• 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!

AGW Believer Claim: The Satellites Are Lying!

Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

You think you know everything form a simple wiki entry.

LOL..

These satellites are between 800 km and 900 km. The atmospheric lapse rate doesn't apply. Don't think you are schooling me. For you to include such an argument, it makes one believe that you think the satellites operate in a -5,200 C area. It isn't that simple.

The satellites are seeing the heat content of the troposphere. The troposphere is well mixed in long term times.

Care to throw another piece of horse puckey on the wall, and see if it sticks?

Why did they include the 1 km decay in orbit when it is under 0.2% of a altitude change? My best guess is to convince people who don't understand these sciences like you.

If I take a Flir camera temperature reading of a window on my house at 100 ft, then again at 99 ft and 10 inches, how much do yo think my temperature reading from the camera will change?
Click to expand...

You don't understand.

I'm not surprised.

Try taking a temperature reading at the bottom and then of the top of a 1000 meter cliff. (Even though it's both tropospheric readings and it's 'well mixed', a term you obviously don't understand). Where you take the reading from is irrelevant- the point is you're taking the temperature of different places.
 
Threegoofs said:
You don't understand.

I'm not surprised.

Try taking a temperature reading at the bottom and then of the top of a 1000 meter cliff. (Even though it's both tropospheric readings and it's 'well mixed', a term you obviously don't understand). Where you take the reading from is irrelevant- the point is you're taking the temperature of different places.
Click to expand...
Not the same thing. Both cases have algorithms that account for changes. And again, we are actually looking at troposphere heat content. Not temperature, which is more important when looking at energy imbalances. Temperature from satellites is another algorithm yet.

I think it's ironic that your side use to champion satellite temperatures. that is, until they no longer said what you wanted them to say!

I also think it's ironic that you support the past proxy readings that are over 120 years of a sample each, but then squawk at the well mixed for satellite global readings. Satellites cover nearly 100% on the earth in a far better averaging than homogenizing under 1,000 temperature sites. Now I completely agree that a surface and a cliff will be different, and satellites will not make that distinction. Once again, you are changing to specific temperature sites/regions when that doesn't represent "global."

The hypocrisy is strong in you!

I have said this before, but for the record, satellites are not good for surface temperature readings. They have their place in science because they see the energy in a given column.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not the same thing. Both cases have algorithms that account for changes. And again, we are actually looking at troposphere heat content. Not temperature, which is more important when looking at energy imbalances. Temperature from satellites is another algorithm yet.

I think it's ironic that your side use to champion satellite temperatures. that is, until they no longer said what you wanted them to say!

I also think it's ironic that you support the past proxy readings that are over 120 years of a sample each, but then squawk at the well mixed for satellite global readings. Satellites cover nearly 100% on the earth in a far better averaging than homogenizing under 1,000 temperature sites. Now I completely agree that a surface and a cliff will be different, and satellites will not make that distinction. Once again, you are changing to specific temperature sites/regions when that doesn't represent "global."

The hypocrisy is strong in you!

I have said this before, but for the record, satellites are not good for surface temperature readings. They have their place in science because they see the energy in a given column.
Click to expand...

I guess you should let the scientists who study this for a living know all this.

They seem to be writing papers that contradict your 'knowledge' on the topic.
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, so we have to work through it again. It being more than a month since the last time we did this;

What data set shows that there has been a hotter year than 1998? It needs to be outside the uncertainty range of the instrumentation. That is definately hotter not just maybe hotter. The degree of precision marks the range of which a tie, a dead heat, a draw is.
Click to expand...

1. Matter expands when it is heated, which is why mercury thermometers work. The sea expands when it is heated too, which means we can use the entire ocean to measure temperature by measuring sea level. This is done today by satellite (and validated against tide gauges at seaports). These satellite measurements have a total error from all sources of 5.8 mm (Nerem et al. 2011). In 1998, the measured sea level anomaly was 10.1 mm. In 2014 the sea level anomaly was 63.6 mm, and so far in 2015 it is 71.3 mm. Thus it is warmer today than it was in 1998, and beyond the level of error.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt

2. When the sea warms, evaporation increases, and the amount of water vapor in the air increases; when the sea cools, evaporation decreases and the amount of water vapor in the air decreases. Thus the amount of water vapor in the air is a proxy for temperature, and it can be measured by satellite. These measurements have a mean error of 0.013 kg/m² (Greenwald et al. 2007). In 1998, total precipitable water (TPW) anomaly was 0.544 kg/m². In 2015 it was 1.193 kg/m², higher than 1998 and beyond the range of error.
ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201512.time_series.txt

3. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project shows global surface temperature anomaly, using air temperature above the sea ice, was 0.569°, ±.047° in 1998; while in 2015, the anomaly was 0.719° ±.046°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt

4. BEST also shows global surface temperature anomaly, using water temperature below the sea ice, was 0.526°, ±.050° in 1998; while in 2015, the anomaly was 0.759° ±.048°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.

5. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) shows global surface temperature anomaly was .63°± .05 (using the meteorological year, Dec-Nov), while for 2015 it is .84°± .05, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

6. The National Centers For Environmental Information (NCEI) dataset has an error of .03° (Smith 2008) and shows the global surface temperature anomaly in 1998 was 0.63°, while in 2014 it was 0.74°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv

7. Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate dataset A (RATPAC-A) has annual errors of .03° (Free et al. 2004) and at the surface shows a global air temperature anomaly of 0.44° in 1998, and 1.02° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt

8. RATPAC-A for the 850-mb level shows global air temperature anomaly of 0.52° in 1998, and 0.71° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.

Tim the plumber said:
If you cannot show one, and we all know that you can't, then the statement that the earth has been warming since 1998 is a lie.
Click to expand...
And since I have actually shown eight, then the statement that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 is the lie. Any guesses who the liar is?

Tim the plumber said:
You already have been down this road. You agreed that it was the case.
Click to expand...
Normally I'd ask you for a link for that false statement, but since you've already been so badly embarrassed in this post, I have no doubt that you won't have the courtesy to reply.
 
Poor Debater said:
1. Matter expands when it is heated, which is why mercury thermometers work. The sea expands when it is heated too, which means we can use the entire ocean to measure temperature by measuring sea level. This is done today by satellite (and validated against tide gauges at seaports). These satellite measurements have a total error from all sources of 5.8 mm (Nerem et al. 2011). In 1998, the measured sea level anomaly was 10.1 mm. In 2014 the sea level anomaly was 63.6 mm, and so far in 2015 it is 71.3 mm. Thus it is warmer today than it was in 1998, and beyond the level of error.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt

2. When the sea warms, evaporation increases, and the amount of water vapor in the air increases; when the sea cools, evaporation decreases and the amount of water vapor in the air decreases. Thus the amount of water vapor in the air is a proxy for temperature, and it can be measured by satellite. These measurements have a mean error of 0.013 kg/m² (Greenwald et al. 2007). In 1998, total precipitable water (TPW) anomaly was 0.544 kg/m². In 2015 it was 1.193 kg/m², higher than 1998 and beyond the range of error.
ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201512.time_series.txt

3. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project shows global surface temperature anomaly, using air temperature above the sea ice, was 0.569°, ±.047° in 1998; while in 2015, the anomaly was 0.719° ±.046°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt

4. BEST also shows global surface temperature anomaly, using water temperature below the sea ice, was 0.526°, ±.050° in 1998; while in 2015, the anomaly was 0.759° ±.048°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.

5. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) shows global surface temperature anomaly was .63°± .05 (using the meteorological year, Dec-Nov), while for 2015 it is .84°± .05, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

6. The National Centers For Environmental Information (NCEI) dataset has an error of .03° (Smith 2008) and shows the global surface temperature anomaly in 1998 was 0.63°, while in 2014 it was 0.74°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv

7. Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate dataset A (RATPAC-A) has annual errors of .03° (Free et al. 2004) and at the surface shows a global air temperature anomaly of 0.44° in 1998, and 1.02° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt

8. RATPAC-A for the 850-mb level shows global air temperature anomaly of 0.52° in 1998, and 0.71° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.


And since I have actually shown eight, then the statement that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 is the lie. Any guesses who the liar is?


Normally I'd ask you for a link for that false statement, but since you've already been so badly embarrassed in this post, I have no doubt that you won't have the courtesy to reply.
Click to expand...

I think we all know that this demonstration of spectacular pwnage will have no actual effect upon his thinking.

I predict within a month, he will ask the EXACT SAME QUESTiON in another thread, and dismiss the answer yet again.

It's like Groundhog Day with these guys every few weeks.

It's a good reminder of just how impervious some people are to reason.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you should let the scientists who study this for a living know all this.

They seem to be writing papers that contradict your 'knowledge' on the topic.
Click to expand...

Please tell us what I said, that is wrong then.
 
Poor Debater said:
1. Matter expands when it is heated, which is why mercury thermometers work. The sea expands when it is heated too, which means we can use the entire ocean to measure temperature by measuring sea level. This is done today by satellite (and validated against tide gauges at seaports). These satellite measurements have a total error from all sources of 5.8 mm (Nerem et al. 2011). In 1998, the measured sea level anomaly was 10.1 mm. In 2014 the sea level anomaly was 63.6 mm, and so far in 2015 it is 71.3 mm. Thus it is warmer today than it was in 1998, and beyond the level of error.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt
Click to expand...
It's not that straightforward, because there are two other major factors that affect sea level.

Poor Debater said:
2. When the sea warms, evaporation increases, and the amount of water vapor in the air increases; when the sea cools, evaporation decreases and the amount of water vapor in the air decreases. Thus the amount of water vapor in the air is a proxy for temperature, and it can be measured by satellite. These measurements have a mean error of 0.013 kg/m² (Greenwald et al. 2007). In 1998, total precipitable water (TPW) anomaly was 0.544 kg/m². In 2015 it was 1.193 kg/m², higher than 1998 and beyond the range of error.
ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201512.time_series.txt
Click to expand...
This too, isn't that simple.

Wind speed is also a major factor for evaporation, as is the sun - clear sky vs. cloudy...

Poor Debater said:
7. Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate dataset A (RATPAC-A) has annual errors of .03° (Free et al. 2004) and at the surface shows a global air temperature anomaly of 0.44° in 1998, and 1.02° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt

8. RATPAC-A for the 850-mb level shows global air temperature anomaly of 0.52° in 1998, and 0.71° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
Click to expand...
Still, there are only 87 locations they do this from, and are the the same locations in 1998 as they are in 2015?

Poor Debater said:
And since I have actually shown eight, then the statement that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 is the lie. Any guesses who the liar is?
Click to expand...
For me, I don't care if 2015 is the hottest year or not. I'll lay odds the next 20 years will show a cooling trend.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

You don't even know what the number 87 represents, do you?
Click to expand...

Yup. It represents you not reading what I wrote. Ir represents you, unable to refute what I wrote, stooping to ad-hominem attacks. It represents you, losing the debate.
 
Poor Debater said:
Yup. It represents you not reading what I wrote. Ir represents you, unable to refute what I wrote, stooping to ad-hominem attacks. It represents you, losing the debate.
Click to expand...

If that what makes you sleep better at night, OK...
 
Jack Hays said:
And yet their video does not offer Christy or anyone else the chance to respond. Nor do they offer anything but their assertions. In other words, they provide the beginning of an interesting discussion, nothing more. Moreover, both have been wrong often enough that we're not obliged to take their word for anything.
Click to expand...

And yet, here we are on a debating forum, and YOU have not refuted what they say with any evidence either, and offer only ad-hominem attacks in response. You lose.
 
Poor Debater said:
Here's the entire temperature record for the last 11,000 years, including the recent instrumental record:

9514983706_194a04bc8d_o.jpg


I've posted this graph before. Why haven't you? Is it because you've never seen this graph on the blogs of Denierstan?
Click to expand...

Which blog is it from, out of interest? It's obviously not from a scientific paper.

Marcott et al 2013 - listed as a source for the graph - suggest in their abstract that "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial value." Yet the graph shows modern temperatures 0.3 degrees higher than the Holocene peak.

Marcott et al 2013 also show modern temperatures no more than 0.5 degrees higher than the medieval peak; yet this graph shows modern temperatures fully 0.9 degrees higher!

In fact, this graph does not resemble any temperature reconstruction found in Marcott et al 2013 at all. Their 11,300 year study, using proxy resolutions ranging from 20 up to 500 years, necessarily produced a highly smoothed, low resolution result with no variability reliably preserved on timeframes less than 300 years:
Marcott1.jpg

Higher-resolution studies of the past 1000+ years, such as those found in IPPC AR5 WG1 Figure 5.7, actually suggest that modern global temperatures may be as little as 0.15 degrees above the medieval peak... yet this graph (even whilst apparently inventing an incorrect high-resolution appearance for Marcott 2013) shows modern temperatures fully 0.9 degrees above the medieval peak!
WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg

Which blog is it from? That's one to avoid, by the looks ;)
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Which blog is it from, out of interest? It's obviously not from a scientific paper.

Marcott et al 2013 - listed as a source for the graph - suggest in their abstract that "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial value." Yet the graph shows modern temperatures 0.3 degrees higher than the Holocene peak.

Marcott et al 2013 also show modern temperatures no more than 0.5 degrees higher than the medieval peak; yet this graph shows modern temperatures fully 0.9 degrees higher!

In fact, this graph does not resemble any temperature reconstruction found in Marcott et al 2013 at all. Their 11,300 year study, using proxy resolutions ranging from 20 up to 500 years, necessarily produced a highly smoothed, low resolution result with no variability reliably preserved on timeframes less than 300 years:
View attachment 67195915

Higher-resolution studies of the past 1000+ years, such as those found in IPPC AR5 WG1 Figure 5.7, actually suggest that modern global temperatures may be as little as 0.15 degrees above the medieval peak... yet this graph (even whilst apparently inventing an incorrect high-resolution appearance for Marcott 2013) shows modern temperatures fully 0.9 degrees above the medieval peak!
WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg

Which blog is it from? That's one to avoid, by the looks ;)
Click to expand...

Odd that you didn't notice that the graph is obviously a composite, with a study from Anderson covering the 1740-1900 range, and the final datapoint not exactly specified from HADCRUT.

I don't know the paper, and you clearly missed it too, but I really can't comment on the rigor of the graph without knowing what the creator actually was doing- there may be a very good explanation. It looks like something Tamino might do, and I've found his graphics to be pretty well described as a general rule.

I'd guess that the graph was posted as a general example of temperatures over the last several thousand years rather than trying to make a scientifically rigorous point.

But you know that. I suspect you just want to build up some 'contrary cred' to make yourself feel better about ripping the usual suspects a new one every once in a while. It's psychically draining for many people.
 
Last edited:
Poor Debater said:
And yet, here we are on a debating forum, and YOU have not refuted what they say with any evidence either, and offer only ad-hominem attacks in response. You lose.
Click to expand...

I'm content to let their own claims convict them.
 
Poor Debater said:
1. Matter expands when it is heated, which is why mercury thermometers work. The sea expands when it is heated too, which means we can use the entire ocean to measure temperature by measuring sea level. This is done today by satellite (and validated against tide gauges at seaports). These satellite measurements have a total error from all sources of 5.8 mm (Nerem et al. 2011). In 1998, the measured sea level anomaly was 10.1 mm. In 2014 the sea level anomaly was 63.6 mm, and so far in 2015 it is 71.3 mm. Thus it is warmer today than it was in 1998, and beyond the level of error.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt
Click to expand...

Yes, however that rise in sea level is not enough to justify the amount of heat energy claimed to be going into the oceans.

And what has that to dod with the surface temperature data saying that the earth's climate is the same today as it was in 1998?

2. When the sea warms, evaporation increases, and the amount of water vapor in the air increases; when the sea cools, evaporation decreases and the amount of water vapor in the air decreases. Thus the amount of water vapor in the air is a proxy for temperature, and it can be measured by satellite. These measurements have a mean error of 0.013 kg/m² (Greenwald et al. 2007). In 1998, total precipitable water (TPW) anomaly was 0.544 kg/m². In 2015 it was 1.193 kg/m², higher than 1998 and beyond the range of error.
ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201512.time_series.txt
Click to expand...

Yes. What has that to do with the temperature data saying that the earth has not warmed since 1998? Just because there are more clouds around and the humidity is higher does not change the temperature.

3. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project shows global surface temperature anomaly, using air temperature above the sea ice, was 0.569°, ±.047° in 1998; while in 2015, the anomaly was 0.719° ±.046°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the overall temperature is the same but the temperature above the sea ice is higher. Thus the temperature everywhere else must be a bit lower then. Again this has nothing to do with the overall temperature of the surface of the earth being no warmer than in 1998.

4. BEST also shows global surface temperature anomaly, using water temperature below the sea ice, was 0.526°, ±.050° in 1998; while in 2015, the anomaly was 0.759° ±.048°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
Click to expand...

Again; stop talking about sea ice when the subject is the whole earth!

5. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) shows global surface temperature anomaly was .63°± .05 (using the meteorological year, Dec-Nov), while for 2015 it is .84°± .05, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Click to expand...

This one has validity. It is data that shows what you want it to do. At least I take it from your use of it that it does. Why don't the rest of the data sets?

6. The National Centers For Environmental Information (NCEI) dataset has an error of .03° (Smith 2008) and shows the global surface temperature anomaly in 1998 was 0.63°, while in 2014 it was 0.74°, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv
Click to expand...

I have never heard of this before. And worry about any temperature measurement at all that claims to do so to 3 hundreths of a degree even in a lab. The idea of measuring global temperature to this level of precision is laughable.
 
7. Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate dataset A (RATPAC-A) has annual errors of .03° (Free et al. 2004) and at the surface shows a global air temperature anomaly of 0.44° in 1998, and 1.02° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt
Click to expand...

Wow!!! More than half a degree. Why do the rest not show this then?? They should have caught it easily!!! Something fishy here.

8. RATPAC-A for the 850-mb level shows global air temperature anomaly of 0.52° in 1998, and 0.71° in 2015, higher than in 1998 and beyond the range of error.
Click to expand...

Not the surface then.

And since I have actually shown eight, then the statement that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 is the lie. Any guesses who the liar is?
Click to expand...

Normally I'd ask you for a link for that false statement, but since you've already been so badly embarrassed in this post, I have no doubt that you won't have the courtesy to reply.
Click to expand...
Well you can claim that some data sets do show warming. Well done all you have to do now is to show why the others don't and explain why all of them are well below the expected warming the IPCC predicted.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd that you didn't notice that the graph is obviously a composite, with a study from Anderson covering the 1740-1900 range, and the final datapoint not exactly specified from HADCRUT.

I don't know the paper, and you clearly missed it too,
Click to expand...

No, I looked it up; that 1.1 degree temperature spike at the end is what got my attention, since the usual figure for modern temperature rise is 0.8 degrees - or even less with longer averaging. Surprisingly, Anderson et al 2013 scale to decadal resolution and along with a 10-year HadCRUT mean do support a 1.1 degree spike; there was some solar warming before significant GHG increases.

That doesn't change the fact that the graph's author has apparently (given Poor Debator's track record, there may be a reasonable explanation) invented a false impression of high resolution in the Marcott reconstruction, contradicted their assertion about the Holocene peak relative to modern temperatures, and most damning of all created a five-fold increase in the temperature difference between modern and medieval periods compared with actual high-resolution proxy studies.

One is left with the impression that Anderson et al (whose main purpose was to cross-check the instrumental record, the earlier years being an aside using fewer proxies) was used primarily and precisely to produce that 1.1 degree spike and create the deceptions above; otherwise one of the 1000 or 2000 year paleo studies would have been far more obvious and sensible to use as bridging data.

but I really can't comment on the rigor of the graph without knowing what the creator actually was doing- there may be a very good explanation. It looks like something Tamino might do, and I've found his graphics to be pretty well described as a general rule.
Click to expand...

We'd better hope not then ;)

I'd guess that the graph was posted as a general example of temperatures over the last several thousand years rather than trying to make a scientifically rigorous point.
Click to expand...

No doubt something similar would be said of those denier blogs PD mentioned, in the rare event that their gross errors are ever acknowledged. If the 'general example' being provided runs extremely contrary to our best knowledge (and its own cited sources!), it is a deceptive and unworthy example.

But you know that. I suspect you just want to build up some 'contrary cred' to make yourself feel better about ripping the usual suspects a new one every once in a while. It's psychically draining for many people.
Click to expand...

Gross errors should be pointed out whoever makes them and for whatever reason. Ignoring and covering up errors just because you like the person or think there might be some grain of truth behind the 'general point' being made is the slippery slope which has the 'sceptics' echo chamber ultimately convincing themselves that there really is a decades-long international bipartisan scientific conspiracy going on.



But hopefully, even though I can't see how, there is a reasonable explanation for this.
 
Last edited:
Good grief Mithrae I actually agreed with some of that. Maybe theres some hope for you yet ! :thumbs:
 
I've been looking for a thread to post this video of Ted Cruz owning the president of the Sierra Club where much of the discussion evolves around satellite evidence in regard to global warming.
It's a hoot!

 
vesper said:
I've been looking for a thread to post this video of Ted Cruz owning the president of the Sierra Club where much of the discussion evolves around satellite evidence in regard to global warming.
It's a hoot!

Click to expand...


His testimony is so reflective of some of the science deniers here. They keep skirting around the important questions, and bring up the 97% who make a living on AGW.
 
In the video, Ted Cruz only used one satellite data set to make his claim. One data set does not a trend make. To see a trend in surface temperature the more data sets there are the better and easier it is to see a trend. It's not rocket science.


The video mentioned the annual satellite temperature reading isn't accurate unless it's adjusted to account for the satellites slow drift towards the earth. The deniers didn't do that, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom