -- sends those activities to third world countries or China where they couldn't care less about clean outputs.

Hence, the government takes your money for a supposed goal, shuts down industries by harsh penalties, industries move elsewhere where there are no rules, net effect is the opposite.

(Side note:  Let's not derail this into "Oh, China is going to clean up," bllah blah blah)

Just take it for what it is, as stated.

[Karartma1]

Actually, from the humidity, wind, and temperature record presented, it certainly does look like "front passage."  By the way, a more accurate number would be to go from (say) 12 noon one day, to 12 noon the next.  Or max min for the 2 days.  As presented there is likely 5C error in the range due to differing times.

By the way, you certainly can use statistical variance to determine significant variation from climatic norms.  All the records are available to do this, at least in the USA I know.  You can just use the last 30 years, that should be fine.

You know, even without all the scientific stuff, weather became rather crazy gotta admit that. Never had a winter like that truly xD

So don't know if it's mankind fault or not, but there is still something coming. And I don't think burning our fuel is helping reducing it!

Btw, you didn't answer on the heat produces by us compared to the sun, I'm still sure it's not that low you know?

I totally agree with you: humans are disturbing this planet's stability but... as George Carlin said once Nature will take its chance to regulate itself again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfiIow-eW0

The trouble was never to destroy Nature, I'm pretty sure Nature will be fine with what we're doing.
But Nature "regulation" might not take mankind survival into account  

Of course! We have no power against something which is totally unknown to us. These guys can think they own the weather they can do some mess for a while on Earth but Earth/Nature eventually will clean itself. To me it will all end up in a big sneeze   and we'll be gone

atchaaa!

Bless you!
Not this time, not now. Let me become filthy rich and then, only then, you may be able to sneeze.
 

[Spendulus]

Actually, from the humidity, wind, and temperature record presented, it certainly does look like "front passage."  By the way, a more accurate number would be to go from (say) 12 noon one day, to 12 noon the next.  Or max min for the 2 days.  As presented there is likely 5C error in the range due to differing times.

By the way, you certainly can use statistical variance to determine significant variation from climatic norms.  All the records are available to do this, at least in the USA I know.  You can just use the last 30 years, that should be fine.

You know, even without all the scientific stuff, weather became rather crazy gotta admit that. Never had a winter like that truly xD

So don't know if it's mankind fault or not, but there is still something coming. And I don't think burning our fuel is helping reducing it!

Btw, you didn't answer on the heat produces by us compared to the sun, I'm still sure it's not that low you know?

I totally agree with you: humans are disturbing this planet's stability but... as George Carlin said once Nature will take its chance to regulate itself again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfiIow-eW0

The trouble was never to destroy Nature, I'm pretty sure Nature will be fine with what we're doing.
But Nature "regulation" might not take mankind survival into account  

Of course! We have no power against something which is totally unknown to us. These guys can think they own the weather they can do some mess for a while on Earth but Earth/Nature eventually will clean itself. To me it will all end up in a big sneeze   and we'll be gone

atchaaa!

Bless you!
Not this time, not now. Let me become filthy rich and then, only then, you may be able to sneeze.
 

And what if that "something coming" is an ice age?

We are about overdue for one, you know.

[Hippie Tech]

People with narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.

Well, maybe it´s a variant of a psychopath, kind of diet-nutcase. Or maybe the focus currently is on these narcissists to draw attention from psychopaths, especially since it has become increasingly obvious that certain politicians are nutty as christmas cakes.

".. sorry son.. this polluted and diseased lifestyle is going to hurt me more than it does you... "

Narcissists and psychopaths should be considered as one and the same because they share many similar traits/ characteristics. eg. fascist, elitist, lack of empathy/ conscience ect..

[Spendulus]

Joule count of human fuel was not the question I was talking about, it was merely a philosophical question I'm not claiming anything.

What I am asking is: do you really believe that humans have no global impact on environment?

It's an easy Yes or No question man  

 Sure, I will answer your rigged question.

The answer is of course humans have an impact on the earth, and the subset of the earth known as the environment.  We have an effect on the entire universe at least for a hundred light year radius.  Just think, we've polluted that sphere with traces of our radio waves.

Your question is rigged by way of the Zero.  If we had 1.7 10^-15C effect on temperature, then the answer would be YES.  Therefore, for a universe with one cockroach, that cockroach would have an effect on the universe, measurable out to a light cone whose distance is proportional to it's age.  

What you really want to address, I would think, is something like "a significant impact" or "a statistically significant impact."

These are really the practical questions.  

It was not meant to be rigged, not everything is a hidden attack  

Of course the idea was "significant"! But you're misled in my attempt. What I wanted to show is not that human have a significant impact.

Only two solution:
-we have a significant impact. Then it's important to control this impact and to be aware of it. Thus your position is a bit weird as you promote the inaction or at least the non coordinated action.
-We don't have a significant impact, then why not letting us trying to control it? It won't hurt anyone to try to be ecolo friendly even is it might be a bit useless no?

It's a bit like the Pascal bet, but with much less flaws  

You may find this of interest.  Keep in mind these sorts of articles are often highly speculative, but still worth reviewing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/13/scientists-say-humans-have-basically-canceled-the-next-ice-age/?postshare=1791452710414197&tid=ss_tw

Here is the actual article print.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494.epdf?referrer_access_token=ozTSCaB0lyelSRTWwlncYdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nnp0x6oazde2YSWXfqxcE5e6t9gAzUt9lu7e6WSDVZ241X9dPiozKLtf3BYyMTSqIHQIgVAurDgIdbRA7DmktIOpRHyFw09GYfR3yKJ6MCwABfUX2uwcCfY_fuK06xxr7LDw8Cfd0Ph0fpiEcbMARGndvz8-zXJBxCz5DqNEzxo_181kx8kcm09fYlhVb-7Vslemt4GmHzyIuZ8RuZMXEpgCqWD3heyVL9EBCY_YKp8gOi6fjjh1vNtDa0IydvGy5Bm1Eq7Bf9FF9MJjZuQn4Wav42oWIzykJrX0Jj5HRXJg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Using this data set and general direction of thinking, the contemporary version of Pascal's Wager you mentioned may be turned inside out:

Regarding use of political force and taxing authority to penalize carbon emissions, can you be reasonably sure that the effect of these measures will not provoke or accelerate the next ice age? 

[Karartma1]

Actually, from the humidity, wind, and temperature record presented, it certainly does look like "front passage."  By the way, a more accurate number would be to go from (say) 12 noon one day, to 12 noon the next.  Or max min for the 2 days.  As presented there is likely 5C error in the range due to differing times.

By the way, you certainly can use statistical variance to determine significant variation from climatic norms.  All the records are available to do this, at least in the USA I know.  You can just use the last 30 years, that should be fine.

You know, even without all the scientific stuff, weather became rather crazy gotta admit that. Never had a winter like that truly xD

So don't know if it's mankind fault or not, but there is still something coming. And I don't think burning our fuel is helping reducing it!

Btw, you didn't answer on the heat produces by us compared to the sun, I'm still sure it's not that low you know?

I totally agree with you: humans are disturbing this planet's stability but... as George Carlin said once Nature will take its chance to regulate itself again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfiIow-eW0

The trouble was never to destroy Nature, I'm pretty sure Nature will be fine with what we're doing.
But Nature "regulation" might not take mankind survival into account  

Of course! We have no power against something which is totally unknown to us. These guys can think they own the weather they can do some mess for a while on Earth but Earth/Nature eventually will clean itself. To me it will all end up in a big sneeze   and we'll be gone

atchaaa!

Bless you!
Not this time, not now. Let me become filthy rich and then, only then, you may be able to sneeze.
 

And what if that "something coming" is an ice age?

We are about overdue for one, you know.

