Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I posted earlier, that not only the urban heat island effect on sensors is ignored, but corrections are actually applied 'upwards' to make corrected temperatures appear warmer than sensors indicate. If the sensors indicate TOO warm already and corrections make apparent temperatures warmer still? Is this "man made " warming?

Here is the justification for adjusting, adding to the data to appear warmer.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013094.shtml

" this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years.
Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures."


In other words, they aren't exercising bad judgement, things are opposite what you would naturally think or intuit.
The error is in improved instrumentation, which has unco-operatively indicated cooler temperatures, inspite of being poorly sited or in urban heat islands. This is error on the cool side!
These cooler temperatures have to be adjusted upwards to portray the correct amount of warming!
They are DETERMINED to show warming. The INSTRUMENT DATA is wrong! Not THEM!

 

So COOL!

Yobbo:

Yabbobbly"

You are a such a brainy guy! Do you believe in AGW after all and all that BS about the Illuminatti was just a joke? So Cool! Damn you are Brilliant.

What is the truth to you? Anything on the Internet?


I'm sorry to hear about your Polka band. It must suck to be tone deaf.


Allan

 

Consensus.
Consensus in what?

" A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes."

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" IS NOT the same as asking
"Do you think human activity is THE PRIMARY contributory factor in changing mean global temperatures to a CATASTROPHIC DEGREE?"

But ALL the alarmists either state or imply the consensus supports THIS view!
VERY dishonest and disingenuos.

dis·in·gen·u·ous ( ADJECTIVE: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science (WRONG. IT'S THE POSITIONS OF THE LEADERS , and many have been sued by membership for such arrogance in AGW endorsement!) from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. Amazing FACT! 95% of published climate research is about AGW! Anything to do with who is being FUNDED?

 

Yobbo:

Yobbo

Wake UP!

That vote isn't enough to convince you that it would be a good idea to Clean up our planet? How simple is that?

What do you need? If 100 % were Phds and all 100% voted yes, would be make a difference to you?


Seriously

Allan




PS: Are you SURE your not on big OILs dole?

 

You're quibbling. Whether it's the primary cause or just a significant cause, the end result is that human activity is having a noticeable effect on the climate. You can't make that fact go away by splitting semantic hairs.

And who's being funded has little or nothing to do with it. Or haven't you noticed that most of the tired little stable of skeptical scientists who get trotted out time after time are also 'funded'? As a matter of fact, Lindzen makes a point of saying that his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government.

Of course, he doesn't mention that he also picks up pocket money outside his research activities, by acting as an expert witness for tobacco companies and oil companies for $2500.00 a day....

By the way, can you name the science academies whose members have sued their leadership, for stating that their organizations endorse AGW? Or is that another of those wild and wacky little fantasy factoids, like the one about every news media company being owned by the Rothschilds?

 

You either CAN'T read, or don't UNDERSTAND what you read, or intentionally MISQUOTE what you read, at least in my posts.

<insult directed toward another member removed>
So what confuses you about my posts?

I said I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CATASTROPHIC AGW.
I said in an early post, I was NOT certain of an illuminati conspiracy. I NEVER said it was a JOKE, Alvin!

 

Troy
There is ENORMOUS difference between climate change and catastrophic change.
Climate is always changing and that does not justify social change. Alarmists argue catastrophic change is imminent and mans affect is sufficiently enormous, that REDUCING mans affect will eliminate the threat.

These are important qualifiers! If catastrophe ISN'T a consequence? Why do anything? If reducing man's impact on climate won't avert a catastrophe, why do anything?

NOT asking THESE ALARMIST points, does not permit or empower alarmists to INCLUDE all who believe unalarming warming is occurring and man impacts climate but not dangerously, into the ALARMIST CONSENSUS! But they TRY!

your other points will be addressed in other posts.

 

why don't we just rename the thread "Yab's fantasy land" and just get it over with. Then maybe we can start another concerning climate shift.

Oh and just in from making fuel. 35 gallons of B100, worth about $5 a gallon or $175, cost me about $30, I'll mix that with about 80% WMO and end up paying something under 20 cents a gallon for fuel.

cheers
B

 

Oops, did I wind up posting something about the difference between climate change and catastrophic change? I'm sorry; I'd have sworn I was addressing your red herring about the difference between 'primary' and 'significant' instead...

I'll try to be more careful in the future.

 

?????

Yobbers,

Ok I get it, I think. After all your witty "outrageous suggestions , mind games, parables of how much could be made from a little, and just pure contrarianism."( paraphrasing your words) it gets confusing.

Especially about why you spend SO much time posting of the
"outrageous suggestions , mind games, parables of how much could be made from a little, and just pure contrarianism."



So, you don't believe in "CATASTROPHIC AGW" and you don't think the Illuminatti Conspiracy is a joke (wow!). Are the Illuminatti collectivists or socialists? I guess I'm still a bit confused about that part?


Do you believe in AGW?


Do you believe the 82% of all of the Scientists in the poll you posted above?


And you don't currently have any Polka CDs for sale.


Alvin

 

Gooday there - all you's waring factions. Rational debate, calm communication, gentle respect for each other - - W I L L work much better than all these frustrated tantrums - going on in here, me thinks. EH ????

What a grand idea - Re-name subject: C L I M A T E S H I F T brilliant ! ! !

When all you smarts have figured "IT" out - can you let me know when it will be warm enough - to start 'brunch' - everything is out in the sun (only want to use the sun & the climate warming) - so when can I start - cooking the sausages, chops, prawns, steak, hash-browns, eggs & toast on the skillet & will it all be ready before lunch time. I've turned the knob to 'C C' - lit 10 matches but the plate has not got any hotter yet. (Oh - do hurry-up -Climate Change) or we'll all go hungry. Don't want it to take to long as the slab of beer might get warm. Maybe the excess heat from this discussion would be 'to hot' & might burn our 'brunch' ??? Enjoy all you guys & gals. Ciao, james

 

Troy
ImaginaryNumber posted a list of sceptical science myths, I supposed in response to a post of mine. In my earlier post I had suggested the 'Consensus' was not correct because it included people who DIDN'T think warming alarming.

So I posted in response to a poll referenced in sceptical science myths that DID NOT support ALARMISM:

and you posted

and I responded

and you responded

Are we not talking about the same thing? Apparently NOT!

 

Again you missed my point.
I and others have claimed many scientists "go along" with AGW to keep their funding.
The point has been made from time to time, if you want to study ANYTHING, say 'pine beetles', in the application for funding, approval is near certain if your project is "Global warming affect on Pine Beetles".
The claim that only those scientists frequently publishing peer reviewed science, about global warming, should be considered for consensus, and 95% of such articles agree with AGW, is a FARCE!

It's like saying : We'll fund your research if you mention global warming as credible, AND you get included in the consensus.
If you AREN'T on board the AGW train, you don't COUNT AT ALL!
So, we have a 95% consensus among scientists THAT COUNT!

This is completely dishonest, and a VERY good reason NOT to believe alarmists!
Consensus is a LIE! Clearer NOW?

 

It's excess CO2 putting out the flames, James.
Same stuff as in lots of fire extinguishers.

 

Yobarncle

Yobarncle

Yobboly

Do you believe the 82% of all of the Scientists in the poll you posted above? Or was the post another joke or mid game?



If 99% of the Scientists had voted that human activity is THE PRIMARY contributory factor in changing mean global temperatures to a CATASTROPHIC DEGREE, would you then agree it would be worthwhile to clean things up?


Allan



It is a shame to hear about your Polka Band.