• 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 lies are exposed

From the Report
Another issue is whether it is appropriate to use quantitative subjective probabilities when
statements are qualitative in nature or imprecisely stated. Many of the 71 conclusions in the
“Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under
consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true. Consider, for
example, the statement:

Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision
34

In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water
stress. Health risks due to heatwaves are projected to increase. Forest productivity is expected to
decline and the frequency of peatland fires to increase. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)
There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions.
What changes in climate would give rise to these results? What is assumed about adaptation? It
could be argued that, given the imprecision of the statement, it has an 80 percent chance of being
true under some set of circumstances.

In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate
way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will
likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of
“very high confidence” will have little substantive value.11 More importantly, the use of
probabilities to characterize uncertainty is most appropriate when applied to empirical quantities
(Morgan et al., 2009). The following statement may be true but should not be assigned a
probability of occurrence:

Nearly all European regions are anticipated to be negatively affected by some future impacts of
climate change, and these will pose challenges to many economic sectors. (Very high confidence;
IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)

The upshot? The IPCC isn't dealing in science, it's channelling Jeane Dixon, and making vague statements that are almost certainly going to happen someday. It appears, from the IPCC report, that Europe is going to meet a tall dark handsome stranger. Which means, for all anyone can tell, that a black giraffe is going to be born in the Paris zoo. Other statements say that bad weather might cause some damage somewhere.

Oh, really? Who could have guessed that one?

The IAC said the IPCC did some good. But they didn't mention that only with the stand up comics in search of new material.
 
It's nine years...and you people use the ten years preceding 1998 to establish your trend. So you can't reject the subsequent nine years that reverse that trend.

Lolz..

global-warming-graph.jpg


Survey says: You fail.
 
It's nine years...and you people use the ten years preceding 1998 to establish your trend. So you can't reject the subsequent nine years that reverse that trend.

If you want it both ways, you have to pay extra.

Uhh. The trend for every single one of the past several decades is UPWARDS. So, you're incorrect.


Yeah, that's why it's something like the second coldest summer ever in Los Angeles, and why NASA is claiming a cooler globe this year. Now, that's the fact presented. Hence, claiming that the year is the hottest ever is simple psychological denial of the cited fact.

LA covers about .00001% of the world's surface area, so nice anecdote there. Now, can you show me where NASA claimed a "cooler globe," and can you qualify that statement? Cooler than what? "Cited fact," yet you've not actually cited anything. I plugged in a few terms like "NASA" "cooling" and "2010" into google, but I find nothing.

There's a reason people use centuries to identify climate trends.

Did you happen to look at the trend for this century? It isn't down!


The posted temperature plots say otherwise. They go up, they go down, and oh, by the way, 1998 was not the hottest year on record, one of the Dust Bowl Years from the '30's claims that distinction.

Posted temperatures go up and down, but the overall trend is up. You might need a statistics 101 class or something.
You're probably talking about 1934. 1934 was the hottest year on record, in the United States. Of course, the United States only covers about 2% of the world's surface area. Globally speaking, it's 1998. See, this is what happens when you take bloggers and tabloids words at face value. You base your opinions on faulty information.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Edit: better source. Also, apparently it's actually 2005!

That's good news.

That's your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Lolz..

global-warming-graph.jpg


Survey says: You fail.

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Oo! Look!

My plot shows that the temperature in the 1800's was going DOWN, and your NASA GISS plot was selectively edited to show only an increasing trend, and it doesn't show the decrease in the last decade.

The old saying is that figures don't lie, but since goverment climatologists are liars, they do figure.
 
1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Oo! Look!

My plot shows that the temperature in the 1800's was going DOWN, and your NASA GISS plot was selectively edited to show only an increasing trend, and it doesn't show the decrease in the last decade.

The old saying is that figures don't lie, but since goverment climatologists are liars, they do figure.

...what about this exactly do you think proves whatever point it is you're trying to make?

You think there's been a decrease in the last decade? Show me some evidence. This should be good.
 
Last edited:
No, seriously, Scarecrow. I'm baffled.

Temperature was going down in the 1800s. Then it started going up. Around the time we started spitting out more CO2.
Also, the last decade? Yeah, warmest on record.
 
Uhh. The trend for every single one of the past several decades is UPWARDS. So, you're incorrect.

See all those little lines going DOWN at the right end of the NASA GISS curves?

The trend for the last decade is down.

So, you're incorrect.

LA covers about .00001% of the world's surface area,

Don't tell that to Lindsey Lohan.

so nice anecdote there.

Sure is.

Also, factual, since it appears that the mild summer extends across the whole continent.

Fancy that. LA is once again a trend setter.

Did you happen to look at the trend for this century? It isn't down!

Did you happen to look at the trend for the last millenium? It's down.

Did you happen to look at the trend for the last five millenia?

Did you happen to look at the Eemian interstadial? It's down.

So you want to express your chauvinism by picking which era's are your baseline.

The real world doesn't care.



Isn't that cuuuute? You're using data from the same institution the got caught fudging the data and trying to "hide the decline", as well as plotting to get rid of peer reviewers who don't review the way they wanted them too.

How special is that?

We're at a local peak. Learn something about math. Meanwhile the WARMEST years happened seven decades ago. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
See all those little lines going DOWN at the right end of the NASA GISS curves?

The trend for the last decade is down.

Right at the end. You mean like over a 2-ish year period? Say, around 2008? That's your "decade?"


Did you happen to look at the trend for the last millenium? It's down.

I'm speechless.

Did you happen to look at the trend for the last five millenia?

So, what relationship do you draw between the current temperature trend and what was happening 4000 years ago?

So you want to express your chauvinism by picking which era's are your baseline.
Isn't that what you're doing now?
The real world doesn't care.

You're right. The real world doesn't care what was happening 5000 years ago. We're more interested in what's happening now, and why.
 
Last edited:
Right at the end. You mean like over a 2-ish year period? Say, around 2008? That's your "decade?"

No.

I'm going to pick as my baseline the hottest year in the '30's. By that definition, the planet's been cooling off.

For some STRANGE reason, the hoaxers picked the 1950's as their baseline, which gave them a warming trend without the messy fact that it's been cooling since the hottest year of the century.

Or, then again, maybe I'll pick the hottest year of the Medieval Warm period. You know, the era the IPCC had to remove from it's charts to make it's hoaxing Hockey Stick look impressive.

You want to pick a year that wasn't the hottest and freak out over it? Be my guest.

I've already demonstrated that the Hoaxers claim of "warming" and it's message of PANIC are bogus when the bigger picture is seen.
 
No.

I'm going to pick as my baseline the hottest year in the '30's. By that definition, the planet's been cooling off.

For some STRANGE reason, the hoaxers picked the 1950's as their baseline, which gave them a warming trend without the messy fact that it's been cooling since the hottest year of the century.

Or, then again, maybe I'll pick the hottest year of the Medieval Warm period. You know, the era the IPCC had to remove from it's charts to make it's hoaxing Hockey Stick look impressive.

You want to pick a year that wasn't the hottest and freak out over it? Be my guest.

I've already demonstrated that the Hoaxers claim of "warming" and it's message of PANIC are bogus when the bigger picture is seen.

punch-small.jpg


Scientists, good news: we no longer need to solve the global warming crisis. An internet user with no credentials has confirmed his bias toward anti-climate change conspiracy theories and thus debunked us. Let's go have lunch with everyone in Hollywood.
 
No, seriously, Scarecrow. I'm baffled.

Temperature was going down in the 1800s. Then it started going up. Around the time we started spitting out more CO2.
Also, the last decade? Yeah, warmest on record.

See, here's the problem. You confront the partisan deniers with facts, and they pull out a handful of industry-funded shills who muddy the reality with some nonsense counter argument about how your data collection method was incorrect or your charts are wrong or your samples were contaminated... blah, blah, blah...

And when you remind them that it's been three decades now that NASA and the IPCC have been checking their data and comfirming, peer-reviewing etc. Then they scream: "What about those emails."

Well that was investigated too and there wasn't much to it. Much Ado About Nothing... Then they plug their ears and chant: "I'm not listening, I'm not listening..."

It's funny and sad at the same time.
 
No.

I'm going to pick as my baseline the hottest year in the '30's. By that definition, the planet's been cooling off.

For some STRANGE reason, the hoaxers picked the 1950's as their baseline, which gave them a warming trend without the messy fact that it's been cooling since the hottest year of the century.

Or, then again, maybe I'll pick the hottest year of the Medieval Warm period. You know, the era the IPCC had to remove from it's charts to make it's hoaxing Hockey Stick look impressive.

You want to pick a year that wasn't the hottest and freak out over it? Be my guest.

I've already demonstrated that the Hoaxers claim of "warming" and it's message of PANIC are bogus when the bigger picture is seen.

You grossly misunderstand what the "baseline" temperature means. By no definition is the planet "cooling off." The baseline is just a reference point. It was chosen essentially arbitrarily, but it doesn't actually matter what the baseline value is. Instead of measuring temperature in absolute temperature, for decades we've been measuring temperature anomaly: changes from that baseline. It just makes crunching the numbers easier and simpler, and it even can eliminate "bias" that might be imposed by a faulty temperature station. This mistaken idea of yours often leads to the straw man that scientists claim the 1950s are somehow the "optimal" temperature. Nobody is saying that.

You can pick your baseline as 1998, and you're still going to get a warming trend over the last century. You can pick a baseline of 5000 degrees, and you'll still get a warming trend.

As far as the hockey stick goes, the medieval warm period is there. If you look at the trend line, you'll see the gradual decrease from 1000 to about 1850-1900. I'm sorry that you can't read graphs properly, but this is several times now.

You're repeating the 1930's idiocy, that's amusing. I've already shown you evidence that you're wrong there. Seriously, Scarecrow, you're just embarassing yourself. You don't seem to understand even basic comparisons of temperature and have no understanding of what a trend is.
 
I want the rest of you to look at what Scarecrow is saying. We'll ignore his particular absurd statement that the trend for the last 1000 years is cooling while simultaneously posting a chart showing the opposite. Let's look at the more relevant statement: he's saying that the temperature trend for the last decade is cooling. Let's check that.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Here's the raw data on yearly average temperature anomalies. You'll note that some of the figures are missing at the start and end, marked with *. 2010, obviously, hasn't finished yet, so there's no annual mean yet. The 2008 and 2009 "5-year mean" figures are also missing because to run a 5-year mean you need two years on either side, so that data doesn't exist yet as well.

To eliminate the tight squeeze of a hundred year chart, let's just look at Scarecrow's decade, blown up for all to see. I plugged that raw data into a spreadsheet. It's a really simple line chart, so if you don't believe me open up a spreadsheet and do it yourself. Should take less than five minutes.


I just don't understand how someone can look at this data and tell me the temperature trend for the last decade is cooling. It isn't. 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record. 2010 is shaping up to be a new record.

Also, Scarecrow, I asked you to back up your statement that NASA claimed there was a "cooling world." Where did NASA state this, and please clarify: cooler than what reference? What time period?
 
Last edited:
Can't we all just agree that we need to be careful with the environment?
 
of course, we just can't regulate anything. we need to trust the corporations.

Yes, the free market would never take the dirty, polluting solution over the cleaner solution just because it's cheaper. Why, they'd go out of business when people stop buying their lower-priced products of equal quality!

Edit: Or the local townsfolk would sue the giant company. That always goes well. Why, it's so commonly successful they even made that Erin Brokovich movie about it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom