Make up your fucking minds, it's getting hotter, it's getting colder.

LMFAO

Read the report Zat and get back to us.

I guess Obama was right. We elected him, and the oceans stopped rising. He even went back in time to do so.

He really is The Messiah.

Some how it's got to be Bush's fault, right danni?

Credit Clinton, with a Republican Congress.

Looks like the Smithsonian doesn't need to change the 'We're Still in an Ice Age' display from the seventies.

I like warming better.

I do too, Ray, but if the cooling trend is real, the NHL might expand to Africa and we can get some killer teams playing.

Ten warmest years on record
2004, 2011, 2006, 2002, 2003, 2009, 1998, 2007, 2005, 2010

#2 | Posted by Zatoichi

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Which is it, Zat? You have two conflicting sets of "facts". Tell me which one isnt a real fact.....

Given the source I'm skeptical.

Trying to find the actual report but having trouble doing so.

Which is it, Zat? You have two conflicting sets of "facts". Tell me which one isnt a real fact.....

Isn't science wonderful?

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2012-01-29 01:32 PM

ZAT isn't the only promoter for global warming. Try 97% of scientists.

Christ. You are so smart.

FTA:

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24' – which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Just one problem with that statement...

We are not at the peak of Cycle 24 yet.

.

Zat forgets that many of those measurements are taken in populated areas, where the temperatures are typically much higher due to pavement radiation, and are not accurate.

We are not at the peak of Cycle 24 yet.

"Facts are stupid things."
~Ronald Reagan

Zat forgets that many of those measurements are taken in populated areas, where the temperatures are typically much higher due to pavement radiation, and are not accurate

And yet those same stations were used for this most recent article that the naysayers all of a sudden support.

Cherry picking science is fun but in the end you look like a fool.

"Zat forgets that many of those measurements are taken in populated areas"

Bullshit.
Lie some more.
Thanks to morons like you it's too late.

Globowarming cultists are like Mooneys or Japanese soliders hiding in the trees on deserted islands for 40 years, competely ignorant of reality, brainwashed in stupidity.

Zat isn't a scientist, he is a fool and a moron.

Guess what dipshits, 'recorded history' is a half a gnat's fart long.

Stupid fucks.

I give this as much credence as the global warming myth, but considering all the laws, regulations, treaties and other nonsense we've endured it's exasperating to see the science world can not come to a real consensus.
Posted by diablo at 11:36 AM |

Diablo, without reliable public data (trustworthy observations) all any real 'scientist' would say is IDK. Anything else is a religious expression - belief, not science. At least Zat points to some data to rationalize his belief, but he gets emotional rather than accepting the criticizms about his manipulated data that was picked to fit the hocky-stick expected result. Without deeper raw data analysis there is no truth there - just a religion or is it a profit-lie?

The public hasn't been allowed access to 'science' since I was a kid. That paper on how to make a nuc bomb got classified and nobody has dared talk about science like quarks ever since.

100 years ago there was some real 'science' happening. But ever since tesla got shunned and disrespected scientists have been targeted for ownership or shunning. Most people who claim "science" says are misinformed at best, but more likely profit motivated fucking liars.

And most people who claim to know what "real science" is are usually ignorant of the whole process.

Oh hey reitze, funny you being here...

When the ice melts enough to stop the circulation of the Gulf Stream and essentially all the oceans circulation, it's going to get cold up north, and fast. The warmer temperatures may not be able to overcome the reflected loss of heat from the new glaciers.

Is that like saying it's both and neither at the same time?

"the new glaciers"

Shit boy, you're more dismally stupid than bozo.

Is that like saying it's both and neither at the same time?

It's saying there are feedback systems and consequences to current conditions.

What he's talking about is well known (I'm blanking on the name at the moment) and is the basis for the movie Day After Tomorrow.

Happy Extinction
ZATOICHI

Interesting that the oil company shills like you trumpet a "new ice age".
I think you're so full of shit your ears stink.

Imagine zat.

Thread #2 on this.

Must have been in the Sunday talking points email.

"the new glaciers"

Shit boy, you're more dismally stupid than bozo.

#23 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-29 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Make a point. What happens when the ocean currents stop circulation. Speak up, boy. Make sense.

But what do you care. You know more than all those scientists who have studied it their whole lives. Back to your socialist life.

#12 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-01-29 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a strange statement coming from the man who made these statements:

"I asked for your views. Are you just a parrot for the thoughts of others?"

"Then please link to the link that shows your views."

You can start with Augustine

Books 8-12

#92 | Posted by Grendel at 2012-01-27 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Remeber when I asked if you were just a parrot for the thinking of others? Then you said "No" in post #85.

You lied didn't you. You have no thoughts of your own. You just parrot what others have said.

That's why those questions confound you. You have no independent thought."

Just a tiny bit inconsistent aren't you Bob?

100 years ago there was some real 'science' happening. But ever since tesla got shunned and disrespected scientists have been targeted for ownership or shunning. Most people who claim "science" says are misinformed at best, but more likely profit motivated fucking liars.

#20 | Posted by reitze at 2012-01-29 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are a few pages in DOW O. Woodward and Val W. Woodward's "Concepts of Molecular Genetics" that talk about some of the "myths" held about science. Such as, that science is autonomous (separate from other concerns like ethics, morals, politics. etc. Another is the neutrality of science. They talk about the real effect that politics, looking for grants, etc. has on science and scientific discovery (or lack there of).

They take an interesting task to approach delivering the teaching on the subject they are informing one about in the book. It is refreshing to see them talking about some of these overlooked aspects, as they are a part of science whether we like it or not.

What he's talking about is well known (I'm blanking on the name at the moment) and is the basis for the movie Day After Tomorrow.

#24 | Posted by jpw
Art Bell and the Day After Tomorrow. Ha real science there Jonny pee wee

Just a tiny bit inconsistent aren't you Bob?

#27 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-29 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only inconsistency I see is yours. You claim not to parrot the thoughts of others, yet when asked for your views, you merely parrot the thoughts of others.

Art Bell and the Day After Tomorrow. Ha real science there Jonny pee wee

Art Bell?

As for the Day After Tomorrow reference, people usually don't respond well to a flat out, fact-based scientific explanation. I was trying to use an example he might know or even jog his memory if he's seen the movie.

The real science is available online through much better sources than me.

Yeah. Those oil company shills over at Daily Mail and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.

You're a pussy.

The idea that solar flare activity over the next ninety years hovering around the Dalton Minimum will slow AGW significantly is being overstated here in this DailyFail column.

A weaker Sun over the next 90 years is not likely to significantly delay a rise in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases, a report said on January 23.

The study, by Britain's Meteorological Office and the university of Reading, found that the Sun's output would decrease up until 2100 but this would only lead to a fall in global temperatures of 0.08 degrees Celsius.

Scientists have warned that more extreme weather is likely across the globe this century as the Earth's climate warms.

The world is expected to heat up by over 2 degrees Celsius this century due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Current global pledges to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are not seen as sufficient to stop the planet heating up beyond 2 degrees, a threshold scientists say risks an unstable climate in which weather extremes are common.

"This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases," said Gareth Jones, climate change detection scientist at the Met Office.

My dingleberries are warming faster than anticipated. Gotta run.

The only inconsistency I see is yours. You claim not to parrot the thoughts of others, yet when asked for your views, you merely parrot the thoughts of others.

#30 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-01-30 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting. A few points

1. I didn't make the statements to which you responded with the inconsistent statements above.

2. You ask someone to prove what they are saying with links and when they provide links you claim they are just parroting other individuals thoughts

3. You then make an appeal to authority in regard to the topic of this thread

First you say not to parrot the thoughts of others and then you go an parrot the thoughts of others? Strange and inconsistent.

The AGW crowd will next tell us that we'll see global warming in "spades" by 2100. Of course we'll all be dead and won't be able to prove them wrong again. The left consistently shows how perverse and wrong they are and continue to lose all credibility. No wonder their numbers are shrinking. The mirror then reflects back on the MSM which over the years has also lost credibility and membership. I'm waiting for the day that the New York Crimes and Washington Toast go bankrupt. It'll signal the beginning of the era of honest journalism once again.

I read this over the weekend and was wondering what the AGW crowd here on DR would say when they saw that the report came from East Anglia, backed up with a separate report from NASA. East Anglia was, of course, the school whose hacked emails revealed both a concerted effort by AGW people to marginalize scientists with conflicting theories AND to manipulate their data to support their arguments.

I personally cannot imagine anyone giving credence to ANY argument coming out of East Anglia, regardless of what you believe. They have demonstrated the capacity to lie in support of their theories..new theories may require new lies.

All that aside, isn't it interesting that scientists are suddenly aware of the effect of the intensity of solar radiation on the temperature of the earth? Scientists arguing against AGW have LONG been pointing out that the temperature of the earth is tied very closely to the sun's output. Suddenly it's news? I smell money somewhere.

AGW---another lefty myth going down the tubes. There's only one consistency amongst the left----their consistently wrong about every issue they parrot. Then you point it out and they go into "rationalize mode". Zat and bOoB should get together on this and have a "masochistic antennae flogging" for being wrong again. If not, I'm sure there's enough righties (definition of a rightie---always right) that would be happy to give them a "sadistic antennae flogging".

The real science is available online through much better sources than me.

#35 | Posted by jpw
Don't back track now, its clear where you get all your facts(Hollywood). Also the source of your facts that Gay is normal.

#44 | Posted by patron at 2012-01-30 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag: Noob

Isn't that why they changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

"(Hollywood)"

#44 | Posted by patron at 2012-01-30 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag terminally stupid

It'll signal the beginning of the era of honest journalism once again.

#40 | Posted by matsop

Unfortunately that will never happen as long as the news as it exists today is considered "entertainment".

1784 Benjamin Franklin, "Meteorological Imaginations and Conjectures (Paper Read 1784)." Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 2nd ed., 1789: 373-77. REPRINTED Weatherwise 35, 262 (1982).

#49 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-30 10:19 AM | Reply

Zat, there's a sale at Walmart on winter coats, mittens, snow boots, and thermal underwear. Bundle up Zat; I'd hate to see your extinction. BWWAAAAAAHAHAHA.

#47 | Posted by Zatoich
Hey stupid I wasn't talking to you, ,go practice antenna fighting. Johnny Pee Wee claims his info from the movie Day After Tomorrow! see post #24.

#44 lol better than where you get your facts-your ass.

Your insistence on this makes you look pretty butt hurt.

#54 | Posted by jpw
I may get facts out of my ass. But it better than pulling a dick out of it ,like you.

LOL

It's always funny to watch Zat go crazy. What a pretentious windbag.

Hey ZIT - keep YOUR fairy tales out of my government. Blowhard.

1. I didn't make the statements to which you responded with the inconsistent statements above.

You are correct. I confused your nonsense with Grendels nonsense. I apologize.

2. You ask someone to prove what they are saying with links and when they provide links you claim they are just parroting other individuals thoughts

You are mistaken. I asked if grendel had his own views on the attributes of God, or if he merely parroted the thoughts of others. Grendel said he did not parrot the thoughts of others, and that there were several links to his views. When I asked for those links to his own views, and he merely parroted the thoughts of others.

3. You then make an appeal to authority in regard to the topic of this thread

I don't know WTF you are talking about here.

First you say not to parrot the thoughts of others and then you go an parrot the thoughts of others? Strange and inconsistent.

Gee, you almost had it when you were aware that you never said the things I attributed to you. If you had carried it out a bit, you would have seen I was actually talking to Grendel and in that context it isn't confusing at all.

#39 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-30 06:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#59 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-01-30 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag: jump, twist, stretch

Bob. You can't ask someone for links to back up their claims and then tell them they are parroting others when they provide the links that you asked for.

Also, just because one provides links of individuals that share their thoughts does not mean that they are parroting the thoughts of someone else.

The links were to give you an easier avenue to grasp the ideas, rather the Grendel trying to write out thousands of pages of thoughts and background information in this blog format.

Plus, just because someone might accept and adopt the thinking process of another person does not mean they are incorrect. Should we not adopt the correct mindset even if we did not think of it ourselves?

You are constantly guilty of committing the Genetic Fallacy.

Bob. You can't ask someone for links to back up their claims and then tell them they are parroting others when they provide the links that you asked for.

Again, please pay attention this time. I asked for his views. Not the views of others. I didn't ask for the links he provided. I asked for his opinion. He said he had an opinion and that he was not simply parroting the thoughts of others. He lied. He simply parroted the thoughts of others, by posting their thoughts.

Also, just because one provides links of individuals that share their thoughts does not mean that they are parroting the thoughts of someone else.

Yes, it does.

The links were to give you an easier avenue to grasp the ideas, rather the Grendel trying to write out thousands of pages of thoughts and background information in this blog format.

I asked for his views. He gave me the views of others. I gave him the chance to post those views when I asked if he just parroted the views of others. He could have just said yes----I parrot the views of these people, and given the links.

Plus, just because someone might accept and adopt the thinking process of another person does not mean they are incorrect.

I never claimed otherwise.

Should we not adopt the correct mindset even if we did not think of it ourselves?

Fine, but don't claim that you don't parrot the thoughts of others.

You are constantly guilty of committing the Genetic Fallacy.

Hardly. I asked for a point of view. Not links to others views.

#60 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-30 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

scientists KNEW this minimum was coming .. and we were to have been ALREADY paying carbon taxes for several years before it became apparent ..

thus they would say ..
"see WE HALTED the dreaded warming .. give us MORE tax & MORE power and we will keep you peasants safe" ..
you peasants must OBEY us or we will EXTINGUISH the Sun in areas of the United States on August 21 2017!!