So be it.
Data show sun activity is decreasing and so it is its power to warm the Earth. It's not a thing of today, it will be a process but to me our efforts to modify and change the weather are only making things worse.

[flagpara]

You may find this of interest.  Keep in mind these sorts of articles are often highly speculative, but still worth reviewing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/13/scientists-say-humans-have-basically-canceled-the-next-ice-age/?postshare=1791452710414197&tid=ss_tw

Here is the actual article print.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494.epdf?referrer_access_token=ozTSCaB0lyelSRTWwlncYdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nnp0x6oazde2YSWXfqxcE5e6t9gAzUt9lu7e6WSDVZ241X9dPiozKLtf3BYyMTSqIHQIgVAurDgIdbRA7DmktIOpRHyFw09GYfR3yKJ6MCwABfUX2uwcCfY_fuK06xxr7LDw8Cfd0Ph0fpiEcbMARGndvz8-zXJBxCz5DqNEzxo_181kx8kcm09fYlhVb-7Vslemt4GmHzyIuZ8RuZMXEpgCqWD3heyVL9EBCY_YKp8gOi6fjjh1vNtDa0IydvGy5Bm1Eq7Bf9FF9MJjZuQn4Wav42oWIzykJrX0Jj5HRXJg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Using this data set and general direction of thinking, the contemporary version of Pascal's Wager you mentioned may be turned inside out:

Regarding use of political force and taxing authority to penalize carbon emissions, can you be reasonably sure that the effect of these measures will not provoke or accelerate the next ice age? 

Interesting articles. I like the idea of humanity being able to control the global climate of Earth 

But as you said in a previous post, most of the problem is to make whole humanity advance in the same direction. This would need an international government, the discussion between countries can't lead to anything.

I still think it's better to try something than just sitting here saying "meh, we can't know, it won't work"

And about what you said about politics robbing people and missusing money: it's not a proof of anything. Politicians rob the people all the time for everything, you can't say that because they don't do things well things shouldn't be done. If you take that into account then let me be straight: we shouldn't do anything. Any law voted at the moment was made by and for the rich. Banks lead the world and the three richest families decide of everything.

But if you want to actually discuss you got to ignore those facts, otherwise you can't conclude anything else but "we should take them, hang them, then think again about what we can do" 

[Spendulus]

You may find this of interest.  Keep in mind these sorts of articles are often highly speculative, but still worth reviewing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/13/scientists-say-humans-have-basically-canceled-the-next-ice-age/?postshare=1791452710414197&tid=ss_tw

Here is the actual article print.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494.epdf?referrer_access_token=ozTSCaB0lyelSRTWwlncYdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nnp0x6oazde2YSWXfqxcE5e6t9gAzUt9lu7e6WSDVZ241X9dPiozKLtf3BYyMTSqIHQIgVAurDgIdbRA7DmktIOpRHyFw09GYfR3yKJ6MCwABfUX2uwcCfY_fuK06xxr7LDw8Cfd0Ph0fpiEcbMARGndvz8-zXJBxCz5DqNEzxo_181kx8kcm09fYlhVb-7Vslemt4GmHzyIuZ8RuZMXEpgCqWD3heyVL9EBCY_YKp8gOi6fjjh1vNtDa0IydvGy5Bm1Eq7Bf9FF9MJjZuQn4Wav42oWIzykJrX0Jj5HRXJg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Using this data set and general direction of thinking, the contemporary version of Pascal's Wager you mentioned may be turned inside out:

Regarding use of political force and taxing authority to penalize carbon emissions, can you be reasonably sure that the effect of these measures will not provoke or accelerate the next ice age? 

Interesting articles. I like the idea of humanity being able to control the global climate of Earth 

But as you said in a previous post, most of the problem is to make whole humanity advance in the same direction. This would need an international government, the discussion between countries can't lead to anything.

I still think it's better to try something than just sitting here saying "meh, we can't know, it won't work"

And about what you said about politics robbing people and missusing money: it's not a proof of anything. Politicians rob the people all the time for everything, you can't say that because they don't do things well things shouldn't be done. If you take that into account then let me be straight: we shouldn't do anything. Any law voted at the moment was made by and for the rich. Banks lead the world and the three richest families decide of everything.

But if you want to actually discuss you got to ignore those facts, otherwise you can't conclude anything else but "we should take them, hang them, then think again about what we can do" 

No, you misunderstand what I said.  Here it is summarized.

A.  IF the politicians and there plans are implemented and operate as they wish, to lower CO2 and prevent the planet from warming - can you be reasonably sure this will not accelerate the next ice age, which is considered "overdue?"  What is "reasonably sure?"  IMHO this is a serious issue and a serious question.

B.  IF the politicians and their plans are ineffective, because the tax money just goes to their friends, and the penalties seem to only go to their enemies, then you and I do not have to worry about adverse effects from their actions.  Because there isn't any effect at all from their actions, lol.

[Wilikon]

You may find this of interest.  Keep in mind these sorts of articles are often highly speculative, but still worth reviewing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/13/scientists-say-humans-have-basically-canceled-the-next-ice-age/?postshare=1791452710414197&tid=ss_tw

Here is the actual article print.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494.epdf?referrer_access_token=ozTSCaB0lyelSRTWwlncYdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nnp0x6oazde2YSWXfqxcE5e6t9gAzUt9lu7e6WSDVZ241X9dPiozKLtf3BYyMTSqIHQIgVAurDgIdbRA7DmktIOpRHyFw09GYfR3yKJ6MCwABfUX2uwcCfY_fuK06xxr7LDw8Cfd0Ph0fpiEcbMARGndvz8-zXJBxCz5DqNEzxo_181kx8kcm09fYlhVb-7Vslemt4GmHzyIuZ8RuZMXEpgCqWD3heyVL9EBCY_YKp8gOi6fjjh1vNtDa0IydvGy5Bm1Eq7Bf9FF9MJjZuQn4Wav42oWIzykJrX0Jj5HRXJg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Using this data set and general direction of thinking, the contemporary version of Pascal's Wager you mentioned may be turned inside out:

Regarding use of political force and taxing authority to penalize carbon emissions, can you be reasonably sure that the effect of these measures will not provoke or accelerate the next ice age? 

Interesting articles. I like the idea of humanity being able to control the global climate of Earth 

But as you said in a previous post, most of the problem is to make whole humanity advance in the same direction. This would need an international government, the discussion between countries can't lead to anything.

I still think it's better to try something than just sitting here saying "meh, we can't know, it won't work"

And about what you said about politics robbing people and missusing money: it's not a proof of anything. Politicians rob the people all the time for everything, you can't say that because they don't do things well things shouldn't be done. If you take that into account then let me be straight: we shouldn't do anything. Any law voted at the moment was made by and for the rich. Banks lead the world and the three richest families decide of everything.

But if you want to actually discuss you got to ignore those facts, otherwise you can't conclude anything else but "we should take them, hang them, then think again about what we can do" 

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 

[Spendulus]

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

Extreme weather events cause agricultural losses.  That's a fact.  So we've been beset with massive new extreme weather?  The media tells us that!

Then why are crops at all time highs?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/global-agricultural-production-demonstrates-ramankutty-et-al-is-just-more-global-warming-hot-air/

[flagpara]

No, you misunderstand what I said.  Here it is summarized.

A.  IF the politicians and there plans are implemented and operate as they wish, to lower CO2 and prevent the planet from warming - can you be reasonably sure this will not accelerate the next ice age, which is considered "overdue?"  What is "reasonably sure?"  IMHO this is a serious issue and a serious question.

B.  IF the politicians and their plans are ineffective, because the tax money just goes to their friends, and the penalties seem to only go to their enemies, then you and I do not have to worry about adverse effects from their actions.  Because there isn't any effect at all from their actions, lol.

Ah ok, you're wondering if by trying to regulate climate we could start the ice age!
Well that's a possibility. The fact is we would need a strong government (a world one, cause we all need to do the same thing otherwise it's useless) to research in deep the impact of it. Your question might be legit, but it can be answered only through un influenced research.

And I seriously trust that your B is correct 
We don't need to worry about any impact of politics. They never do anything substential sadly enough...

[flagpara]

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 

You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!

[Spendulus]

No, you misunderstand what I said.  Here it is summarized.

A.  IF the politicians and there plans are implemented and operate as they wish, to lower CO2 and prevent the planet from warming - can you be reasonably sure this will not accelerate the next ice age, which is considered "overdue?"  What is "reasonably sure?"  IMHO this is a serious issue and a serious question.

B.  IF the politicians and their plans are ineffective, because the tax money just goes to their friends, and the penalties seem to only go to their enemies, then you and I do not have to worry about adverse effects from their actions.  Because there isn't any effect at all from their actions, lol.

Ah ok, you're wondering if by trying to regulate climate we could start the ice age!
Well that's a possibility. The fact is we would need a strong government (a world one, cause we all need to do the same thing otherwise it's useless) to research in deep the impact of it. Your question might be legit, but it can be answered only through un influenced research.

And I seriously trust that your B is correct 
We don't need to worry about any impact of politics. They never do anything substential sadly enough...

Then "B" is just another fraudulent taxation scheme.  No reason to support it, whether we believe in "global warming" or not.

[Spendulus]

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 

You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!

Not really.  For example, cloud seeding technology and other ways to initiate or increase rain has been around for decades.  But it produces regional effects, not effects which are global.  Many, many examples of regional "climate change' due to humans can be cited.  And with the exception of cloud seeding, there are almost no examples of regional climate engineering.

A rather interesting example is the Australian rabbit fence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html

Purposeful regional climate change/control has barely been studied, but power hungry control freaks would like to take control through the UN.  Their goal is only power.   They don't care about your or my welfare.

When you think about it, there should be no issue with increasing hydrological cycles when wind moves humid air inland from a coastline.  In the case of Austalia, rain is seldom because there are not enough land elevation changes to cause condensation, cloud formation and rain.

[Wilikon]

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 

You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!

Who do you know believes CO2 is a pollutant, beside yourself? All the plants and trees in the world disagree with you.

A centralized system imposes its will, point of view by force. If you agree with the tyrant then this force is good, if not, then you are meat.

You have a very 1 or 0 position: So either we agree on something, either we fight. This is far from being my position. As proof, you are totally free to use scientific facts and links, as you have been known to do all this time in this thread...

[Wilikon]

Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying

The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.


Turns out the satellite data is lying.



And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.

Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.

This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
“Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.

In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.

These sound plausible criticisms till you look at this graph provided by one of the scientists criticized in the video, John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

What it shows is how closely the satellite data corresponds with measurements taken using a completely independent system – balloons. If the satellites are lying then so are the balloons.

Christy told Breitbart:

    There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few.

    First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems.

    The vertical “fall” and east-west “drift” of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay.

    The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them.  They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view.  Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000?  Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING?  Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?

He adds:

    I’m impressed someone went to so much trouble and expense.  The “satellite data” must be a real problem for someone. Do we know who financed this video?

Yes, we do. It was made by the Yale Climate Connection and part funded by the Grantham Foundation. The Grantham Foundation is the creation of a UK born US based hedge funder called Jeremy Grantham (and his wife Hannelore) and has since 1997 been at the forefront of promoting climate alarmism.

Among the beneficiaries of Grantham’s green largesse are Lord Stern — author of the heavily discredited Stern Report, now with a cosy sinecure at the Grantham Institute — and Bob Ward, a failed paleopiezometrist and crop-headed pit bull impersonator who is lavishly funded to write angry letters to newspapers and other institutions explaining in boring detail why climate change sceptics are evil and wrong.

As for the motivation behind this well-funded smear video – it’s actually explained at the website which is promoting it.

    In coming days, we will hear announcements from NASA, NOAA and others that 2015 was the hottest year in the modern instrumental record.

    There will be pushback from the likes of climate denier Ted Cruz, who uses a misreading of satellite temperature data to claim, as he did on Seth Meyer’s show – “no warming in 18  years”

    This is the story of how that distortion came to be.

In other words it’s yet another case of the increasingly desperate climate alarmists playing their usual game:

If the facts don’t suit your discredited theory, change the facts.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/climate-alarmists-invent-new-excuse-the-satellites-are-lying/



-------------------------------------------------
"Yo balloon! Don't be a fool, Stop Snitchin'! Don't play dat satellite game yo! Computer model FYI yo! Come on bro!"

[flagpara]

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 

You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!

Who do you know believes CO2 is a pollutant, beside yourself? All the plants and trees in the world disagree with you.

A centralized system imposes its will, point of view by force. If you agree with the tyrant then this force is good, if not, then you are meat.

You have a very 1 or 0 position: So either we agree on something, either we fight. This is far from being my position. As proof, you are totally free to use scientific facts and links, as you have been known to do all this time in this thread...

I do have a very 0 or 1 position on this, because I believe your pollution also impacts me. And in fact I didn't know anyone who don't believe CO2 pollutes before coming on this thread. This is the first time I meet people thinking it's not a big deal to produce CO.

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say. The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized), this official poll of EU should be enough of a proof: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1162_en.htm

So as you're a minority in my point of view, it seems logical for you to bring me data/proofs/article and for me to criticize them. You don't want to be convinced about climate change otherwise you wouldn't search ONLY studies AGAINST climate change.

But if you feel in need of proofs of my point of view here we go:

First a very small recap of facts that explain why we should worry a bit: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons4.asp
A short but rather complete study explaining the link between CO2 and sea level: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209.short
And a European report about the link between CO2 and natural disasters: http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdf

Satisfied?

[notbatman]

Satellites lying? They're a straight up hoax!

[Wilikon]

A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 

You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!

Who do you know believes CO2 is a pollutant, beside yourself? All the plants and trees in the world disagree with you.

A centralized system imposes its will, point of view by force. If you agree with the tyrant then this force is good, if not, then you are meat.

You have a very 1 or 0 position: So either we agree on something, either we fight. This is far from being my position. As proof, you are totally free to use scientific facts and links, as you have been known to do all this time in this thread...

I do have a very 0 or 1 position on this, because I believe your pollution also impacts me. And in fact I didn't know anyone who don't believe CO2 pollutes before coming on this thread. This is the first time I meet people thinking it's not a big deal to produce CO.

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say. The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized), this official poll of EU should be enough of a proof: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1162_en.htm

So as you're a minority in my point of view, it seems logical for you to bring me data/proofs/article and for me to criticize them. You don't want to be convinced about climate change otherwise you wouldn't search ONLY studies AGAINST climate change.

But if you feel in need of proofs of my point of view here we go:

First a very small recap of facts that explain why we should worry a bit: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons4.asp
A short but rather complete study explaining the link between CO2 and sea level: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209.short
And a European report about the link between CO2 and natural disasters: http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdf

Satisfied?

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...

CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

[flagpara]

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...

CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

Of course we can agree on that. But the fact is that if we can't agree on how to do it, and if our two way of seeing things are too different, we might have to choose one.

I see that you also ignore the totality of the articles you required from me and prefer to focus only on your rather strange debate. Please stop bringing on the table the bullshit of non scientists.

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".

They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.

I give you the links of governmental studies, European rapport, you send me a shady blog without any source, any figure, any proof

You want to prove climate alarmists might be wrong? No need, they might. Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already. If you try often enough you'll find counter examples. It's not a very precise science, it's more a question of huge trends.

Please, don't try to argue with a strange article which doesn't even give its sources...