Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Toemeesleather]

Not that it really matters..

....who funded the hockey stick graph.

[Toemeesleather]

Who funded the Church of AGW's old testament?



The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. -- Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. -- Paul Ehrlich, 1969

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

[bluetick]

Great point...there are cranks galore.

Here's a key distinction fer ya: nobody came on here today running their mouth about somebody named Paul Ehrlich... trying to pass him off as an expert. heh

[bluetick]

Ball's analysis should be easily disprovable. But going after his credentials or associations are not an argument against his points.

He's identified in that unreferenced article as a historical climatologist. That is a lie...he is a geologist. That particular key credential is bogus. You get that, right?

As for his associations....receiving money from Exxon as a "scientific advisor" is not an argument against his points, true, but speaks to the likelihood of those words very existence. Whereas the scientists at NASA and NOAA have no such benefactors as XOM and ADR.

I'm guessing Ball's analysis is indeed easily disprovable as you say, but I can't find anything pro or con. Apparently geologists don't get much play in matters of climate science.

[Toemeesleather]

Great point...there are cranks galore.

Here's a key distinction fer ya: nobody came on here today running their mouth about somebody named Paul Ehrlich... trying to pass him off as an expert. heh

He's world renowned/honored in circles you pretend to defend(Algore didn't start the internet nor the AGW crusade, he based his plan on the likes of Ehrlich)....shame you don't dig beneath the surface of a global tautology....the only smart people are people I agree with.....the rest are deniers..sad.

[bluetick]

Great point...there are cranks galore.

Here's a key distinction fer ya: nobody came on here today running their mouth about somebody named Paul Ehrlich... trying to pass him off as an expert. heh

He's world renowned/honored in circles you pretend to defend.

Pardon me for being skeptical about anybody you claim to be renowned.

or pretty much anything else for that matter, Mr. No Link

[Toemeesleather]

www.google.com

[hedge]

"or pretty much anything else for that matter, Mr. No Link"

I think "missing link" is more like it in Toe's case...

[Cletus]

[Toemeesleather]

Ehrlich earned a bachelors degree in zoology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1953, an M.A. at the University of Kansas in 1955, and a Ph.D. in 1957 at the University of Kansas, supervised by the prominent bee researcher C.D. Michener. During his studies he participated in surveys of insects on the Bering Sea and in the Canadian Arctic, and then with a National Institutes of Health fellowship, investigated the genetics and behavior of parasitic mites. In 1959 he joined the faculty at Stanford, being promoted to professor of biology in 1966. He was named to the Bing Professorship in 1977, and he is president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University. Additionally, Ehrlich is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.


American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Academy of Sciences... ...Shitski, he's smarterin than you and me both, tick.


W/link, you lazy bastage:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Eh ... _education

[Toemeesleather]

How consensus scientists view AGW.....AGW exists only the minds of model makers and politicians.

[Toemeesleather]

Resume of the above....hockey stick...


Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. His research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth's climate system.



Hell, all these guys are sarmt....just the way tick wants them to be.

[Professor Tiger]

In the next 2-3 days, a winter storm of historic proportions will hit the northeast - home of all the smart people in/from Ivy League schools and the captains of the MSM.

I wonder if any of those smart people will take a break from braving the predicted 2-3 feet of snow, 30-60 mph winds, subzero wind chill temps, and ask themselves, "Is the earth REALLY turning turning into a sauna?" Who should they believe - computer models or their lying frostbitten skin?

[Cletus]

In the next 2-3 days, a winter storm of historic proportions will hit the northeast - home of all the smart people in/from Ivy League schools and the captains of the MSM.

I wonder if any of those smart people will take a break from braving the predicted 2-3 feet of snow, 30-60 mph winds, subzero wind chill temps, and ask themselves, "Is the earth REALLY turning turning into a sauna?" Who should they believe - computer models or their lying frostbitten skin?

Do you really think that a local storm is indicative of global climate?

[bluetick]

When public opinion polls show that the difference between the support for political candidates is less than the survey’s margin of error, most people understand that the candidates are effectively tied.

But when it comes to climate change, the public’s appreciation of “margin of error” seems to vanish. This is partly because of misinterpretations of the data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

For example, last week NOAA headlined its home page, “It's official: 2014 was Earth's warmest year on record.” NASA proclaimed in its Jan. 16 news release video, “2014 was the hottest year on record.”

In repeating this claim in in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama demonstrated that NASA’s and NOAA’s announcements are accepted as true at the highest levels of government. The “warmest year ever” message will now be incorporated into talking points for government officials the world over.

But it is a deception. NOAA’s data shows that the record for the year was set by only four one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over the previous record warmest years, 2010 and 2005, while the uncertainty in the temperature statistic is nine one-hundredths of a degree, or more than twice the amount by which the supposed record was set (NASA showed a record being set in 2014 by only two one-hundredths of a degree).

In fact, NOAA temperature statistics for seven previous years — 2013, 2010, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 1998 — are all within nine one-hundredths of a degree of 2014’s level. So they all tie with 2014. No new record was set.

