EnviroLink Forum

So, placing multiple stations to maximize urban heat island effect is not enough. Now they have to completely fabricate temperature data.

No warming for the last 18 years according to satellite temperature data. Which gives us voluminous data around the clock and calendar.

Wow. Must have really hit a nerve.

How do I know when I've done a good job?

1. When Wayne does one of his classic line by line breakdowns.
2. When more ad hominem attacks are hurled my way.

Marcott et al? The new hockey stick? When the old hockey stick has been discredited we will just do another?

Even if I took this study at face value its only recorded a .8 degree increase. They can't even get a full degree out of the stroking of the data? Your scientists aren't very good are they. This is the same old trick of tacking on a completely different methodology at the end of the study along with a proxy study. One or the other. Marcott did the same as Mann and look another hockey stick. Isn't that just precious.

Now let's have a look at another study. One that involve empirical data.



This study represents measurable data done with state of the art satellite systems. Now satellite do have problems. They have to be calibrated just like any other device that measures. This is not a simulation. Not a computer model. Not a proxy study. MEASURABLE DATA!!!

Marcott et al? The new hockey stick? When the old hockey stick has been discredited we will just do another?

Every religion has its apocalyptic aspects. I know many skeptics. I know many religious people. I don’t know one fellow skeptic that bases his/her beliefs about climate upon a religious observations. The only denomination I have been exposed to that would answer a poll in this fashion are the Jehovah Witnesses.

This many come to a shock to some but I am a skeptic. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with a life time of predictions that never come to pass. It has to do with observed methodology that doesn’t make sense. It has to do with observing a cycle that ebbs and flows, and what we are observing today is nothing outside of that cycle. It has to do with observing obvious climate drivers that the warmunists insist on ignoring. It has to do with cornerstone studies where the scientist involved refuse to allow their work to be replicated. (Smart move on their part because it can’t be replicated, and if it were it would be obvious exactly what kind of cheating took place.) It has to do with hanging all of this on a trace gas that can't possibly do what they say it does. It has to do with observing a nice 6 figure salary many make writing grant proposals, and getting published in a paper that no one reads. It has to do with observing the gravy train rolling out of the federal government to only those who agree to play ball.

Many have observed the modern climate doom and gloom sayers conduct themselves very much like a religion. Haruspication. Foretelling the future by examining the entrails of sacrificial victims. It is just as valid a method as forecasting climate changes by examining small collections of data from narrowly-defined areas. In both cases the prediction depends on what the haruspix wants to happen.

I think the OP is attempting to paint with a board brush a mile wide by posting a poll featuring idiots to prove a point that serves an agenda.

Marcott et al? The new hockey stick? When the old hockey stick has been discredited we will just do another? Even if I took this study at face value its only recorded a .8 degree increase. They can't even get a full degree out of the stroking of the data? Your scientists aren't very good are they. This is the same old trick of tacking on a completely different methodology at the end of the study along with a proxy study. One or the other. Marcott did the same as Mann and look another hockey stick. Isn't that just precious.

Milt,
Well there are similarities, but those who can make knowledgeable forecasts are not religious figures, but use math and the study of sciences where there is no ambitions except to find and disseminate the truth of what is happening and what will happen with several courses of action.
It is easy to understand skepticism, since science is that way, too. Maybe you just need a bunch more data input in multiple disciplines. Maybe you just, like the majority in the world, are too low an IQ, moral, and educational level to see ahead the consequences of actions.
Remember, we did agree on green conservative issues. If there is no real Arctic Methane Emergency, then going green will not hurt the future in either case.