• 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!

An Honest Politicians Answer for solving Climate Change

Visbek said:
wrong
Polar Bears Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Melting Sea Ice, Study Shows
Click to expand...

The polar bears are doing just fine. You are misinformed.

lying-bear-shutterstock_244419640_cropped_web-size.jpg
 
Steve Case said:
The duck test says it looks like you are.
Click to expand...

Do you see a duck?? Well then... don't keep it to yourself. Show us exactly where I denied anything.

Steve Case said:
You sound like you are denying that those two graphs accurately depict changes to
GISSTEMP's LOTI over the last two decades. Well, get out your Excel spreadsheet,
slog your way through the Internet WayBack Machine, find all the GISSTEMP LOTI
monthly updates you can and total it up yourself.
Click to expand...

Sound like? I never said anything close to saying that your graphs are wrong. And I don't need an Excel spreadsheet or the Internet Wayback Machine to find all the monthly updates. All I had to do was go and look at the GISSTEMP history page and check out the interactive graphs of all the data adjustments. As a matter of fact that last graph where you came up with the trends is exactly the same as one on that page. Looks to me like you waste a huge amount of time just so you can be sure to not have to see any contradictory evidence.

If you would go and actually read that page of information you would see NASA's adjustments have not all increased the apparent warming. There have actually been adjustments that make the warming smaller. That is why the total adjustments don't amount to very much.

The really screwed up thing about this is that I have shown you this web page and all of its graphs and data before about 14 months ago. And I also made pretty much the same arguments then as well. Obviously you just completely ignored me and the data.
 
Buzz said:
Do you see a duck?? Well then... don't keep it to yourself. Show us exactly where I denied anything.
Click to expand...

You said in your earlier post:

Buzz said:
Do you realize that you are comparing two different versions of GISSTEMP? And since
they are different you can't say all the changes are from adjustments alone.
From the GISSTEMP History page:
Click to expand...
It looks like in your world of climate science, changes and adjustments are different.
Is this sort of like the prediction/projection difference? Does an adjustment change
the data? Do bears poop in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic? Can a fat baby fart?
Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back? In my world an adjustment changes the data,
and a change is an adjustment. - - Your world must be interesting.

Buzz said:
Sound like? I never said anything close to saying that your graphs are wrong. And I don't need an Excel spreadsheet or the Internet Wayback Machine to find all the monthly updates. All I had to do was go and look at the GISSTEMP history page and check out the interactive graphs of all the data adjustments. As a matter of fact that last graph where you came up with the trends is exactly the same as one on that page.
Click to expand...
That's right the one where I came up with the trends, and GISSTEMP's History Page didn't.

Buzz said:
Looks to me like you waste a huge amount of time just so you can be sure to not have to see any contradictory evidence.
Click to expand...
I spent my time producing the trends that GISSTEMP ignored.


Buzz said:
If you would go and actually read that page of information you would see NASA's adjustments have not all increased the apparent warming.
Click to expand...
That's right SOME of them DO increase the apparent warming. And those are the one that
are published in their monthly LOTI updates.


Buzz said:
There have actually been adjustments that make the warming smaller.
Click to expand...

Yes the ones that are buried. See above.


Buzz said:
The really screwed up thing about this is that I have shown you this web page and all of its graphs and data before about 14 months ago. And I also made pretty much the same arguments then as well. Obviously you just completely ignored me and the data.
Click to expand...

I think I pointed out some of the same things then. If you would provide
a linkypoo that would be great, otherwise I'm not doing the search for
my old post.
 
Buzz said:
Do you see a duck?? Well then... don't keep it to yourself. Show us exactly where I denied anything.
Click to expand...
Do you normally take a colloquialism into a literal sense by discarding context like this?
Buzz said:
Sound like? I never said anything close to saying that your graphs are wrong. And I don't need an Excel spreadsheet or the Internet Wayback Machine to find all the monthly updates. All I had to do was go and look at the GISSTEMP history page and check out the interactive graphs of all the data adjustments. As a matter of fact that last graph where you came up with the trends is exactly the same as one on that page. Looks to me like you waste a huge amount of time just so you can be sure to not have to see any contradictory evidence.

If you would go and actually read that page of information you would see NASA's adjustments have not all increased the apparent warming. There have actually been adjustments that make the warming smaller. That is why the total adjustments don't amount to very much.

The really screwed up thing about this is that I have shown you this web page and all of its graphs and data before about 14 months ago. And I also made pretty much the same arguments then as well. Obviously you just completely ignored me and the data.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is nothing to 'adjust'. Modifying random numbers to produce random numbers has no meaning.
 
Into the Night said:
A rather vague definition. What is a 'problem'? Is a perceived 'problem' actually beneficial in some way? Is pollution limited to stuff we throw away?

Just what IS 'pollution'?

This word has been thrown about rather a lot since the sixties, usually to mean some kind of 'dangerous chemical' found in the environment. Water is a dangerous chemical. This seems to be a very subjective word, almost like another buzzword.


Quite true. There ARE people that believe, however, that terraforming is actually possible. They tend to watch to many movies and believe them to be real.

Mine too. Heck, outside, the temperature varies from 15 deg F to 90 deg F quite commonly right here in Seattle on a seasonal basis. We haven't had to move away yet!

Again, right on the button. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. These in turn stem from the Church of Karl Marx. It is nothing less than an attempt to control energy markets by dictat. It is fascism, one of two forms of socialism.

So it is speculated. We actually don't really know.

Nicely put! However, they shouldn't look at the Sun too long!
Click to expand...

Thank you for the well thought our responses.

For me, pollution is almost anything the I don't like due to the inconsiderate disposal of trash by people.

Phillip Slater wrote a book that contained the phrase, "Toilet Assumption". This pretty much means if we can't see it, we don't worry about it.

When we all needed to carry the poop out of the house in a pail and bury it, it was a much bigger problem than it is now. I have read that in 1700's London, people would pray for rain to wash the poop out of their neighborhood streets.

Today, packaging, chemicals, smoke and other see-able, smell-able, sense-able waste products are what I think of pollution.

As a blight on nature by man, though, anything our race does is considered by some to be pollution. For them, our only non-polluting role in the world is to be hiding- naked, starving, unarmed and terrified- in the virgin wilderness waiting to be eaten by wolves.

I suppose we all have our own little notion of what is appropriate.
 
charliebrown said:
1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water. Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?

There are a ton of other questions we need to ask ourselves

As a politician, I am going to tell you to stop looking for someone else to solve these problems. If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family. If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means? Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to tax income higher to solve this problem, but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.

thanks for reading, we are all human beings, lets treat each other with respect no matter what the views or intellectual level!!!
Click to expand...

Global warming alarmism nonsense is for the chicken little birds. Lefties oppose cows for their uncontrollable farts. Who would have ever believed 50 years ago that adults would be supporting such nonsense today?
 
code1211 said:
Thank you for the well thought our responses.
Click to expand...
And my thanks to you also. I much rather carrying on conversations intelligently than to deal with the insults so many people throw around here. It takes two to tango, and I have just as much to thank for your responses.
code1211 said:
For me, pollution is almost anything the I don't like due to the inconsiderate disposal of trash by people.
Click to expand...
A rather subjective term. While your opinion on what you don't like or what is considered trash is one thing, that is not shared by all by any means.

For example, is paper trash? When we throw it into the landfill, and bury it, what becomes of that landfill? Many of them become parks, golf courses, or just plain wilderness that deer roam in. The paper under the landfill simply becomes part of the soil. Plastics are basically the same thing. The amount we throw into landfills is really not that much at all, when you actually look at it.

That said, indiscriminately littering the highways, chuck burning cigarettes out the window and start wildfires, dispose of old cars and washing machines in some forest, we already have laws about.
code1211 said:
Phillip Slater wrote a book that contained the phrase, "Toilet Assumption". This pretty much means if we can't see it, we don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
Actually, we DO worry about it. We build septic systems to handle it, or wastewater treatment plants to handle it. I build instrumentation for those plants. You might not think about it, but other people do. The effluent from a treatment plant is basically fish food. Through my instrumentation, I have been able to bring several plants to tertiary treatment. The effluent is potable water after treatment.
code1211 said:
When we all needed to carry the poop out of the house in a pail and bury it, it was a much bigger problem than it is now.
Click to expand...
From the earliest, people walked away from their domicile or dug latrines and build outhouses to do that kind of business. The result is no different than animal waste. In the cities, animal waste was the biggest problem. Lots of horses.
code1211 said:
I have read that in 1700's London, people would pray for rain to wash the poop out of their neighborhood streets.
Click to expand...
Mostly animal waste. People used latrines in London at that time. Unfortunately, these often washed into the Thames, making the river effectively an open sewer. Cholera was a real problem in London too.
code1211 said:
Today, packaging, chemicals, smoke and other see-able, smell-able, sense-able waste products are what I think of pollution.
Click to expand...
Packaging is usually plastic or paper. Easily disposed of safely in landfills. Smoke is a sign of an inefficient burn. Someone is wasting fuel. There is not enough oxygen for the fire. A lot of 'smoke' you see coming from industrial stacks today is not smoke at all, but water.

Sure, there are eyesores, there are offensive odors in sewage and other waste. Some people consider numerous billboards 'pollution'. A lot of what is called 'pollution' is really a matter of personal opinion. What is one waste to one may quite possible be a raw material or even food to another.
code1211 said:
As a blight on nature by man, though, anything our race does is considered by some to be pollution.
Click to expand...
Yet, man is part of nature. How does anything we do as part of nature differ from any other animal or plant as part of nature? Man is not separate from nature.
code1211 said:
For them, our only non-polluting role in the world is to be hiding- naked, starving, unarmed and terrified- in the virgin wilderness waiting to be eaten by wolves.
Click to expand...
Even that could be considered 'pollution'. Your body, left behind from dying from exposure, is a waste product, even if it is food for the wolves.
code1211 said:
I suppose we all have our own little notion of what is appropriate.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right.
 
marke said:
Global warming alarmism nonsense is for the chicken little birds. Lefties oppose cows for their uncontrollable farts. Who would have ever believed 50 years ago that adults would be supporting such nonsense today?
Click to expand...

All you are seeing is city folk that don't understand the first thing about life in the country or where there food and many of their other supplies come from. Or city folk that are now retiring to the country, but don't understand it.
 
charliebrown said:
1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water. Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?

There are a ton of other questions we need to ask ourselves

As a politician, I am going to tell you to stop looking for someone else to solve these problems. If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family. If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means? Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to tax income higher to solve this problem, but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.

thanks for reading, we are all human beings, lets treat each other with respect no matter what the views or intellectual level!!!
Click to expand...

Some of those I think are stupid. Nothing wrong with having a bigger house, we spend so much time at home, why be cooped up to small spaces. The SUV is practical at times, but US rely way to much on it. They don't care about how much gas they use. Nobody has to be pro green and live like a pauper off the land, they can fly and still be for pushing for less pollution, reduced emissions, and research for renewable and clean energy

People who drink nothing but bottled waters are being irresponsible, get a brita and a resuable bottle
 
Into the Night said:
All you are seeing is city folk that don't understand the first thing about life in the country or where there food and many of their other supplies come from. Or city folk that are now retiring to the country, but don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Or morons who think the government invents wealth on its own printing press.
 
Into the Night said:
And my thanks to you also. I much rather carrying on conversations intelligently than to deal with the insults so many people throw around here. It takes two to tango, and I have just as much to thank for your responses.

A rather subjective term. While your opinion on what you don't like or what is considered trash is one thing, that is not shared by all by any means.

For example, is paper trash? When we throw it into the landfill, and bury it, what becomes of that landfill? Many of them become parks, golf courses, or just plain wilderness that deer roam in. The paper under the landfill simply becomes part of the soil. Plastics are basically the same thing. The amount we throw into landfills is really not that much at all, when you actually look at it.

That said, indiscriminately littering the highways, chuck burning cigarettes out the window and start wildfires, dispose of old cars and washing machines in some forest, we already have laws about.

Actually, we DO worry about it. We build septic systems to handle it, or wastewater treatment plants to handle it. I build instrumentation for those plants. You might not think about it, but other people do. The effluent from a treatment plant is basically fish food. Through my instrumentation, I have been able to bring several plants to tertiary treatment. The effluent is potable water after treatment.

From the earliest, people walked away from their domicile or dug latrines and build outhouses to do that kind of business. The result is no different than animal waste. In the cities, animal waste was the biggest problem. Lots of horses.

Mostly animal waste. People used latrines in London at that time. Unfortunately, these often washed into the Thames, making the river effectively an open sewer. Cholera was a real problem in London too.

Packaging is usually plastic or paper. Easily disposed of safely in landfills. Smoke is a sign of an inefficient burn. Someone is wasting fuel. There is not enough oxygen for the fire. A lot of 'smoke' you see coming from industrial stacks today is not smoke at all, but water.

Sure, there are eyesores, there are offensive odors in sewage and other waste. Some people consider numerous billboards 'pollution'. A lot of what is called 'pollution' is really a matter of personal opinion. What is one waste to one may quite possible be a raw material or even food to another.

Yet, man is part of nature. How does anything we do as part of nature differ from any other animal or plant as part of nature? Man is not separate from nature.

Even that could be considered 'pollution'. Your body, left behind from dying from exposure, is a waste product, even if it is food for the wolves.

That's exactly right.
Click to expand...

Source reduction is the best approach from my point of view in controlling the kinds of waste resulting from packaging. I'm always a tad distressed by the number of boxes used by Amazon to deliver the stuff I order. Distress doesn't seem to stop me from doing it, though.

Landfills, I've heard, are more like time capsules than compost heaps.

Our modern sewage treatment plants are amazing. They are what enables the Toilet Assumption to occur. I live in Indianapolis. The amount of poop from the million or so folks around here goes pretty much unnoticed unless something goes wrong.

Keep up the good work!
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Some of those I think are stupid. Nothing wrong with having a bigger house, we spend so much time at home, why be cooped up to small spaces. The SUV is practical at times, but US rely way to much on it. They don't care about how much gas they use. Nobody has to be pro green and live like a pauper off the land, they can fly and still be for pushing for less pollution, reduced emissions, and research for renewable and clean energy

People who drink nothing but bottled waters are being irresponsible, get a brita and a resuable bottle
Click to expand...

People care how much gas they use every time they buy it. If they want to drive an SUV, even when they don't need to, that is their decision, not yours.
People who drink bottled water make that choice for themselves for whatever reason. They are willing to continue to buy them. That is their decision, not yours. Landfills work just as well for plastic bottles as anything else. They pay their garbage fees, just like you do.

Personally, I think bottled water is generally a stupid scam, but that is a different issue. There is nothing wrong with water at the tap.

At least you aren't fully part of the Church of Green. You understand that the choice of a house is a personal choice, and that people don't have to live like paupers to 'save the Earth'.
 
marke said:
Or morons who think the government invents wealth on its own printing press.
Click to expand...

An interesting perspective. You might be right. I'll think on this.

Money itself is a rather odd thing. What is it that gives a piece of paper with national images printed on them any kind of value? What is it that gives gold or silver any kind of value? What is it that gives something like Bitcoin any kind of value? What is it that gives the bits on a disk that represent the amount in your bank account value? Just what exactly IS money, why does it take some particular form, and why does it represent any kind of value?

People have used many different kinds of things for money. It basically serves two purposes: it represents a value (you can trade it for actual things you want, and you can trade what you have for money), and it is a unit of account (you can set a price on the trade in terms of the money itself). We use money because it's more convenient than direct barter. Money itself isn't wealth, but it represents wealth temporarily as it is traded from one to another. Money isn't wealth, its a common medium for barter.

In other words, money only has a value if it has velocity (the movement of money). Money without velocity is valueless, whether it's gold, silver, shells, or pieces of paper. It literally only has value if people trust that it has value.

But what happens when that trust is broken? What happens when people simply stop trusting the money? Obviously, it's value goes to near or at zero. This is when those people that thought money is wealth are suddenly forced into the truth of it. This is a crisis point of immense proportions, due to the numbers that believe money is wealth. In the end, when this happens, a new money is chosen by common consent in some way. It might be a return to gold and silver. It might be bits in a computer in and of themselves (not representing any other form of money). Those who hold the old, now valueless money, saw their 'wealth' go up in smoke.

These kinds of crisis arrive from time to time. They topple governments, they topple empires, they destroy businesses, and they often create new governments and businesses. They sometimes create empires. They have been a part of our history ever since the concept of money developed.

Of all money that has ever been used in this world, gold and silver are the most traditional, and the longest running. Why? It's easy to measure the purity of gold, and silver is handy for the day to day small change stuff we commonly need. It too can be fairly easily measured. A lot of people today figure that gold is 'archaic' or 'obsolete'. It could never work with today's modern banking systems. Are they right?

No. Gold is just as compatible with modern banking systems as paper money is today. All the bits that bank uses to move money around represent something outside of the bits themselves. They represent what we are using today for money. Today, the only nation based on a gold standard is Iran. Other nations are stockpiling gold, especially China. The U.S. has precious little gold. What will happen if gold becomes money once again?
 
code1211 said:
Source reduction is the best approach from my point of view in controlling the kinds of waste resulting from packaging. I'm always a tad distressed by the number of boxes used by Amazon to deliver the stuff I order. Distress doesn't seem to stop me from doing it, though.
Click to expand...
Don't be distressed. Packaging is mostly paper and thin polyester type plastics. Paper decomposes, and so do polyesters when exposed to the elements (especially UV light!). That box serves a valuable purpose. It protects your product. Whether Amazon or Walmart, things come in boxes to protect them during shipping. Once that purpose is served, the box will decompose.
code1211 said:
Landfills, I've heard, are more like time capsules than compost heaps.
Click to expand...
Then you don't understand landfills and how they work. They will break down even the plastics. Plastic is food to certain kinds of bacteria. So is paper. Landfills are slower than actual compost heaps,but they are compost heaps all the same. Once the waste is covered over, the land becomes a park or golf course. It is a source of methane as the material underneath decomposes. This methane is often piped to somewhere for use. The landfill is sealed at the bottom to prevent leaching of waste into nearby streams or other resources. Landfills today are complex affairs that can handle the waste we put into them without harming the environment at all. It is worth it for you to learn more about them and how they work.
code1211 said:
Our modern sewage treatment plants are amazing.
Click to expand...
That they are. Sewage treatment today was pretty much put together by two men, Ardern and Lockett, who were chemical engineers, in 1914 (just before WW1 broke out the same year).
It is a chemical process, and chemical processes can look pretty amazing when put into an industrial scale (or even in a lab!).
code1211 said:
They are what enables the Toilet Assumption to occur.
Click to expand...
Not really. Whether the toilet is connected to a sewage system and a treatment plant, or whether it's connected to a home septic system, or even if it's just a latrine pit, people using it treat it the same way. Whatever is put in it is forgotten and left for someone else to deal with.
code1211 said:
I live in Indianapolis.
Click to expand...
A fine city.
code1211 said:
The amount of poop from the million or so folks around here goes pretty much unnoticed unless something goes wrong.
Click to expand...
Heh. That's true in any city, or in any home connected to a septic system. When a sewage treatment plant fails for some reason, you can't stop the material from coming into the head of the plant. People are still flushing their toilets. What to do?

All sewage treatment plants have a bypass channel that can be opened. The incoming river of material doesn't stop, and it has to be routed around the plant until the plant can be fixed. This means dumping raw sewage into the outflow, the way we used to do it. Raw sewage has a high biological oxygen demand. The sewage is fish food, but there is too little oxygen for the fish. They literally suffocate in food. Modern sewage treatment uses bacteria to eat the organic waste, reducing the oxygen demanded for decomposition in the outflow. The bacteria do require oxygen, but not as much as the fish to do their thing. They are given their own special building, kept nice and warm for them, and given an environment where oxygen from the air is available, to do their thing. This building is called the 'digester' building. It is a key part of any modern sewage treatment plant. It is the same bacteria in a septic system. We don't have to add them. They are present already in normal biological waste. They are from us.

Part of that amazing sewage treatment plant is from each and every one of us, ourselves being pretty amazing chemical machines.

code1211 said:
Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...

*humble bow*

I must reiterate, however, that it takes two to have a conversation. You deserve just as much credit for keeping it on this level. My thanks to you as well.
 
Into the Night said:
An interesting perspective. You might be right. I'll think on this.

Money itself is a rather odd thing. What is it that gives a piece of paper with national images printed on them any kind of value? What is it that gives gold or silver any kind of value? What is it that gives something like Bitcoin any kind of value? What is it that gives the bits on a disk that represent the amount in your bank account value? Just what exactly IS money, why does it take some particular form, and why does it represent any kind of value?

People have used many different kinds of things for money. It basically serves two purposes: it represents a value (you can trade it for actual things you want, and you can trade what you have for money), and it is a unit of account (you can set a price on the trade in terms of the money itself). We use money because it's more convenient than direct barter. Money itself isn't wealth, but it represents wealth temporarily as it is traded from one to another. Money isn't wealth, its a common medium for barter.

In other words, money only has a value if it has velocity (the movement of money). Money without velocity is valueless, whether it's gold, silver, shells, or pieces of paper. It literally only has value if people trust that it has value.

But what happens when that trust is broken? What happens when people simply stop trusting the money? Obviously, it's value goes to near or at zero. This is when those people that thought money is wealth are suddenly forced into the truth of it. This is a crisis point of immense proportions, due to the numbers that believe money is wealth. In the end, when this happens, a new money is chosen by common consent in some way. It might be a return to gold and silver. It might be bits in a computer in and of themselves (not representing any other form of money). Those who hold the old, now valueless money, saw their 'wealth' go up in smoke.

These kinds of crisis arrive from time to time. They topple governments, they topple empires, they destroy businesses, and they often create new governments and businesses. They sometimes create empires. They have been a part of our history ever since the concept of money developed.

Of all money that has ever been used in this world, gold and silver are the most traditional, and the longest running. Why? It's easy to measure the purity of gold, and silver is handy for the day to day small change stuff we commonly need. It too can be fairly easily measured. A lot of people today figure that gold is 'archaic' or 'obsolete'. It could never work with today's modern banking systems. Are they right?

No. Gold is just as compatible with modern banking systems as paper money is today. All the bits that bank uses to move money around represent something outside of the bits themselves. They represent what we are using today for money. Today, the only nation based on a gold standard is Iran. Other nations are stockpiling gold, especially China. The U.S. has precious little gold. What will happen if gold becomes money once again?
Click to expand...

Money is an exchange medium which allows things of value to be bartered for other things of value. What are things of value? Furniture, foodstuffs, tools, yard work, etc. Wealth is measured by the amount of money or assets a person has gotten through making and/or trading goods created by or through labor.
 
Steve Case said:
You said in your earlier post:

Buzz said:
Do you realize that you are comparing two different versions of GISSTEMP? And since they are different you can't say all the changes are from adjustments alone. From the GISSTEMP History page:
To summarize, no raw data has changed over the years (except for minor quality control, elimination of duplicate data, etc.), but the GISTEMP analysis has varied because of the addition of more observations and changes in methodology. The GISTEMP analysis does not change the raw observations over time (these are curated by weather services around the world), but rather the estimate of the global mean change varies as we discover and correct for contaminating influences, as well as increasing the amount of raw data used. The differences over time can be helpful in giving an idea of the structural uncertainty in these estimates — particularly in the pre-war years and before 1900.

Nonetheless, the overall trends are very clear.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It looks like in your world of climate science, changes and adjustments are different.
Is this sort of like the prediction/projection difference? Does an adjustment change
the data? Do bears poop in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic? Can a fat baby fart?
Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back? In my world an adjustment changes the data,
and a change is an adjustment. - - Your world must be interesting.
Click to expand...

Wow!! You just absolutely refuse to see anything that goes against your bias, don't you? Not only did the quote I provide say that some of the differences were due to "the addition of more observations" and "increasing the amount of raw data used" but the history page makes this clear as well.

Now, I don't know if you are aware of why there are different versions of GISSTEMP but it is because they are sufficiently different in their data and methodologies that direct comparison is not useful or appropriate.

Steve Case said:
That's right the one where I came up with the trends, and GISSTEMP's History Page didn't.
Click to expand...

Steve Case said:
I spent my time producing the trends that GISSTEMP ignored.
Click to expand...

Yeah... trends from two significantly different versions of GISSTEMP that no legitimate scientist would ever even try to compare. At least not without exposing himself as a denialist.

Steve Case said:
That's right SOME of them DO increase the apparent warming. And those are the one that
are published in their monthly LOTI updates.
Click to expand...

Steve Case said:
Yes the ones that are buried. See above.
Click to expand...

Really? Is that what you believe? All adjustments have been to increase the apparent warming and any that would lower it have been buried? Too bad you can't prove either assertion. And NASA's history page clearly shows that this isn't true.

Steve Case said:
I think I pointed out some of the same things then. If you would provide
a linkypoo that would be great, otherwise I'm not doing the search for
my old post.
Click to expand...

Yeah... it was pretty much the same uninformed arguments you have made here as well as you ignoring the same facts you are ignoring now.

Here is where that debate started.

And here is where I first linked to GISSTEMP's history page.

For someone who likes to pretend he is some sort of expert on GISSTEMP's changes to the temp record, you seem to be very uninformed of the relevant details.
 
Buzz said:
Wow!! You just absolutely refuse to see anything that goes against your bias, don't you? Not only did the quote I provide say that some of the differences were due to "the addition of more observations" and "increasing the amount of raw data used" but the history page makes this clear as well.

Now, I don't know if you are aware of why there are different versions of GISSTEMP but it is because they are sufficiently different in their data and methodologies that direct comparison is not useful or appropriate.





Yeah... trends from two significantly different versions of GISSTEMP that no legitimate scientist would ever even try to compare. At least not without exposing himself as a denialist.





Really? Is that what you believe? All adjustments have been to increase the apparent warming and any that would lower it have been buried? Too bad you can't prove either assertion. And NASA's history page clearly shows that this isn't true.



Yeah... it was pretty much the same uninformed arguments you have made here as well as you ignoring the same facts you are ignoring now.

Here is where that debate started.

And here is where I first linked to GISSTEMP's history page.

For someone who likes to pretend he is some sort of expert on GISSTEMP's changes to the temp record, you seem to be very uninformed of the relevant details.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has been explained to him many times. I explained it myself to him only a few weeks ago here in this thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...e-time-climate-deniers-42.html#post1069495323

I also showed a paper that explained the adjustments. He ignored them then too.

Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pdf

It's like a version of Groundhog Day where Bill Murray never learned a goddamned thing. In another few weeks he'll post the same conspiracy crap again, someone will correct him, he'll ignore it, then post the same things again in another few weeks to someone else. It's like these climate truthers/sciencedeniers have an addiction to conspiracy theories and an aversion to facts.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
I'm sure this has been explained to him many times. I explained it myself to him only a few weeks ago here in this thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...e-time-climate-deniers-42.html#post1069495323

I also showed a paper that explained the adjustments. He ignored them then too.

Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pdf

It's like a version of Groundhog Day where Bill Murray never learned a goddamned thing. In another few weeks he'll post the same conspiracy crap again, someone will correct him, he'll ignore it, then post the same things again in another few weeks to someone else. It's like these climate truthers/sciencedeniers have an addiction to conspiracy theories and an aversion to facts.
Click to expand...

Yup... you are exactly right. And it seems to me like pretty much all the climate denialists around here suffer from the same problem. It is like their extreme bias prevents any of them from learning from their mistakes.
 
An honest politician? He's not a politician then....
 
Steve Case said:
Thanks for the links, I re-read the exchange. You stopped posting after page ten over there.
Here's the link to my last post to which you never
responded. We can continue here or there or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I didn't respond. Might have been because you were doing a lot repeating of yourself without any new arguments. Or maybe you were trying to change the subject. Or maybe I got tired of the back and forth that wasn't going anywhere.

And we can continue where ever you want. I just don't make any promises about whether I will always respond or not. I tend to lose interest when the arguments are really dumb.
 
Buzz said:
Yeah... I didn't respond. Might have been because you were doing a lot repeating of yourself without any new arguments. Or maybe you were trying to change the subject. Or maybe I got tired of the back and forth that wasn't going anywhere.

And we can continue where ever you want. I just don't make any promises about whether I will always respond or not. I tend to lose interest when the arguments are really dumb.
Click to expand...


Famous quote from the Vietnam War
"Let's Declare Victory and Get Out"
Senator George Aiken of Vermont​
 
Steve Case said:
Famous quote from the Vietnam War
"Let's Declare Victory and Get Out"
Senator George Aiken of Vermont​
Click to expand...

Is that all you've got??

You have seen my arguments for this recent little debate and then gone and reviewed our arguments from 2017. Only thing is that you haven't actually come up with any new counter-arguments for either debate.

Do you have any legitimate arguments... or am I just wasting my time again?

.
 
Buzz said:
Is that all you've got??

You have seen my arguments for this recent little debate and then gone and reviewed our arguments from 2017. Only thing is that you haven't actually come up with any new counter-arguments for either debate.

Do you have any legitimate arguments... or am I just wasting my time again?

.
Click to expand...

Your move, here's that link to my last post my last post to which you never responded.

You've mentioned the GISSTEMP's History page as if it explains all the changes.
It doesn't have all the links to the data, just a few and nothing about how much
trends have been changed. And it certainly doesn't address the thousands of
individual changes made to the GISSTEMP Land Ocean Temperature Index over
the last two decades. These changes are made every month. Monthly entries
since 1972 are bumped up and earlier entries are generally reduced.

There's a six or seven bullet point list:

  • Use of grid boxes
  • Air temperature estimates from sea surface temperatures
  • Biases in the raw data (e.g. station moves) unrealistic outliers
  • Missing data filled in
  • Adjusting urban time series to match rural stations
  • Use of Night-light radiance to classify stations
  • Usage of water temperatures as proxy for air temperatures

Doesn't help me or anyone else understand why there were 789 changes to
the 1668 monthly entries this past December.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom