• 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!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

So there are no such things as Carbon taxes ?

And Obama's war on Coal and Coal fired plants wont raise electricity rates ?

Al Gore didn't take Petroleum money for his network ?

Why is it that the pro AGW people always devolve down into insolent chidren when they are called out on their BS ?

You didn't address one thing I said, didn't try to counter it, you just turned into a 5 year old.

More evidence of the huge credibility issue the pro-AGW side has I guess.

1- not yet, the wet dream of the Eco-fascists
2- yes
3- yes

4- because they are like weak children, their power comes through by acting like a swarm of weakness.

They can't address the facts because the facts no longer support their case... So, resorting to acting like hurt children is all they have left .
 
What?

That's just an embarrassing retort.

I expected better from you. Really.
So how would you calculate acceleration/deceleration?
It is after all a change in rate of a change over a change in time.
 
So how would you calculate acceleration/deceleration?
It is after all a change in rate of a change over a change in time.

I wouldnt bother to calculate acceleration/deceleration for temperature, because its not a value that will necessarily be constant and is pretty irrelevant.
You dont need calculus to look at temperature trends.

But using a moving average makes sense, and a five year or ten year moving average seems like a reasonable way to look at climate data.
 
I wouldnt bother to calculate acceleration/deceleration for temperature, because its not a value that will necessarily be constant and is pretty irrelevant.
You dont need calculus to look at temperature trends.

But using a moving average makes sense, and a five year or ten year moving average seems like a reasonable way to look at climate data.
A moving average makes no since in calculating an algebraic solution for acceleration/deceleration.
If you think about it a bit, a car going 30 mph accelerates to 60 mph in 5 seconds, vs,
a car going between 20 and 40 mph accelerates to between 50 and 70 mph, between 2.5 and 7.5 seconds.
I accept the GISS global averaged temperature, and measure the rate of change over a fixed time.
If you think my formula for acceleration is incorrect, please point it out.
 
Ok, do you know what RAW data is?

This response implies that you don't.

So supply me with a link to this raw data you use. If you don't have one source then please enlighten us as to your multiple sources of raw data. Or does raw data consist of your thermometer in your back yard??? You must have sources from which you gather this raw data? Please let us know what these sources are so we can judge the validity for ourselves.
 
A moving average makes no since in calculating an algebraic solution for acceleration/deceleration.
If you think about it a bit, a car going 30 mph accelerates to 60 mph in 5 seconds, vs,
a car going between 20 and 40 mph accelerates to between 50 and 70 mph, between 2.5 and 7.5 seconds.
I accept the GISS global averaged temperature, and measure the rate of change over a fixed time.
If you think my formula for acceleration is incorrect, please point it out.

Again temperature is not speed. You're mixing the two that cannot be mixed accurately. The only way to determine whether or not averages are accelerating or if you prefer getting worse if you cannot tell the difference between acceleration of movement and acceleration of effect. The effect is getting worse. The only true way to determine that is through line graphs of all the data collected. This evens out the outliers that can skew the results as you are calculating them.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

guess this means he's officially stopped even TRYING to fix the economy. History will give him an "F-" grade on his handling of the economy, so maybe he's trying to raise his grade on global warming. good luck with that
F- :blink: are you fer real Joe?!

Do you seriously believe that History will grade the 1st Black U.S. President with anything less than A+?!

And every city and town in the United States will have both a school and a street named for Barack Hussein Obama!
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

F- :blink: are you fer real Joe?!

Do you seriously believe that History will grade the 1st Black U.S. President with anything less than A+?!

And every city and town in the United States will have both a school and a street named for Barack Hussein Obama!

I'll have to remember that the next time you accuse liberals of playing the "race card."
 
So supply me with a link to this raw data you use. If you don't have one source then please enlighten us as to your multiple sources of raw data. Or does raw data consist of your thermometer in your back yard??? You must have sources from which you gather this raw data? Please let us know what these sources are so we can judge the validity for ourselves.

All the raw data shows virtually the same movements of temperatures... You're getting really angry over this concept that we should look at the raw data, rather than the data that's been stepped on just to send a message.

They got these neat things call satellites ... The collect data and report what was collected.

Then, you can do this magical thing called analyzing the data. You know, comparing it to co2 levels to test the hypothesis.

Crazy thing how science works.
 
Remember. The scientists manipulate all the data, but somehow actively post the raw data (which they obviously don't use/manipulate) for public use, which amazingly shows that thru are making up the conclusions for data that they strangely post in raw form.

Feel free to don a tinfoil hat at any time.
 
Remember. The scientists manipulate all the data, but somehow actively post the raw data (which they obviously don't use/manipulate) for public use, which amazingly shows that thru are making up the conclusions for data that they strangely post in raw form.

Feel free to don a tinfoil hat at any time.

This is silly... If you are getting a world wide audience to buy into your scam, you are also going to have to sell fellow scientists. Meaning, that with the global scale of the problem, the raw temperature data is going to need to be public.

It's not like we're talking about specific gene sequences in some hybrid plant type of science.

So, the absolute values of temperatures get reported, co2 concentrations are usually baseline from Hawaii. We have a theory; that human produced co2 is the driving force for climate change (though originally it's global warming).

Are you with me still?

OK, so now the ipcc, being paid by the UN is tasked to analyze that data, they are trying to show their best guesses as to how much co2 impacts climate.

The models they create always wind up falling flat... but as long as they keep writing these reports, keep pushing the fear, then they keep getting paid, because by the time the data comes out to prove them wrong, they have a new report ready.

Like that, it's not conspiracy, it's business.

Others cash in on the band Wagon, because selling studies concerning agw is an easy sell, and it doesn't even matter if the study is in any way true to life because people buy into it.

Now, if you want to have a debate on the validity of the data, that's another conversation, but I'm willing to accept the raw data since it doesn't even really sustain the argument any longer, but you can't seem to see it because the ipcc and friends won't ever tell you.
 
Remember. The scientists manipulate all the data, but somehow actively post the raw data (which they obviously don't use/manipulate) for public use, which amazingly shows that thru are making up the conclusions for data that they strangely post in raw form.
Technically no one posts "raw" data. What is posted, like the GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
has already been adjusted,
sources: GHCN-v3 1880-04/2014 + SST: ERSST 1880-04/2014
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
We could have an entire discussion on what a few tenths of a degree means, but it is moving around in the noise.
I don't think anyone is manipulating the data with bad intent, but it is being adjusted to try
and see some sort of signal in the noise.
Any adjustments made are well within the very large margin of error.
 
Technically no one posts "raw" data. What is posted, like the GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
has already been adjusted,

We could have an entire discussion on what a few tenths of a degree means, but it is moving around in the noise.
I don't think anyone is manipulating the data with bad intent, but it is being adjusted to try
and see some sort of signal in the noise.
Any adjustments made are well within the very large margin of error.


You also have to ignore the very real phenomenon of confirmation bias is statistical manipulations. James Hansen, a true believer, ran GISS for decades. Do you think he ever once double checked a warming trend on a weather station?
 
All the raw data shows virtually the same movements of temperatures... You're getting really angry over this concept that we should look at the raw data, rather than the data that's been stepped on just to send a message.

They got these neat things call satellites ... The collect data and report what was collected.

Then, you can do this magical thing called analyzing the data. You know, comparing it to co2 levels to test the hypothesis.

Crazy thing how science works.

First off I am not angry. If anything I am amused. You keep telling us use the raw data. I ask you where you get this raw data from and the only answers I get are either very general and non-specific or circular claiming once again raw data. The funny thing is that the scientist that you claim are manipulating the data which include, NASA, NOAA, UCS, DOD, DOT, Scripps, almost every accredited university, AAAS, AMA, AGU, ACU, AMS, APS, GSA and the National Acadamy of Sciences just to name a few. The absolutely hilarious thing about this is they ALL publish their raw data in SUPPORT of global warming. So again I ask you from where do you get your raw data. Please be specific as possible so we can all be illuminated.
 
Technically no one posts "raw" data. What is posted, like the GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
has already been adjusted,

We could have an entire discussion on what a few tenths of a degree means, but it is moving around in the noise.
I don't think anyone is manipulating the data with bad intent, but it is being adjusted to try
and see some sort of signal in the noise.
Any adjustments made are well within the very large margin of error.

OK so "technically" they don't post the raw data but they reference and most of the agency will provide any raw data you want if you order it. Like this from GISS from NASA. Just fill out the form and they provide the data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
 
OK so "technically" they don't post the raw data but they reference and most of the agency will provide any raw data you want if you order it. Like this from GISS from NASA. Just fill out the form and they provide the data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Many of the climategate emails dealt with them dragging their feet to not release the raw data.
Also since they have already stated that the eliminated the outliers, I wonder if their raw data would include
which outliers were eliminated and the criteria for such elimination.
 
This is silly... If you are getting a world wide audience to buy into your scam, you are also going to have to sell fellow scientists. Meaning, that with the global scale of the problem, the raw temperature data is going to need to be public.

It's not like we're talking about specific gene sequences in some hybrid plant type of science.

So, the absolute values of temperatures get reported, co2 concentrations are usually baseline from Hawaii. We have a theory; that human produced co2 is the driving force for climate change (though originally it's global warming).

Are you with me still?

OK, so now the ipcc, being paid by the UN is tasked to analyze that data, they are trying to show their best guesses as to how much co2 impacts climate.

The models they create always wind up falling flat... but as long as they keep writing these reports, keep pushing the fear, then they keep getting paid, because by the time the data comes out to prove them wrong, they have a new report ready.

Like that, it's not conspiracy, it's business.

Others cash in on the band Wagon, because selling studies concerning agw is an easy sell, and it doesn't even matter if the study is in any way true to life because people buy into it.

Now, if you want to have a debate on the validity of the data, that's another conversation, but I'm willing to accept the raw data since it doesn't even really sustain the argument any longer, but you can't seem to see it because the ipcc and friends won't ever tell you.

So the raw data is correct because...it shows you what you want. You've said the data was manipulated before, so I find it odd you're relying on fake data to try to make your point.

You really should take this to the CT section. It's totally nuts.
 
Technically no one posts "raw" data. What is posted, like the GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
has already been adjusted,

We could have an entire discussion on what a few tenths of a degree means, but it is moving around in the noise.
I don't think anyone is manipulating the data with bad intent, but it is being adjusted to try
and see some sort of signal in the noise.
Any adjustments made are well within the very large margin of error.

Oh, so it seems I misspoke... I was treating giss and hadcrut data as being as untouched.

Seems I was wrong... But either way, those two are close enough. If they mess up those sources too hard they'll wind up getting called on it, those two match up close enough also.


You also have to ignore the very real phenomenon of confirmation bias is statistical manipulations. James Hansen, a true believer, ran GISS for decades. Do you think he ever once double checked a warming trend on a weather station?

Ya, the whole point was to avoid getting into how the science is so untrustworthy that even the data itself can't be trusted.

The data provided does not even make the case they hoped.

First off I am not angry. If anything I am amused. You keep telling us use the raw data. I ask you where you get this raw data from and the only answers I get are either very general and non-specific or circular claiming once again raw data. The funny thing is that the scientist that you claim are manipulating the data which include, NASA, NOAA, UCS, DOD, DOT, Scripps, almost every accredited university, AAAS, AMA, AGU, ACU, AMS, APS, GSA and the National Acadamy of Sciences just to name a few. The absolutely hilarious thing about this is they ALL publish their raw data in SUPPORT of global warming. So again I ask you from where do you get your raw data. Please be specific as possible so we can all be illuminated.

I clarified the misunderstanding.

There have been papers written about how co2 might cause more earthquakes, volcanoes, or eve alien invasion... So, it's best to look at each paper individually.

Simply put, the data does not support the case they hope to make, often it just means paying attention to what is published.

Many of the climategate emails dealt with them dragging their feet to not release the raw data.
Also since they have already stated that the eliminated the outliers, I wonder if their raw data would include
which outliers were eliminated and the criteria for such elimination.

Ya, and wasn't there a new round of climate scientists emails that have come out?

I would bet you'd have to run the analysis personally.


So the raw data is correct because...it shows you what you want. You've said the data was manipulated before, so I find it odd you're relying on fake data to try to make your point.

You really should take this to the CT section. It's totally nuts.

No, it's just the least manipulated... Like how there's the graph of the various models compared to the measurements it doesn't match anything to do with the measurements, and the you show the same graph averaged out in such a way that it creates the illusion that they were "close enough".

I'm just less apt to buy into blatant scams I guess.
 
Many of the climategate emails dealt with them dragging their feet to not release the raw data.
Also since they have already stated that the eliminated the outliers, I wonder if their raw data would include
which outliers were eliminated and the criteria for such elimination.

In all my academic experience I have never ran into a problem of either finding the raw data used or anyone being open to releasing it. The so called feet dragging you are referring to has never happened that I am aware of. The so-called "climategate" was a sham.
 
Oh, so it seems I misspoke... I was treating giss and hadcrut data as being as untouched.

Seems I was wrong... But either way, those two are close enough. If they mess up those sources too hard they'll wind up getting called on it, those two match up close enough also.




Ya, the whole point was to avoid getting into how the science is so untrustworthy that even the data itself can't be trusted.

The data provided does not even make the case they hoped.



I clarified the misunderstanding.

There have been papers written about how co2 might cause more earthquakes, volcanoes, or eve alien invasion... So, it's best to look at each paper individually.

Simply put, the data does not support the case they hope to make, often it just means paying attention to what is published.



Ya, and wasn't there a new round of climate scientists emails that have come out?

I would bet you'd have to run the analysis personally.




No, it's just the least manipulated... Like how there's the graph of the various models compared to the measurements it doesn't match anything to do with the measurements, and the you show the same graph averaged out in such a way that it creates the illusion that they were "close enough".

I'm just less apt to buy into blatant scams I guess.

Ok so please tell me again exactly what raw data do you use to determine your hypothesis? What organizations are they recieved from and how do you coalate the data to arrive at your conclusions. If you are going to make the claim that scientists are in a conspiracy to promote climate change and one facet of that conspiracy is that the raw data does not match their hypotheses then please provide us with the information above that you use to come up with your hypotheses. Without providing that, as climatologists that support global warming have done, then you cannot be taken seriously. Please respond with your data.
 
Ok so please tell me again exactly what raw data do you use to determine your hypothesis? What organizations are they recieved from and how do you coalate the data to arrive at your conclusions. If you are going to make the claim that scientists are in a conspiracy to promote climate change and one facet of that conspiracy is that the raw data does not match their hypotheses then please provide us with the information above that you use to come up with your hypotheses. Without providing that, as climatologists that support global warming have done, then you cannot be taken seriously. Please respond with your data.

First line... And if I wasn't clear about the co2 data, that comes out from the facility I'm Hawaii.

But how about this, let's look at a recent temperature graph, and a graph of co2 covering the same length, you pick, and we can analyze the data together.

This way you don't get to complain about giss or hadcrut data, then we can make some comparisons to what the ipcc has been saying.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

I'll have to remember that the next time you accuse liberals of playing the "race card."

I simply made an evaluation based on the reactions and emotions that have been demonstrated in regards to this event_

If I have said anything that isn't true, please feel free to correct me__After all, isn't that what we're here for?!
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

I simply made an evaluation based on the reactions and emotions that have been demonstrated in regards to this event_

If I have said anything that isn't true, please feel free to correct me__After all, isn't that what we're here for?!

Unfortunately no (in my opinion).

I fear most people are here to blow off stress while hiding behind a computer screen. I truly believe most posters have closed minds on the issues they discuss...sadly.

Personally, I am here to learn, teach and kill time.
 
In all my academic experience I have never ran into a problem of either finding the raw data used or anyone being open to releasing it. The so called feet dragging you are referring to has never happened that I am aware of. The so-called "climategate" was a sham.

This was from the investigation, but states they were not releasing all of the raw data.
The actual emails are much worse.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly". Jones had admitted sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof. Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."[34] In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could.[34] It stated: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists".[90]
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Your first link is incorrect so didn't bother with the second. Believe what you want but don't expect others to pay for your beliefs.

Both links contain correct information.
 
Back
Top Bottom