(06-04-2015 06:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.

There is exponentially more money to be made by claiming global errrr climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate

You say that like it's true, when it's quite clearly false.

Tell that to Elon Musk

Tell you what, go out and convince the 60% number you stated to stop driving cars, traveling by plane, and using electricity and then get back with me. Step up to the plate and back up your claims with a good test group.

(06-04-2015 07:19 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.

There is exponentially more money to be made by claiming global errrr climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate

You say that like it's true, when it's quite clearly false.

Tell that to Elon Musk

Tell you what, go out and convince the 60% number you stated to stop driving cars, traveling by plane, and using electricity and then get back with me. Step up to the plate and back up your claims with a good test group.

1. Elon Musk? You think he has money? Look at the worlds largest companies, and count how many in the top 10 are petroleum companies? I'm not saying this makes them evil or anything, but if you're arguing that Climate Change is driven by money, it helps if those opposed to climate change aren't literally the richest companies in the world. Exxons yearly net income is significantly greater that the market cap of Tesla, for instance.

2. Your statement about me convincing 60% to do everything you listed is nonsense, because it goes directly against the entire premise of my statement. The 60% of americans I'm describing would agree that doing everything you say immediately is wholly unrealistic, but believe that we need to pass legislation that provides real incentives to encourage lower overall emissions and that we should look for power sources that pollute less (nuclear for instance). Saying that the options are 'everyone off of electricity immediately' or 'climate change doesn't exist' kind of outlines the stupidity of your opinion on the matter.

(06-04-2015 07:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:19 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.

There is exponentially more money to be made by claiming global errrr climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate

You say that like it's true, when it's quite clearly false.

Tell that to Elon Musk

Tell you what, go out and convince the 60% number you stated to stop driving cars, traveling by plane, and using electricity and then get back with me. Step up to the plate and back up your claims with a good test group.

1. Elon Musk? You think he has money? Look at the worlds largest companies, and count how many in the top 10 are petroleum companies? I'm not saying this makes them evil or anything, but if you're arguing that Climate Change is driven by money, it helps if those opposed to climate change aren't literally the richest companies in the world. Exxons yearly net income is significantly greater that the market cap of Tesla, for instance.

2. Your statement about me convincing 60% to do everything you listed is nonsense, because it goes directly against the entire premise of my statement. The 60% of americans I'm describing would agree that doing everything you say immediately is wholly unrealistic, but believe that we need to pass legislation that provides real incentives to encourage lower overall emissions and that we should look for power sources that pollute less (nuclear for instance). Saying that the options are 'everyone off of electricity immediately' or 'climate change doesn't exist' kind of outlines the stupidity of your opinion on the matter.

No you don't get it.

If you and your buddies really belive it's a catastrophic problem then you need to do everyone of those things....now. Don't forget to paint your roof white.

BTW the oil companies don't have one of these, so this argument is pretty much over....and all of that Climate change money in academia grows on trees, right?

(06-04-2015 07:47 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:19 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  There is exponentially more money to be made by claiming global errrr climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate

You say that like it's true, when it's quite clearly false.

Tell that to Elon Musk

Tell you what, go out and convince the 60% number you stated to stop driving cars, traveling by plane, and using electricity and then get back with me. Step up to the plate and back up your claims with a good test group.

1. Elon Musk? You think he has money? Look at the worlds largest companies, and count how many in the top 10 are petroleum companies? I'm not saying this makes them evil or anything, but if you're arguing that Climate Change is driven by money, it helps if those opposed to climate change aren't literally the richest companies in the world. Exxons yearly net income is significantly greater that the market cap of Tesla, for instance.

2. Your statement about me convincing 60% to do everything you listed is nonsense, because it goes directly against the entire premise of my statement. The 60% of americans I'm describing would agree that doing everything you say immediately is wholly unrealistic, but believe that we need to pass legislation that provides real incentives to encourage lower overall emissions and that we should look for power sources that pollute less (nuclear for instance). Saying that the options are 'everyone off of electricity immediately' or 'climate change doesn't exist' kind of outlines the stupidity of your opinion on the matter.

No you don't get it.

If you and your buddies really belive it's a catastrophic problem then you need to do everyone of those things....now. Don't forget to paint your roof white.

BTW the oil companies don't have one of these, so this argument is pretty much over....and all of that Climate change money in academia grows on trees, right?

What an objectively stupid thing to say.

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

(06-04-2015 03:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.

If they had a clear reason for the adjustments, they should have included it in the article. There was no reason given which is what caused me to ask the question.

I find it interesting that you automatically accept the adjustments without question. Did it really take them 18 years to determine that their measurements were incorrect? Why did it take so long? What prompted them to verify the readings in the first place? How can the be certain that their adjustments are correct at this point? There are far too many questions not addressed by NOAA regarding the reasoning behind the adjustments.

I don't have to 'go the extra mile' to convince anybody of anything. I'm simply asking a question, which according to some Dem lawmakers should make me a criminal for questioning their so-called "settled science" that seems to need endless revisions to arrive at the desired conclusions. Changing information, especially something as simple as a temperature reading, naturally raises questions that NOAA and other scientific associations have been more that a little hesitant to provide clear and simple answers to. Sensational doomsday claims that have failed to come to fruition don't help to lend credibility to the cause.

Haven't you learned Anything Yet ? If the Democrats Say it's Real, It Must Be Real !

(06-05-2015 06:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

So don't want to address what you actually said. That's cool. But I'm not going to make the trip to Sidetrack with you.

(06-05-2015 07:12 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

So don't want to address what you actually said. That's cool. But I'm not going to make the trip to Sidetrack with you.

I did address what I actually said. What specifically did I not address?

So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

(06-05-2015 07:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

(06-05-2015 06:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:47 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:19 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You say that like it's true, when it's quite clearly false.

Tell that to Elon Musk

Tell you what, go out and convince the 60% number you stated to stop driving cars, traveling by plane, and using electricity and then get back with me. Step up to the plate and back up your claims with a good test group.

1. Elon Musk? You think he has money? Look at the worlds largest companies, and count how many in the top 10 are petroleum companies? I'm not saying this makes them evil or anything, but if you're arguing that Climate Change is driven by money, it helps if those opposed to climate change aren't literally the richest companies in the world. Exxons yearly net income is significantly greater that the market cap of Tesla, for instance.

2. Your statement about me convincing 60% to do everything you listed is nonsense, because it goes directly against the entire premise of my statement. The 60% of americans I'm describing would agree that doing everything you say immediately is wholly unrealistic, but believe that we need to pass legislation that provides real incentives to encourage lower overall emissions and that we should look for power sources that pollute less (nuclear for instance). Saying that the options are 'everyone off of electricity immediately' or 'climate change doesn't exist' kind of outlines the stupidity of your opinion on the matter.

No you don't get it.

If you and your buddies really belive it's a catastrophic problem then you need to do everyone of those things....now. Don't forget to paint your roof white.

BTW the oil companies don't have one of these, so this argument is pretty much over....and all of that Climate change money in academia grows on trees, right?

What an objectively stupid thing to say.

No its true but you don't want to actually practice what you preach.

I'm not surprised

(06-05-2015 07:41 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:47 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:19 PM)maximus Wrote:  Tell that to Elon Musk

Tell you what, go out and convince the 60% number you stated to stop driving cars, traveling by plane, and using electricity and then get back with me. Step up to the plate and back up your claims with a good test group.

1. Elon Musk? You think he has money? Look at the worlds largest companies, and count how many in the top 10 are petroleum companies? I'm not saying this makes them evil or anything, but if you're arguing that Climate Change is driven by money, it helps if those opposed to climate change aren't literally the richest companies in the world. Exxons yearly net income is significantly greater that the market cap of Tesla, for instance.

2. Your statement about me convincing 60% to do everything you listed is nonsense, because it goes directly against the entire premise of my statement. The 60% of americans I'm describing would agree that doing everything you say immediately is wholly unrealistic, but believe that we need to pass legislation that provides real incentives to encourage lower overall emissions and that we should look for power sources that pollute less (nuclear for instance). Saying that the options are 'everyone off of electricity immediately' or 'climate change doesn't exist' kind of outlines the stupidity of your opinion on the matter.

No you don't get it.

If you and your buddies really belive it's a catastrophic problem then you need to do everyone of those things....now. Don't forget to paint your roof white.

BTW the oil companies don't have one of these, so this argument is pretty much over....and all of that Climate change money in academia grows on trees, right?

What an objectively stupid thing to say.

No its true but you don't want to actually practice what you preach.

I'm not surprised

No, it's not true, if you had read the posts that are quoted, you'd know that. I agree that some climate change claims have been blown out of proportion and done in a lazy manner, and that we should take reasoned steps in alternate energy in order to lower our carbon output in a significant, long-term manner. Focus on nuclear instead of some of the less realistic alternative energy options, encourage innovation with the use of carbon credits, an admittedly great idea spawned when the republican party didn't attempt to just turn a blind eye to science. You attributing an either/or scenario to a national policy like this makes you look positively idiotic, because there are quite literally thousands of different options between "do nothing" and "shut off all power immediately".

Stop being dumb.

(06-05-2015 07:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

Because tobacco actually makes some people sick. The climate is not actually changing where it is a threat to civilization.

(06-05-2015 07:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

Because tobacco actually makes some people sick. The climate is not actually changing where it is a threat to civilization.

If you believed the industry research at the time, there was no real evidence tobacco made people sick. Do you not get the parallel?

(06-05-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

Because tobacco actually makes some people sick. The climate is not actually changing where it is a threat to civilization.

If you believed the industry research at the time, there was no real evidence tobacco made people sick. Do you not get the parallel?

Well it doesn't make all people sick, just a greater likelihood. Makes that difficult to prove.

(06-05-2015 06:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

You can link every article on the net that shows funding of climate skeptics but those funds will never come close to the amount of funds poured into climate change "research", the federal government alone spends billions upon billions.

(06-05-2015 08:04 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

Clearly partisan nonsense.

I don't believe claims that paid group A... it's clear paid group B...

Except, my statement has evidence supporting it. Like this example. And this example. Or any number of studies showing that industry funded research is more likely to be altered or misleading.

You can link every article on the net that shows funding of climate skeptics but those funds will never come close to the amount of funds poured into climate change "research", the federal government alone spends billions upon billions.

Again, that money doesn't come with any semblance of the amount of strings private funding often does. There is a system in place to prevent widespread bias, and it's worked fairly well so far. Seeing the parallels between tobacco and this situation, it's hard to come to the conclusion you seem so insistent on.

(06-05-2015 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So the government side pays researchers to conclude what they want and the corporate side pays their researchers to conclude what they want. What is your point? Most people just haven't seen any evidence of globalwarmingclimatechange so it is ridiculous to believe the world is going to end. The early 2000s did have some hot weather patterns, but that bounced back to normal.

This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

Because tobacco actually makes some people sick. The climate is not actually changing where it is a threat to civilization.

If you believed the industry research at the time, there was no real evidence tobacco made people sick. Do you not get the parallel?

Well it doesn't make all people sick, just a greater likelihood. Makes that difficult to prove.

It makes it hard to prove that smoking caused a single case of lung cancer, sure, but it's not hard to prove that smoking increases ones risks of cancer.

(06-05-2015 08:12 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is an assumption that simply isn't true, at least how it's used in this statement, by equating it to industry research. The government control over research is far weaker than any industry funded research has the ability to be. There are safeguards and procedures in place to ostensibly limit the effect policy dictates research, and while they're far from perfect, they still are exponentially superior to "We need you to find evidence that oil isn't causing climate change" that literally happens in industry sponsored research.

I really don't understand how people don't see that this is just tobacco all over again.

Because tobacco actually makes some people sick. The climate is not actually changing where it is a threat to civilization.

If you believed the industry research at the time, there was no real evidence tobacco made people sick. Do you not get the parallel?

Well it doesn't make all people sick, just a greater likelihood. Makes that difficult to prove.

It makes it hard to prove that smoking caused a single case of lung cancer, sure, but it's not hard to prove that smoking increases ones risks of cancer.

It does when some 80% of the population smokes and every school, office, and shelter in the country is loaded with asbestos.