The same applies to NOAA’s announcement that, “December 2014 was warmest December on record for globe.” December 2014 was one one-hundredths of a degree hotter than December 2006, the previous warmest December, which was one one-hundredths of a degree warmer than 2003. The uncertainty is seven one-hundredths of a degree, so the December temperature statistic for all three years — 2014, 2006, and 2003 — are effectively equal. No new December record was set.

Rather than support the notion that global warming continues unabated, the data from NOAA and NASA reinforce the observation that we are in the midst of an extended pause in planetary warming.

If NOAA and NASA made grand announcements of temperature records set by hundredths of a degree, many people would laugh, appreciating that such changes cannot even be felt, let alone present problems.

So instead, they emphasize the amount by which temperature statistics exceed the “the 20th century average.” But to know this difference to hundredths of a degree, as they claim to do, requires that we also know the average for the 20th century to hundredths of a degree. And this, in turn, requires that we know the “global average temperature” in each year during the 20th century to a similarly high degree of accuracy.

Historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, former professor at the University of Winnipeg, explains, “Typical accuracies of temperature measurements throughout the 20th century were between one and one-half degree Celsius. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever for NASA and NOAA to claim differences from a 20th century average in hundredths of a degree.”

Ball explains that even modern “instrumental data is inadequate. There is are virtually no data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is oceans. There is practically no data for the 19 percent of land area that are mountains, 20 percent that are desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest.”

“So NASA just invents data to complete the picture,” continues Ball. “They do this by making the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature represents all land temperature within a 1,200 km radius region.”

So, it is simply not possible for NASA and NOAA to determine a meaningful average temperature statistic for the planet based on surface readings, as they pretend to do. It is only through the use of satellite-based instruments that we can hope to get a meaningful overview of planetary conditions. Satellite data shows that 2014 did not set a record at all, with computed temperatures statistics merely extending the current plateau.

NOAA chief scientist Richard Spinrad boasted in a Jan. 16 news release that “NOAA provides decision makers with timely and trusted science-based information about our changing world …”

In reality, Spinrad’s agency is all about PR spin when it comes to temperature records. Science be damned.

Here's how you started your day, toe. Some bogus article...about claims made against NOAA and NASA...by a 'historical climatologist'...who really is no such thing. There is no link or any reference to where this "info" originates, which is pretty much your modus operandi. Again, there's hardly any doubt it's from some nutjob denier site you frequent, but you understandably would rather keep your sources to yourself.

Either vet your own bullshit posts or suffer the shame of somebody else doing it for you.

[bluetick]

In the next 2-3 days, a winter storm of historic proportions will hit the northeast - home of all the smart people in/from Ivy League schools and the captains of the MSM.

I wonder if any of those smart people will take a break from braving the predicted 2-3 feet of snow, 30-60 mph winds, subzero wind chill temps, and ask themselves, "Is the earth REALLY turning turning into a sauna?" Who should they believe - computer models or their lying frostbitten skin?

Do you really think that a local storm is indicative of global climate?

Oh sure.

Just like he thinks the U.S. Northeast represents a big chunk of the Earth's surface. Prolly 20-25% if you hold the globe jes' right.

[Toemeesleather]

There is no link or any reference to where this "info" originates, which is pretty much your modus operandi. Again, there's hardly any doubt it's from some nutjob denier site you frequent, but you understandably would rather keep your sources to yourself.


Simply typing 2014 not warmest year in your favorite search engine brings up multiple sources including the Wash Post giving the same facts/statistical explanation I posted....you're the lazy/inept one here. Getting outside the standard Blame Bush or they receive money from big oil boring responses and you can't handle it. sad.

[bluetick]

Simply typing 2014 not warmest year in your favorite search engine brings up multiple sources including the Wash Post giving the same facts/statistical explanation I posted....you're the lazy/inept one here. Getting outside the standard Blame Bush or they receive money from big oil boring responses and you can't handle it. sad.

Your article featuring "historical climatologist" Tim Ball has nothing to do with the Washington Post - they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Post a link to that bs article of yours. Do it. DO IT. DO IT. (heh - you won't)

[10ac]

I saw it in a Providence on line newspaper.

[Dr. Strangelove]

No, my point was that congress undermining the President by inviting a foreign leader to speak is no worse than congress undermining the President by cutting off funding of his foreign policy.

Congress is legally entitled to invite a guest speaker.

I was ok in us supporting the Contras, as brutal as they may have been, to fight against communism. I was not in favor of circumnavigating congressional authority the way the Reagan administration did.

To be clear, sardis is okay with President Reagan and Ollie North trading weapons with Iran (who we were supposedly enemies with) in exchange for cocaine that we would then give to the murderous, extremely violent Contras so that they could wage war against the communists who had overthrown the US-backed dictator.

Sardis is okay with all this. He regards Reagan and North as valiant heroes for thinking up such a project. He thinks giving weapons to Iran is perfectly fine so long as you can claim you did it to beat Communism. But sitting down having talks with the Iranians now is high treason and we should take marching orders from Israel on the subject.