• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Capster78 said:
Ok... but much of the data that comes from tree rings is no where near as reliable as data that we have today. Even with the preciseness of the data we have today, we still have a hard time figuring out how climate works. So data we get from tree rings (which is data scattered across the planet and across large swaths of time) is not good enough to determine climate over that missing range of data.
Click to expand...

Again. It's MULTIPLE studies using MULTIPLE proxies.

Not just tree rings. But then again, why would you know this, since you've seemed to stop wanting to understand this and would rather just take predetermined position.
 
Homer. said:
A new study by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) shows the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.

Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.

Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that climate change is a reality. Sure, the climate change deniers, like all conspiracy theorists, will deny any evidence put before them. Hopefully this new evidence will make some people to see the reality.
Click to expand...

160 years isn't even an adequate sample size, not to mention some parts of the world didn't start keeping weather records until the 20's and 30's.... Of course then you have these so called "climatologists" who ignore data that doesn't jibe with the "global warming" theory..... Of course they have no reason to be honest considering they're being paid to continually spew AGW hence their lies are job security....
 
Mr.Nick said:
160 years isn't even an adequate sample size, not to mention some parts of the world didn't start keeping weather records until the 20's and 30's.... Of course then you have these so called "climatologists" who ignore data that doesn't jibe with the "global warming" theory..... Of course they have no reason to be honest considering they're being paid to continually spew AGW hence their lies are job security....
Click to expand...

Hey, lookie here.

Some PhDs from Stanford disagree with your crack analysis.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
 
Threegoofs said:
Hey, lookie here.

Some PhDs from Stanford disagree with your crack analysis.

Stanford scientists: Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years
Click to expand...

That article states that if high end projections pan out, the maximum amount of warming would be similar to something seen in the past. And their conclusion from that analysis, of which they added nothing new to what they reviewed, is to push for zero-emission energy production for third world countries, who have little to no energy available.

They are underwear stealing gnomes.
1) Problem
2) Solution
3) Profit
 
Mr.Nick said:
And plenty Phd's that have absolutely NOTHING TO GAIN disagree with THEIR crack analysis....

Quit attempting to portray "global warming" as fact.... If it was "fact" they would call it "global warming" and not "climate change."
Click to expand...

Yes. The giant conspiracy.

And it's called both. Scientists often refer to it as AGW.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. The giant conspiracy.

And it's called both. Scientists often refer to it as AGW.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a conspiracy.........

Let me guess these so called "scientists" were not caught manipulating data to meet their preconceived "theory"??

Besides, why would anyone that has absolutely nothing to gain dissent "global warming?"

The truth is that some of these "scientists" are so sure that "global warming" is real that they IGNORE data that disproves that theory..... In short they're trying to prove a theory and they disregard all evidence that contradicts such theory.....

Of course these quacks wouldn't be employed if it wasn't for "global warming" so what incentive do they have to be honest????

Then you have the other idiots (progressive governments) who use "global warming" as an opportunity to control and dictate via regulation(s) and taxes...

So YES it is a big ****ing conspiracy.........

Lets also not forget that "global warming" appeals to just about every tyrant and self loathing human out there......
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Of course it's a conspiracy.........

Let me guess these so called "scientists" were not caught manipulating data to meet their preconceived "theory"??

Besides, why would anyone that has absolutely nothing to gain dissent "global warming?"

The truth is that some of these "scientists" are so sure that "global warming" is real that they IGNORE data that disproves that theory..... In short they're trying to prove a theory and they disregard all evidence that contradicts such theory.....

Of course these quacks wouldn't be employed if it wasn't for "global warming" so what incentive do they have to be honest????

Then you have the other idiots (progressive governments) who use "global warming" as an opportunity to control and dictate via regulation(s) and taxes...

So YES it is a big ****ing conspiracy.........

Lets also not forget that "global warming" appeals to just about every tyrant and self loathing human out there......
Click to expand...

Please tell us about the other conspiracies that scientists, scientific journals, and scientific organizations are making up. Surely this cant be the only one.

And please, tell us about the evidence of conspiracy in those cases. Surely one has been exposed and clearly shown to be a conspiracy, right?
 
Threegoofs said:
Please tell us about the other conspiracies that scientists, scientific journals, and scientific organizations are making up. Surely this cant be the only one.

And please, tell us about the evidence of conspiracy in those cases. Surely one has been exposed and clearly shown to be a conspiracy, right?
Click to expand...

There are none....

Why? do you want change the subject of the farce aka "global warming?"

What evidence do you have that "global warming" isn't a conspiracy???

Furthermore you're attempting to claim that I'm the only one that believes this factual conspiracy, when in reality many in the scientific community concur that "global warming" is a farce and a conspiracy that is being used to control people like you and employ quacks - not to mention satisfy the "humans are evil" crowed....

Follow the money.....
 
Also, if these so called "scientists" are so goddamn sure global warming exists then you show me ONE ****ING PREDICTION that they made back in the 90's that came to fruition.

Yeah, back in the 90's these quacks were saying "by 2010 New York and Florida will be under water." How the hell did those models work out??? that's right they didn't because AGW is nothing more than a scare tactic...

Psychics are more accurate than these alleged "scientists" and their so called "models."
 
Threegoofs said:
No. It's MULTIPLE studies using MULTIPLE proxies.
Click to expand...
Using the weighting as desired to produce the desired result, and using inaccurate proxies as primaries.

Did you even read the study?

I did.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Also, if these so called "scientists" are so goddamn sure global warming exists then you show me ONE ****ING PREDICTION that they made back in the 90's that came to fruition.

Yeah, back in the 90's these quacks were saying "by 2010 New York and Florida will be under water." How the hell did those models work out??? that's right they didn't because AGW is nothing more than a scare tactic...

Psychics are more accurate than these alleged "scientists" and their so called "models."
Click to expand...

Sigh. Again. Hansen. 1981, and again in 1988. Plus multiple revisions of the model in the 90s. All showed warming, and the warming... happened. So the prediction that we are now living in the warmest times in modern history was accurate.
 
Threegoofs said:
THE study?

What part of 'multiple studies' dont you understand??
Click to expand...

I completely understand. Most of the studies focuses on smaller areas, most using unreliable proxy data that requires one to assume the variables that are indeterminate.

Do you comprehend that?
 
Threegoofs said:
Sigh. Again. Hansen. 1981, and again in 1988. Plus multiple revisions of the model in the 90s. All showed warming, and the warming... happened. So the prediction that we are now living in the warmest times in modern history was accurate.
Click to expand...

And how well do their models work for past climate?

We have already seen that nearly all climate model created by these alarmists prove to have high error as the future unfolds. Have a single one by chance that is older, that has properly predicted this year?

Farmers Almanac is more accurate. You know why? They study the sun.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sigh. Again. Hansen. 1981, and again in 1988. Plus multiple revisions of the model in the 90s. All showed warming, and the warming... happened. So the prediction that we are now living in the warmest times in modern history was accurate.
Click to expand...

Oh really???

What happened to the "global ice age?"

It's either going to get warmer or cooler and both happen in cycles .... It gets warmer then it gets cooler (hence climate change and NOT global warming)... Of course most progressives cant acknowledge this because they have a difficult time understanding the concept of climate change over 4.5 billion years (or 3.5 to be more accurate give our "climate(s)" which will change and continue to change until the earth is swallowed by our sun in 7.5 billion years or just dies (which it will way before that)...

Oh and if it really matters we're just coming off an ice age, however 160 years of random climate data is NOT enough data to form a ****ing conclusion especially since were approaching the pinnacle of a solar cycle...

Blaming humans for "climate change" is about as ****ing stupid as blaming gravity for short people.....
 
Mr.Nick said:
Oh really???

What happened to the "global ice age?"
.
Click to expand...

So you're post said "When have predictions ever come true for AGW?"

My post said "Here are a couple from the 80s"

And you respond with bluster.

You and LoP will get along just fine.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you're post said "When have predictions ever come true for AGW?"

My post said "Here are a couple from the 80s"

And you respond with bluster.

You and LoP will get along just fine.
Click to expand...

Some dude got a 50/50 correct chance out of warming or cooling??? shocked...

Now lets talk about REAL predictions like NY under water or Florida under water by the year 2010 like HUNDREDS of quacks claimed back in the 90's while some of the same asinine clowns are saying the same thing but now its not 2010 -- no no - it's 2020...

These idiots are like the religious folk who think the end of the world is going to happen any day now and have been saying it since forever....

The truth of the matter is that the WANT TO BELIEVE global warming exists and exists because of man because thats what makes them feel good and they don't want to be wrong about it because then they would a) have nothing to live for and b) look like an epic idiot and c) would have to deal with reality....

The truth is progressives and these quacks are personally attacked to their ideas and philosophies and they wont let FACTS get in the way of their opinions or preconceived "theories." That's why they ignore all evidence that contradicts their "reality."

Notice how these flawed personalities have never admitted to making a mistake EVER -- even when they were caught manipulating data...

If a person cant admit they're wrong then that means they cant learn....
 
Mr.Nick said:
Some dude got a 50/50 correct chance out of warming or cooling??? shocked...

Now lets talk about REAL predictions like NY under water or Florida under water by the year 2010 like HUNDREDS of quacks claimed back in the 90's while some of the same asinine clowns are saying the same thing but now its not 2010 -- no no - it's 2020...

These idiots are like the religious folk who think the end of the world is going to happen any day now and have been saying it since forever....

The truth of the matter is that the WANT TO BELIEVE global warming exists and exists because of man because thats what makes them feel good and they don't want to be wrong about it because then they would a) have nothing to live for and b) look like an epic idiot and c) would have to deal with reality....

The truth is progressives and these quacks are personally attacked to their ideas and philosophies and they wont let FACTS get in the way of their opinions or preconceived "theories." That's why they ignore all evidence that contradicts their "reality."

Notice how these flawed personalities have never admitted to making a mistake EVER -- even when they were caught manipulating data...

If a person cant admit they're wrong then that means they cant learn....
Click to expand...

Really? You think its a 50:50 prediction? You dont think the default would be no significant change?

And yes, I do think that someone who calls out this decade as being the warmest decade ever recorded in history 30 years ago did predict it pretty well.

You're hysterical predictions are worse case predictions, and I;m guessing NO ONE said NY or FL would be under water in 2010. I'm guessing you wont bother to actually look it up to prove your point...

The truth is that scientists have found out we are polluting the atmosphere with CO2 that is causing a greenhouse effect. Its not real complicated.
 
Also I'm getting tired of progressives portraying a "changing climate" as something bad or unnatural.

Progressives talk **** like humans all of a sudden started to make the "climate change" which is a bunch of ignorant bull**** and sadly the zombies will believe it...

I wonder how many college age individuals (or typical progressives off the street) would know what "Pangia" is??? I bet 5% would even know and the rest would think its an Italian restaurant...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Also I'm getting tired of progressives portraying a "changing climate" as something bad or unnatural.

Progressives talk **** like humans all of a sudden started to make the "climate change" which is a bunch of ignorant bull**** and sadly the zombies will believe it...

I wonder how many college age individuals (or typical progressives off the street) would know what "Pangia" is??? I bet 5% would even know and the rest would think its an Italian restaurant...
Click to expand...

Pangia? I bet not even 5% would know.


In fact, I am a bit suspicious to what you know about AGW, outside of what Sean Hannity told you. Cause I have a sneaking suspicion you mean the last cohesive single continental landmass, but you may be talking about something else...
 
Threegoofs said:
Really? You think its a 50:50 prediction? You dont think the default would be no significant change?

And yes, I do think that someone who calls out this decade as being the warmest decade ever recorded in history 30 years ago did predict it pretty well.

You're hysterical predictions are worse case predictions, and I;m guessing NO ONE said NY or FL would be under water in 2010. I'm guessing you wont bother to actually look it up to prove your point...

The truth is that scientists have found out we are polluting the atmosphere with CO2 that is causing a greenhouse effect. Its not real complicated.
Click to expand...

Yes it's 50:50... It's either getting colder or warmer or neither (and if you chose neither that means you in epic denial about earth)..

Climate changes without question but to suggest or accuse that humans are responsible is absolute horse **** (which progressive tax in some nations under the ruse of "global warming")...

Now, it's quite clear you're more than willing to sit back and trust global warming nuts instead of learning the sciences for yourself just because the people you trust (for some reason) tell you to instead of challenging you to learn for yourself..

You don't believe me FINE... Then go do the research yourself..... I suppose that would require an open mind which is an attribute many don't possess... I'm sure it has something to do with blind trust.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yes it's 50:50... It's either getting colder or warmer or neither (and if you chose neither that means you in epic denial about earth)..

Climate changes without question but to suggest or accuse that humans are responsible is absolute horse **** (which progressive tax in some nations under the ruse of "global warming")...

Now, it's quite clear you're more than willing to sit back and trust global warming nuts instead of learning the sciences for yourself just because the people you trust (for some reason) tell you to instead of challenging you to learn for yourself..

You don't believe me FINE... Then go do the research yourself..... I suppose that would require an open mind which is an attribute many don't possess... I'm sure it has something to do with blind trust.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA!

Actually, if you look at it like a scientist, it is colder, warmer or no significant difference from present. Not quite 50:50... more like 95:5 if you use the standard level of signfiicace at p=.05.


And I have done the 'research' myself. At least read quite a bit of it, and talked extensively to many scientists in the field. I dont do earth science research - I do cardiovascular research. Different animal, but same scientific concepts.

Its really not a controversial topic outside of Fox News.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom