FYI, information on GISS, NOAA, CRUT station coverage
-
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way, what you link to is a plea for continued funding.
What's your point? Continued funding for climate research is GOOD. It's good to get a better idea of how it all works. That doesn't mean "Funding for a study that proves AGW." That means funding climate research in general, and increasing our ability to measure our environment. Unless your position is that we should stick our head in the ground and hope everything turns out ok, I don't see how research and monitoring capabilities could possibly be construed as a bad thing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
What's your point? Continued funding for climate research is GOOD.
50 billion dollars spent so far on GW, and yet not one single iota of solid empiracle proof that CO2 causes warming on a global scale. There has to be a point at which reasoin takes over and scientific funding is spent on matters that are more pressing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Of course it does, fat_boy posted it!
You know from other discusions we have had that I am not an idiot yet you ignore this post. Why?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It's just one of thousands of claims and counter claims on this subject
No. Its one of TWO claims. That according to NOAA GISS and CRUT, who all using the same limited and adjusted station data show warming. And a claim that the number of stations since 1980 has reduced by 75% favouring low altitude and urban stations. Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Because, like the drivel posted by CSS, it is pretty boring and has run its course. Find something interesting to post about, rather than repeating the same things over and over.
It's time for a new signature.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everything you post is about CO2 and temperature, when there are so many other factors to consider in regards to changing climates.
At last, you agree with me! YES YES YES! :) Its exactly the simpistic and fals association of CO2 and temperature by the press and GW science that IS my complaint and hence my obsesion.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Don't give yourself a gold star just yet... You're the one who keeps trying to manipulate every argument to be about CO2. I've never considered CO2 to be the main factor... It's one of many factors that influence changing climates, and it's a somewhat-useful indicator of pollution output (Though far from perfect). Every time we have a discussion about AGW or climate change, you turn it into a debate about CO2 and temperature. Ditch the fetish, man...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Because, like the drivel posted by CSS, it is pretty boring and has run its course. Find something interesting to post about, rather than repeating the same things over and over.
It's time for a new signature.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Why?
Because I am already aware of the problems with the temperature data sets from various Climate Change sites.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Don't give yourself a gold star just yet... You're the one who keeps trying to manipulate every argument to be about CO2. I've never considered CO2 to be the main factor... It's one of many factors that influence changing climates, and it's a somewhat-useful indicator of pollution output (Though far from perfect). Every time we have a discussion about AGW or climate change, you turn it into a debate about CO2 and temperature. Ditch the fetish, man...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What's your point? Continued funding for climate research is GOOD.
50 billion dollars spent so far on GW, and yet not one single iota of solid empiracle proof that CO2 causes warming on a global scale. There has to be a point at which reasoin takes over and scientific funding is spent on matters that are more pressing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
50 billion dollars spent so far on GW, and yet not one single iota of solid empiracle proof that CO2 causes warming on a global scale.
Once again, you try to manipulate the argument. Did I suggest funding for global warming research? No. Did I suggest funding for a CO2 study? No. This is funding for general climate research. More measuring stations around the globe, more research into, for example, circulation patterns and currents, meteorological models, effects of airborne chemicals... Not everything is about your CO2 fetish. And nowhere does their funding request specify $50 billion, or for that matter, any dollar amount. The PDF is not from the IPCC. It's from an association of climatologists in the US.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ditch the fetish, man
As soon as others do, so will I. Untill then I have a mission! :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Your mission is dull and monotonous, and completely devoid of brain-eating zombies. I award it no points.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
50 billion dollars spent so far on GW, and yet not one single iota of solid empiracle proof that CO2 causes warming on a global scale.
Once again, you try to manipulate the argument. Did I suggest funding for global warming research? No. Did I suggest funding for a CO2 study? No. This is funding for general climate research. More measuring stations around the globe, more research into, for example, circulation patterns and currents, meteorological models, effects of airborne chemicals... Not everything is about your CO2 fetish. And nowhere does their funding request specify $50 billion, or for that matter, any dollar amount. The PDF is not from the IPCC. It's from an association of climatologists in the US.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
"...matters that are more pressing."
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Typical political attitude... You always think it's either A or B... Do you realize that there are billions of people on this planet? That means we can do this amazing thing called MULTITASKING, where different groups of people work on different things. And you know what? Budgets are made up of this stuff called "currency," which can be subdivided into different places. Now brace yourself... You can spend money on more than one thing at a time! You just give some of it to group A and some of it to group B. Are you getting the point yet, or do I have to be more patronizing and condescending?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I spent a good 6-7 seconds skimming scrolling through that PDF, and I'm pretty sure there's nothing about brain-eating zombies there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I for one would have read it if it had shown evidence of brain eating zombies. Fortuanetly your excellent reviewing skills saved me the trouble. Shame that. It is definetly time people took brain eating zombies seriously.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Typical political attitude... You always think it's either A or B... Do you realize that there are billions of people on this planet? That means we can do this amazing thing called MULTITASKING, where different groups of people work on different things. And you know what? Budgets are made up of this stuff called "currency," which can be subdivided into different places. Now brace yourself... You can spend money on more than one thing at a time! You just give some of it to group A and some of it to group B. Are you getting the point yet, or do I have to be more patronizing and condescending?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
wolfbinary wrote:
Are you trying to become the AWG CSS of this site or what
You havent been around that long have you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You havent been around that long have you?
So you can't answer the question or are unwilling to? Got it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
You havent been around that long have you?
So you can't answer the question or are unwilling to? Got it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
Even Ian who claims to be open minded didnt bother reading it.
Because you're posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over again. It's annoying, monotonous, and exactly the same as CSS's repetitive ranting. The only difference between you and CSS, is that you at least pretend to understand the subject, while he can't seem to rise out of his drug-induced stupor. You want a sensible viewpoint? Here's one[^] I found... It's a bit old, but I think it still makes sense, and I mostly agree with what it says. Things are constantly changing. Humanity IS influencing it, and not just through CO2 (Which you seem to have a fetish for). How much and in what way is not yet known, because the problem is too complex for a simple answer, so we need to act responsibly and be prepared.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)If man made GW was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, do you honestly think people would believe it? Most people in the US for example don't believe in evolution regardless of the scientific proof. Kansas banned it in the school systems from being taught.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
And then you have the degradation of science. These tools should be strung up for what they have dont to it!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
These tools
What "tools?" Exactly which groups have pissed you off to such a degree that you want to cut all funding for the entire discipline? Oh hey, some astronomer made an incorrect prediction of whether we'd be wiped out by an asteroid last year, so we better cut ALL funding for astronomy, right? Uh oh! A cancer drug didn't work, so we better get rid of all cancer research too! That's the kind of reasoning you're following here. The PDF I linked isn't asking for more funding for AGW groups. They're suggesting continued funding of climatology in general. So enough with this straw man[^] crap. This is supposed to be a logical discussion among geeks, not a public service announcement.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
These tools
What "tools?" Exactly which groups have pissed you off to such a degree that you want to cut all funding for the entire discipline? Oh hey, some astronomer made an incorrect prediction of whether we'd be wiped out by an asteroid last year, so we better cut ALL funding for astronomy, right? Uh oh! A cancer drug didn't work, so we better get rid of all cancer research too! That's the kind of reasoning you're following here. The PDF I linked isn't asking for more funding for AGW groups. They're suggesting continued funding of climatology in general. So enough with this straw man[^] crap. This is supposed to be a logical discussion among geeks, not a public service announcement.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh hey, some astronomer made an incorrect prediction of whether we'd be wiped out by an asteroid last year, so we better cut ALL funding for astronomy, right?
"Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again." - Moe Szyslak in "Bart's Comet"
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
fat_boy wrote:
These tools
What "tools?" Exactly which groups have pissed you off to such a degree that you want to cut all funding for the entire discipline? Oh hey, some astronomer made an incorrect prediction of whether we'd be wiped out by an asteroid last year, so we better cut ALL funding for astronomy, right? Uh oh! A cancer drug didn't work, so we better get rid of all cancer research too! That's the kind of reasoning you're following here. The PDF I linked isn't asking for more funding for AGW groups. They're suggesting continued funding of climatology in general. So enough with this straw man[^] crap. This is supposed to be a logical discussion among geeks, not a public service announcement.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription