Tech Global warming: greatest sham in science

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

How about this one.

Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif


Sort of makes a chart of the last 100 years or so irrelevant.
But then, I do expect it will fall again.

What about that one? And more importantly why are you on a website about Plant Fossils in West Virginia?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html

The only source the guy sites is an interview from the Washington Post in May of 1998.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

This is from the same page you got that graph from - "It will be some time before computer models will be able to reliably predict future climate change. Meanwhile, policy-makers like the United Nations and the Clinton/Gore Administration contend that we do not have time to wait."

Clinton/Gore?!?
 
How does it look for the hottest month, say July?

SlyPokerDog loves cherry picked data.

Huh? What data did I cherry pick?

You're the one who now measures graphs on the scientific "scary" scale.
 
The NOAA data are a sliver in the rightmost bit of this graph.
I suspected as much. The two presentations infer two entirely different messages. It really pisses me off to see my government engage in this subterfuge.
 
What about that one? And more importantly why are you on a website about Plant Fossils in West Virginia?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html

The only source the guy sites is an interview from the Washington Post in May of 1998.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

This is from the same page you got that graph from - "It will be some time before computer models will be able to reliably predict future climate change. Meanwhile, policy-makers like the United Nations and the Clinton/Gore Administration contend that we do not have time to wait."

Clinton/Gore?!?

Pleistocene_temp_change_graph.gif


D'oh!
 
I suspected as much. The two presentations infer two entirely different messages. It really pisses me off to see my government engage in this subterfuge.

More like I realize the math trick played to fool people.
 
more importantly why are you on a website about Plant Fossils in West Virginia?

Didn't know I was, but no matter. I googled average temp last 600 thousand years and got that site. You will note it is the same chart as on page 18 of this PDF
put out by NOAA.
 

Attachments

co2-800000-years.jpg


Scientific American is a worthless rag. Saved you the trouble.

How about a link to the article where the graph came from? Also whats that black line on the far right hand side of the graph that seems to jump almost off the page? Must be some sort of a printing error.
 
How about a link to the article where the graph came from? Also whats that black line on the far right hand side of the graph that seems to jump almost off the page? Must be some sort of a printing error.
The black line is a bunch of math tricks applied to distort the data.

The data aren't from a consistent source.

There was a major scandal over this and the hockey schtick is well debunked.

See the NOAA graph. You won't like that one.

Cherry pick.
 
You've attacked the sources that present NOAA's chart.

Let's see your beef with NOAA

Where's the black line?

temperature-change.jpg
 
The black line is a bunch of math tricks applied to distort the data.

The data aren't from a consistent source.

There was a major scandal over this and the hockey schtick is well debunked.

See the NOAA graph. You won't like that one.

Cherry pick.

You're so desperately trying to find something, anything to prove... wait what are you trying to prove again? Earlier in this thread you just used the USA ordering Ice Breakers as proof that there is no global warming. The graphs you are now posting don't support that.
 
The oceans are dead. Nothing I can find will convince you otherwise. No source is good enough.
 
Scientist are wonderful and science is good. But young scientist can be manipulated as can science. Just last year, I ask a young marine biologist how it is that the hatchery Chinook salmon have
gotten so bad that they need to be destroyed He told me they became inferior from inbreeding for many generations. I ask, How many generations? He said, he did not know. I told him, that I had help catch and harvest the first eggs, fertilize them, and take them to Marion Forks hatcher when it first started business. at the time that was 15 fish generations ago. Seems like a stretch that fish get inbred in this process, since each year the hatchery and the wild salmon participate in these process at random using the capture fish until capacity is reached..

I hate to say it but, I believe we are being manipulated again. When there are not enough fish, they get put on the endanger species list, then more control is in the hand of government. If all the hatchery fish are gone then the species would qualify to be on the endanger species list. Damn that is hard to believe, but easier than the species is inbred and needs to be destroyed all within
my life time.
 
Where is the black line in the NOAA graph?

You love that bit.
 
You're so desperately trying to find something, anything to prove... wait what are you trying to prove again? Earlier in this thread you just used the USA ordering Ice Breakers as proof that there is no global warming. The graphs you are now posting don't support that.
How's our polar bear popula?
 
You've attacked the sources that present NOAA's chart.

No, I only pointed out the sources that you and Marazul posted the graphs from. I thought they were funny but not credible.

Let's see your beef with NOAA

I have no beef with NOAA. You're actually the one who has beef with government agencies. So you trust their graphs but not their conclusions? Or is it more accurate you trust their graphs when you think they support what your current view is. Remember, your opinions on global warming change from post to post.

Where's the black line?

You got me! Where is a black line? Why did they use blue and red to make lines? What do they have against black lines.

I agree with you Denny, #BlackLinesMatter!
 
Seems you were desperate to discount MarAzul's graph because a college student got it from NOAA and used it in a paper.

Darn those academic institutions.

As for the govt. ones, if NOAA says they are the raw data, I don't have a reason to doubt they are the raw data.

It's when they massage the data to fix undesirable outcomes that I have a problem.
 
Like tuna, it seems we are losing our polar bears too

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001
The official population estimates generated by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) give the impression that the global total of polar bears has not changed appreciably since 2001:

2001 PBSG report 21,500-25,000

2005 PBSG report 20,000-25,000

2009 PBSG report 20,000-25,000

2013 PBSG website 20,000-25,000

However, some accounting changes were done between 2001 and 2009 (the latest report available) that mean a net increase in numbers had to have taken place (see summary map below and previous post here.Note this is a different issue than the misleading PBSG website graphic discussed here).

And while it is true that population “estimates” are just that — rather broad estimates rather than precise counts — it is also true that nowhere do the PBSG explain how these dropped figures and other adjustments were accounted for in the estimated totals.

The simple details of these changes are laid out below, in as few words as I could manage, to help you understand how this was done and the magnitude of the effect. It’s a short read — see what you think.

UPDATE 31 May 2015: See the latest population numbers here.

UPDATE 5 December 2014: Links to more recent posts relevant to this issue added below. [including this one: Status of Canadian polar bear populations has been changed – more good news October 28, 2014

UPDATE February 14, 2014 — a new status table has been released, see new post here

UPDATE February 18, 2014 — see graphs of the 1981-2013 estimates here.
 
How's our polar bear popula?

Seems better since the US named them an endangered species. Far less hunting seems to be helping their overall numbers. Just not sure you're asking me this when I've never brought up polar bears and you could find these answers with a simple google search.
 
Seems you were desperate to discount MarAzul's graph because a college student got it from NOAA and used it in a paper.

No, Marazul got his graph from a website on Virginia Fossils. A website that hasn't been updated since the Clinton/Gore administration. You're the one who posted the graph from a student's community college research paper. It would have been nice if you also posted his grade on this paper.
 
Darn those academic institutions.

As for the govt. ones, if NOAA says they are the raw data, I don't have a reason to doubt they are the raw data.

It's when they massage the data to fix undesirable outcomes that I have a problem.

Again Denny, you're on record in this thread saying there is no global warming because the US ordered ice breakers. The graphs you've posted and seem to be chest thumping over do not support that.
 
No, Marazul got his graph from a website on Virginia Fossils

I fail to see the significants of where I got the graph since the graph originated with NOAA. You know, showing an image in this site of something that is already on some site is easier than uploading an image to show it. So what the heck is your point?
 
SPD was desperat

ely looking to debunk the graph. I wanted him to find it was on NOAA's site on his own.

I'm not debunking the graph. Actually you're the one who debunked the graph yourself when you called it "click bait".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top