January Smashed Another Record
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
January Smashed Another Global Temperature Record

The calendar may have turned to 2016, but temperatures are picking up where 2015 left off. January was record warm, according to data released this week by NASA.

You may recall that last year was the hottest on record for the globe. And by NASA’s accounting, it ended with a bang. This past December was the warmest December on record and the most abnormally warm month on record, too.

That is until now.


This January was the warmest January on record by a large margin while also claiming the title of most anomalously warm month in 135 years of record keeping. The month was 1.13°C — or just a smidge more than 2°F — above normal. That tops December’s record of being 1.11°C — or just a smidge below 2°F — above average.

It marks the fourth month in a row where the globe has been more than 1°C (1.8°F) above normal. Incidentally, those are the only four months where the globe has topped that mark since record keeping began.

...

Read More: http://www.climatecentral...cord-20035
Top
+7
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
So what's the dislike for?

That you don't like climate change, or that you don't like the facts being pointed out?
Top
+6
-4
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17343) 5 years ago
Republicans pretty much dislike everything.

That's the biggest reason why they are Republicans. Just look at Oddjob.
Top
+4
-7
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17069) 5 years ago
Here comes Oddjob to tell you that he's not a Republican. Wait for it...
Top
+6
-5
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 5 years ago
Maybe the dislike is about the higher temperatures. I don't like that either.
Top
+7
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 5 years ago
Denver is headed for the seventies today. The five years, we have been back home, there is a marked difference in the winters we had in the seventies, when we moved away. Last winter I was able to ride my bicycle fifty to seventy miles per week. That would be true this winter as well had I not become ill with poly neuropathy.

Fortunately we have had enough snowfall in the mountains to keep our water supply in good shape. Denying climate change still amazes me. There is enough evidence and data (science) available that denial is simply ignorance.

Notice in Larry's original post "January smashed ANOTHER temperature record"

[Edited by Tucker Bolton (2/18/2016 9:06:45 AM)]
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Dark Beer (+253) 5 years ago
If you are a doubter consider this:

We think of climate change as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. But a third of the carbon in the atmosphere today used to be in the soil, and modern farming is largely to blame. Practices such as the overuse of chemicals, excessive tilling and the use of heavy machinery disturb the soil’s organic matter, exposing carbon molecules to the air, where they combine with oxygen to create carbon dioxide. Put another way: Human activity has turned the living and fertile carbon system in our dirt into a toxic atmospheric gas.



https://www.washingtonpos...&tid=ss_fb

[Edited by Dark Beer (2/18/2016 9:59:47 AM)]
Top
+2
-6
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
And it gets even better - vast amounts of CO2 and methane are locked in permafrost, which, as the temps raise, begins to thaw and release these greenhouse gasses, which in turn, cause the temperatures to rise...

SCIENCE: IT'S ALL A VAST CONSPIRACY.
Top
+5
-4
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
The conspiracy is so huge even the Pope is in on it.
Top
+2
-2
Posted by Dark Beer (+253) 5 years ago
Hmm.... four dislikes before lunch. Perhaps you fukcing cowards could come out of the shadows and explain what I or the article I share was so "dislikable". Disagreement is an opportunity for learning. Let's not miss the opportunity.
Top
+2
-6
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
I think there's a pickup commercial with a Paul Harvey voice-over that answers your question Mr. Beer. Farmers are the closest things we have to saints in this terrible overheating world...
Top
+1
-4
Posted by CarlosSantos (+871) 5 years ago
Reply to MilesCity.com Webmaster (#365033)
MilesCity.com Webmaster wrote:
So what's the dislike for?

That you don't like climate change, or that you don't like the facts being pointed out?


Don't feel bad. I answered the post about locally grown mushrooms, saying that I'd love to buy some and THAT was disliked.

Some people will just love to dislike posts by certain people.

I figure if a few people dislike your post, it likely means it's intelligent and rational. There's a few amongst us who simply don't like that.
Top
+4
-2
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 5 years ago
There is no doubt that we are in a period of abnormal warmer climate change. Is it primarily man caused? Many opinions are out there by all sides of Science. Google Alithermal period, Cyclic climate change, and global warming and form your own opinion.
Top
+6
Posted by Wayne White (+255) 5 years ago
Has the Yellowstone frozen over this year?
Top
-2
supporter
Posted by tom regan (+2526) 5 years ago
This document contains several hundred pages of peer reviewed scientific conspiracy theory. Complete with pictures. Enjoy!

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/index.php
Top
+2
-1
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9922) 5 years ago
The last time we had a real winter here was 2011-12. Since then it barely gets below freezing let alone below zero. The summers are warmer and drier than in they’ve ever been. Just a few years ago a 75 degree day in July or August was considered hot – last summer we had days when the temp was in the low 80s. Last summer there was a good sized wildfire north of our village – if you have any familiarity with bog tundra, then you know how dry it has to be for it to burn.

Fish runs are more erratic than in the past. Spawning is being disrupted by low streams and warm water temperature. Algae blooms are killing of seabirds, shorebirds, migratory waterfowl and maritime mammals. The taiga is encroaching on the tundra at a rapid pace. New insect species are being spotted. Coyotes have moved in to the area – though I think the wolves will deal with them.

The temp was 45 this past February 9 – I saw two sets of bear tracks that day. 45 above and Brown bears wandering around in early February. That is alarming in more ways than one.

And yes I know, climate happens globally and the weather is what happens in your backyard. But a quick look at the headlines shows that change is happening globally. And yes I know mine are short-term examples, however a review of climatologically data shows there is a long-term pattern unfolding.

Perhaps there is some natural cause(s) contributing to climate change, but I think when looking at the evidences presented by thoughtful researcher and scholars, I cannot believe that humankind has not contributed greatly to the change.

One troubling question of how long it will take for this climate event to play out.

“What the Earth will be like in 10,000 years, according to scientists”
--Chris Mooney
THE WASHINGTON POST
February 8, 2016
https://www.washingtonpos...cientists/

“Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change”
Peter U. Clark, et al.
NATURE.COM
February 8, 2016
http://www.nature.com/art...onpost.com


And what are the impacts for climate change events? Even minor events can have significant impacts.

“'Little Ice Age' coincides with fall of Eastern Roman Empire and growth of Arab Empire”
POPULAR ARCHEOLOGY, Vol. 21 Winter 2015/2016
http://popular-archaeolog...rab-empire

For the hot and the cold perspectives:

Brian Fagan. THE LONG SUMMER: HOW CLIMATE CHANGED CIVILIZATION (2004).

Brian Fagan. THE LITTLE ICE AGE: HOW CLIMATE MADE HISTORY 1300-1850 (2001).


I don’t mind dislikes, so feel free to click away ; -)
Top
+4
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
If we are all to swallow the alarmists predictions of doom and gloom, why the reluctance to release the raw weather data and methodology behind constructing the computer models? NASA, NOAH and other governmental entities and researchers like Charles Mann and the bunch at East Anglia University have repeatedly refused to give up the databases and methodology from which they generate their dire predictions. On top of this, the Climategate emails released 5 or 6 years ago show without question there has been a conspiracy to manipulate the data among these "leading scientists" asking the world to take their "settled science" on faith.

They are simply grant-suckers and their results are "peer-reviewed" by other grant-suckers. The dogma is then fed to a media interested only in selling headlines with bold print and exclamation points..

The problem here is that because the raw data and methodology is unavailable to everyone, there is no true "peer review". These people who are able to control access will not have their critics mucking around in their assumptions.

Why is that? Science is all about questioning the validity of EVERY hypothesis, and so as long as there is someone from ANY quarter refusing to publish or allow access to the data and the assumptions used to create the models, their work is bulls**t.

This winter I have had to shovel much more snow that I have to for the previous 5 or 6 winters. Viewed from my perspective, my anecdotal proof of no global warming trumps your anecdotal proof for the opposite.

[Edited by Oddjob (2/20/2016 12:09:27 PM)]
Top
+5
-10
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 5 years ago
I guess by Oddy's anecdote about shoveling more snow this year means that he doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.
Top
+8
-5
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 5 years ago
Oddy doesn't understand lots of things.
Top
+3
-4
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
I heard of some NASA study that says that the carbon in the upper atmosphere actually has a cooling effect on the planet.I will let you people fight over that one.
Top
+2
-2
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
I have a friend who has doctorate in meteorology. He is a highly regarded expert in his field. He doesn't get his info from political sites but from actual science. He is quite sure there is global warming because he understands it. All the complex math, the chaos theory, all of it. I trust scientists in their field, not anonymous political hacks.

We are toast as a civilization if we think our 'beliefs' have anything to do with science and what is actually going on.

It was not just a warm weather record. It set the record by six degrees. I dread to think how hot and dry it is going to be this summer but I am not putting in a garden or attempting a lawn.
Top
+3
-6
Posted by UM Griz (+168) 5 years ago
Reply to ZZZzz (#365071)
Citation?
Top
-3
Posted by Dark Beer (+253) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#365068)
Oddjob wrote:

The problem here is that because the raw data and methodology is unavailable to everyone, there is no true "peer review". These people who are able to control access will not have their critics mucking around in their assumptions.

Why is that? Science is all about questioning the validity of EVERY hypothesis, and so as long as there is someone from ANY quarter refusing to publish or allow access to the data and the assumptions used to create the models, their work is bulls**t.

This winter I have had to shovel much more snow that I have to for the previous 5 or 6 winters. Viewed from my perspective, my anecdotal proof of no global warming trumps your anecdotal proof for the opposite.

[Edited by Oddjob (2/20/2016 12:09:27 PM)]


The climate change "raw data" is readily available. It's simple monthly temperature data plotted so you can evaluate trend. Yup, it is conclusively and indisputably getting warmer.

The reasons and models explaining WHY it's getting warmer might be subject to interpretation. But the climate is warming and much of the "WHY" is man-made. TO pretend otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.
Top
+7
-5
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9922) 5 years ago
It’s pretty easy to “mine” a little climate local data here:
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC).
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/c...summaries/

Montana:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/s.../emtF.html

Miles City:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/c....pl?mt5685
Top
-1
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+249) 5 years ago
Oddjob wrote:

NASA, NOAH (emphasis added) and other governmental entities and researchers like Charles Mann and the bunch at East Anglia University have repeatedly refused to give up the databases and methodology from which they generate their dire predictions.


NOAH? Did you mean to say NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) or have you been praying in public schools again? That little slip explains so much.

Here, read this feckin' thing:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov

Sometimes, you just need to know where to look (like the front page of your favorite daily newspaper, for instance).
Top
+6
-6
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
The USDA is doing lots of research into climate change and how warming and changes in precipitation will alter farming. Fortunately for all of us who eat, the USDA ignores the silliness and politics and deals with this nasty thing called reality. When the rubber hits the road, we either respond to global warming or all starve. Arguing about it doesn't change what is happening.
Top
+2
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
My bad on the NOAA v NOAH but that little slip doesn't mean a thing to anyone but those who can't refute the argument. Your link is just a rehash of the mantra.

There is no doubt the agencies will not release the raw data or methodology. NOAA is under Congressional subpoena as we speak to release the raw data regarding the Agencies manipulation of temperature records.

So the bottom line is this: in spite of all the hue and cry, the data is regarded as suspect by as many in the scientific community as the followers of Gaia. I choose to not believe because the data is suspect.

You choose to believe in complete disregard of the fact that the data is suspect.

Isn't that position the same as your never-ending criticism of followers of the Book?
Top
+4
-2
Posted by Dark Beer (+253) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#365083)
Oddjob wrote:


There is no doubt the agencies will not release the raw data or methodology. NOAA is under Congressional subpoena as we speak to release the raw data regarding the Agencies manipulation of temperature records.



Even "NOAH" believed in climate change enough to build a boat!

Representatives of a party, standing firmly on a plank of climate denier-ism with a court-ordered request to review and skew the data for their own purposes, to support "big pollution", isn't science. These individuals are not climate scientists. They have an agenda to keep the status quo, the status quo. They have a vested interest in maintaining the use of carbon-based fuels. Bringing a snowball for Senate show-and-tell day isn't science, it's stupidity. A subpoena for the data isn't proof of anything. Your argument is at best antidotal.

Again, the raw data isn't a secret. It is publicly available. Others here have provided links to the data. YOU can access it yourself, plot monthly temperatures for the last 100 years and see the upward temperature trend for yourself. Hell, even the "venerable" Cactus "chemtrail" Planes acknowledges the climate is changing.

It's a basic 5th grade science experiment. For gwad-sakes Oddjob, don't make me go Jeff Foxworthy on you. You're smarter than that...
Top
+2
-4
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+249) 5 years ago
No doubt, Oddjob, you're referring to Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-TX) fishing expeditions against both NASA and NOAA, one of its NASA's divisions. I'm not sure where you get your news these days but it's inaccurate to say that NOAA failed to deliver the updated climate data that Smith requested of the agency.

The agency clearly complied with his request for the latest dataset with a public release on May 2, 2011 - over four years before his request was issued, here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php

and here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...e-ersst-v4

But why should this transparency matter when Smith can chase headlines and airtime with Rush and the echo chamber using men of straw?
Top
+3
-3
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17069) 5 years ago
Reply to Exalted Buckaroo (#365087)
Hey, E.B., we read the news and know how to google, thank you very much.
Top
+6
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+249) 5 years ago
Evidently not, David. I may have assumed too much of milescity.com readers or they're using Bing, or both.
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Reply to Exalted Buckaroo (#365087)
Exalted Buckaroo wrote:
No doubt, Oddjob, you're referring to Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-TX) fishing expeditions


What a pawn you are.

Interesting that you refer to Rep. Lamar Smith's investigation as a "fishing expidition". When you Google it there are about 20 different hits that have the exact same verbage, hammering Smiths investigation. Do you think we are all idiots here and do not know where this crap comes from? If you are so mindless as to let George Soros and Media Matters do your thinking for you, maybe you should listen to more Rush. At the very least he has a focus on American interests.
Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 5 years ago
It's "verbiage," dummy!
Top
+4
-6
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Tell somebody who gives a s**t, Bob. We are living in a Common Core world now and it can be anything I want it to be.
Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Think how different Oddy's life and attitude would be, if only that damned professor hadn't damaged him so much.

[Edited by Bridgier (2/22/2016 8:38:07 AM)]
Top
+5
-4
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 5 years ago
Nah.

I'm sure the government is holding our pal Oddjob back.

If not for the myriad of Federal regulations, I'm sure Oddjob would be a multi-millionaire!

Top
+6
-3
Posted by Dark Beer (+253) 5 years ago
This is a pretty cool tool developed by USDA.

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda....007&zoom=5
Top
+1
-2
Posted by CarlosSantos (+871) 5 years ago
Top
+7
-4
Posted by busyB (+625) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#365083)
Oddjob wrote:


Isn't that position the same as your never-ending criticism of followers of the Book?


No, the position of criticism comes from being witness to those who are given clear, factual information who choose to ignore it or disregard it simply because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Top
+7
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
SHOW ME THE DATA! NO SHOW ME THE REAL DATA! NO I MEANT THE REAL REAL DATA!

Oddy and the rest of the AGW deniers are a recursive function with no base case.
Top
+6
-4
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
Well,it seems NASA has some data.Why don`t you research NASA`s data on carbon in the upper atmosphere.It kind of blasts the man made global warming theory back into the ice age.

If you missed it look to see what you type in for my emoticon here.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Top
+3
-3
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
No,I don`t.I mean the NASA article not an article by someone with egg on their face.
Top
+3
-2
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 5 years ago
Well, give us a site so we can read what you're talking about.
Top
+2
-1
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
Sea level is rising but I don't live near the coast so I don't care. Being selfish is so relaxing.
Top
+1
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Seas are rising way faster than any time in past 2,800 years

WASHINGTON — Sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.

An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about 1 to 1.5 inches (3 to 4 centimeters) a century, plus or minus a bit. During that time global sea level really didn't get much higher or lower than 3 inches above or below the 2,000-year average.

But in the 20th century the world's seas rose 5.5 inches (14 centimeters). Since 1993 the rate has soared to a foot per century (30 centimeters). And two different studies published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said by 2100 that the world's oceans will rise between 11 to 52 inches (28 to 131 centimeters), depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth's industries and vehicles expel.

"There's no question that the 20th century is the fastest," said Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia. "It's because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use."

...

Read More: http://www.msn.com/en-us/...ar-BBpPsBA
Top
+2
-4
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
No,I don`t.I mean the NASA article not an article by someone with egg on their face.

So... you're saying you don't understand the science? Because, as far as I can tell, this person does, and they even provides some fairly simple diagrams to explain it.
Top
+3
-3
Posted by Tomm (-1033) 5 years ago
2800 years ago?? must have been some fancy measuring devices.. Kind of like the temp. measuring devices of 200 years ago when they did not even exist.
Top
+2
-6
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Tomm needs to RTFA:

To figure out past sea levels and rates of rise and fall, scientists engaged in a "geological detective story," said study co-author Ben Horton, a Rutgers marine scientist. They went around the world looking at salt marshes and other coastal locations and used different clues to figure out what the sea level was at different times. They used single cell organisms that are sensitive to salinity, mangroves, coral, sediments and other clues in cores, Horton said. On top of that they checked their figures by easy markers such as the rise of lead with the start of the industrial age and isotopes only seen in the atomic age.


Science. It's how magnets work.
Top
+6
-3
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
I think NASA knows a bit about science.I would bet a bit more than someone who writes internet articles for people that believe him lol.
Top
+5
-4
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
http://science.nasa.gov/s...mar_saber/

Okay Mr. Science, here's the whole article, none of which contradicts the the article that I linked to above. Did you actually read NASA's press release? Ponder the footnote at the bottom for a while.
Top
+4
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Tomm (#365127)
Tomm wrote:
Kind of like the temp. measuring devices of 200 years ago when they did not even exist.

Really??? You're kidding, right?
Top
+6
-3
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
I really don`t have time for this but it kind of seems to say in the footnote or imply according to the rest of the article that I skimmed that the carbon in the upper atmosphere blocked the heat impulse.
Top
+3
-4
Posted by Tomm (-1033) 5 years ago
Bridger needs to SHFMUYDB
Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
rest of the article that I skimmed


Sigh....

What sort of exchange rate will you give me on your dunning-krugerands?

Screw it, I'll do your homework for you.

Footnote: (1) No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”


The Earth is radiating enough heat every day to power NYC for 200,000 years, while this solar flare provided enough heat over a several day period to power NYC for 2 years. So, if the Earth's lower atmosphere is retaining even a slightly larger fraction of the heat being radiated from the surface than it was prior to the advent of the industrial revolution, due to the injection of greenhouse gasses into the lower atmosphere from said revolution, then we have a bit of a problem.

(deCAPSLOCKED because I think Hal would prefer it that way)

[Edited by Bridgier (2/24/2016 8:09:02 AM)]
Top
+5
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
Dunning-krugerands. Heheheheheh.
Top
+3
-4
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
Well I would expect you to know the exchange rate as you seem to have the market cornered.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
Because I agree with scientists? I was brought up to believe in science. Not superstitions and not politicians. And the whole point of science is you test and re=evaluate and and discuss and just don't stick your head in the sand say "I WANT it to be this way so it is THIS WAY."

If I could do that, I would lighten the gravity around here. Do you think if I believe hard enough, I can do that?

How come the people IN the echo chamber always assume everyone else is like them?
Top
+5
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Bridgier says "greenhouse gasses" (+95% water vapor) when what he really means is CO2. But then, he remembers...there is NO demonstrable correlation between heat retention in the atmosphere and CO2 content in the geologic record. (CAPSLOCK intentional)

You know what really blows my mind about this whole discussion is the zealots absolute refusal to believe that the though-feeders (Amorette's "scientists") have a hugely vested interest in continuing the lies and deception surrounding their manufactured panic. They are not doing this out of their never-ending love for humanity.

The only ones who require silencing are those who would muck up the gravy train.

[Edited by Oddjob (2/25/2016 10:26:06 AM)]
Top
+3
-5
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
Oddjob. Please tell me your climate change denial is based purely on science.Tell me it has nothing to do with the fact that noted lefty Al Gore was one of the big whistle blowers as opposed to say...George W Bush. Also tell me your denial has nothing to do with the fact that big oil and coal stands to lose piles of money if the U.S. converts to hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.

I don't see any difference between the denial of big tobacco that their product is dangerous and the denial of human caused climate change by people who've staked their existence on fossil fuels.

Think of Libby, MT. Until it became painfully obvious that the company was killing its workers, it was business as usual.

Is there political bias in all of this? Hell yes. But for you to point out the "gravy train" that scientists are feeding from, true or not, is hypocritically hilarious.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
LOOK AT ALL THIS SCIENCE!!!

https://www.skepticalscie...effect.htm

I know you won't believe it though, because one of those perfesser-types in their blinged out volvos provided it, and GRAVY TRAIN.

Seriously. How many people would have to be in on this grand conspiracy? And yet.. no one's exposed it yet?
Top
+2
-2
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-554) 5 years ago
I like how a whistleblower blew the whistle on algore.To start with his utility bills were found out to be something 20x the national average.When caught by the loud whistle he spent something like a million dollars on insulation and upgrades to save power.This was a while back when a million dollars was a lot more money than it is now.He just did not live by the algore rules he set for other people.
Top
+4
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Donatism is SO fourth century ZZZZZZzzzzzz.

And no Oddster, I meant greenhouse gases, not merely CO2.

[Edited by Bridgier (2/25/2016 11:41:04 AM)]
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
So Algore was burning up energy like a drunken coal plant! Its hypocritical(if true) but does not, in any real way, invalidate the science.

If Einstein had a bunch of mistresses, does that invalidate his science?
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
You don't know much about people who work in science, do you Oddy? There are no gravy trains. No one is calling up meteorologists and asking them to slant the data and I'll pay you a million bucks. They just collect the data that exists.

While Exxon/Mobile did spend a lot of money suppressing evidence of global warming back in the 80s, that money didn't go to scientists.

Seriously? How does one make money by publishing papers and extrapolating date. There is really no big money in it. I have never heard of a real scientist raking in the big bucks by falsifying data. Ever. Not one.

Please give me an example of meteorologist who made big money by making stuff up. A legitimate one, not some weird whack-job who believes in chemtrails, but somebody with some serious cred.

And how many scientists would have to paid off? You may not realize it but there are lots of them. Scientists, I mean. You would have to pay off essentially EVERY SINGLE METEOROLOGIST IN THE WORLD plus all their grad student assistants in order to create such a solid wall of evidence in support of global warming.

And are you aware that an important part of science is checking the other guys data? If you fake something--like the vaccines cause autism guy--you eventually get caught but lots of other people are looking at what you crank out and saying, hey, that looks wrong.

I know you have to believe ALL scientists are cheats who are being bribed by some mysterious person (Say, who is bribing the meteorologists? Do you think that the little solar and wind companies can afford to out bribe Big Oil? Because they would have to to buy their scientists.) in order to maintain your alternate reality but I want to ask you one thing.

What if those scientists are right? What if those 97% of reputable meteorologists are telling the truth and all those statistics are correct? What then?
Top
+3
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Seriously? How does one make money by publishing papers and extrapolating date.


Well, he did say something about GRANTS. Those things must be like printing money, or something.
Top
+2
-4
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 5 years ago
To me, it doesn't matter if the climate is changing due to natural or manmade causes. We still need to ACT to deal with it. And we know that fossil fuels are a finite resource so shouldn't we be looking at other kinds of energy production anyway? Shouldn't we be studying alternative energy sources that are cleaner than coal, gas, etc. just as good stewards of the Earth? I live in intermittent pea soup all winter caused by the geography, car exhaust, and industrial emissions in my area. We can't change the geography but that doesn't mean we can't improve the air.
Top
+5
-3
Posted by Dark Beer (+253) 5 years ago
Interesting article on how climate may impact agricultural in MT


http://billingsgazette.co...44e11.html
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Goddamn. I know this is an obvious statement, but... don't read the comments on that article.
Top
+1
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Reply to Amorette F. Allison (#365175)
Amorette F. Allison wrote:
You don't know much about people who work in science, do you Oddy?


As a matter of fact, I have spent the last 50 years being trained in science and working in science, surrounded by other scientists and engineers from numerous other fields. I know exactly how it works.

Professors live and die by how much grant money they can grub up and they will take it from whoever is politically correct. Grad students will do whatever it takes to get the committee to sign off on their dissertation or thesis. They can all be bought and they can be bought cheap. Add to that the fact that everybody in academia will conform to the prevailing Leftist group-think or they won't be around for long.

You, I'm sure, read a book one time and probably have heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson. But since you profess to be an expert on most everything, perhaps you can give me some lessons in the politics and financial implications of instituting carbon credit allocation scenarios and how your pal algore might have positioned himself to immensely profit from same.

You think there is no money or politics behind this? If you think this is a selfless crusade to save the World, you're a fool. What generates money? Manufactured reasons to panic. It's a story as old as history for Christ's sake. It's P.T. Barnum. It's the modern version of snake oil and you all are lining up to suck it up. Your all jumping out your a** over a natural cycle and are ready to build Stonehenge to keep the sun rising every morning.

Hilarious!
Top
+6
-4
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
NEVER read the comments in the Billings Gazette. If you think there are loonies on this site, you have no idea. The real whack jobs hang out in the BG comment section.:
Top
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Yeah, Bob....

I know it should have been "You're all jumping..."

Save it.
Top
+3
-2
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
I would love for you to tell us, Oddy, just what type of science you've "been around".
Top
+4
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
Grants are not bribes and they are not handed out. They are applied for, for specific research. And there are LOTS of people to be bribed if you want to convince 97% of the scientists and every single person who works in a field to lie. Plus they ALL have to be dishonest. And, as I said before, someone has to FUND those bribes. Lots and Lots and Lots and Lots and Lots of bribes. So who is doing the funding?

Sorry, not buying it. I do notice you are now admitting to global warming but are one of those who just hope it is purely natural.

Again, what if those 97% of meteorologists are honest? What if those scientists are right? Shouldn't we at least consider that.

Am I a scientist? No. But I know that I trust scientists a lot more than some anonymous quack on an internet site.

So, quick review.

1) Who is bribing all those scientists?
2) How are they bribing all those scientists?
3) Why are they bribing all those scientists?
4) Do you really believe ALL scientists are dishonest?
5) What if those scientists are honest and there results are accurate? Then what? Or do we just ignore it until it is too late. Which it probably already is?

I know your mind is nailed shut and your faith is your creed etc., etc, etc., but, like I did with the Brandied One, who finally gave up because he couldn't answer a few simple questions, I will keep asking.
Top
+4
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
97% is the biggest lie in the whole discussion. If you haven't figured out that yet, you are incapable of rational thought. Jesus. Every sentient being knows that things change. Only morans and profiteers make a religion of fear out of it.

Waste of time.

Geologists, Bob III. Thousands of them. Hydrologists, Petrologists, Paleontologists, Archaeologists, Metallurgists, Engineers of every kind, Geomorphologists, Geographers and even a few Meteorologists..

Most of whom do not believe any of the "man-caused, sky is falling" panic scenarios and the few that pretend they do are usually profiting from selling the snake oil..

Here's something that occurred to me.....

Haven't you ever noticed that the resident MT Tech grad and scientist, Gunnar is always absent from these discussions?

Other than to toss out some ad hominem snark or take shot or two at Republicans.

Which is it Gunnar? True believer or "denier"? Please...Share your take on the "97% of all scientists...." and "man-caused, end-of-times.."

Inquiring minds want to know....
Top
+1
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
Fifty years ago, ghastly blizzard. Today, rain. Nope, not global warming.
Top
+2
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
How do you profit from releasing data sets? I need to know so I can tell friends of mine who are actual scientists so they can rake that payola in.

I'm sorry. I can't help laughing as I imagine the guy from the Illuminati creeping into the freshman geology classes and saying, "Hey, kid, want to make a few bucks by making up easily reviewable data?" Smart kid would sell drugs first. More profit and more honorable.

Bribing thousands upon thousands of scientists to lie.

Nope, just can't see it. But then, I live in the real world.

Top
+3
-3
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17343) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#365205)
Oddjob wrote:
blah blah blah blah

Haven't you ever noticed that the resident MT Tech grad and scientist, Gunnar is always absent from these discussions?

Other than to toss out some ad hominem snark or take shot or two at Republicans.

Which is it Gunnar? True believer or "denier"? Please...Share your take on the "97% of all scientists...." and "man-caused, end-of-times.."

Inquiring minds want to know....


Meh....I see little point arguing with closed minds. I used to try to argue with Rick here, years ago, but I have smartened up.

Besides, its more fun taking shots at Republicans. Watching them implode over Trump has been the best thing so far about this election.

As for my opinion on climate change....I think my fellow geologists at the GSA say it pretty well.

http://www.geosociety.org...tion10.htm

I do think liberal policies such as carbon credits and Obama's moratorium on coal mining are over-reaching. As a moderate, I would like see something more like a revenue neutral carbon tax.

So there you have it. I hope it was worth it.
Top
+3
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 5 years ago
Good lord, look at all those geologists in on the take. FAT STAXS OF CASH YO!
Top
+3
-5
Top
+3
-2
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 5 years ago
Is it possible that my pal Oddjob the geologist has been sucking off the public teat?

Could it be that Oddjob is/was a common government employee???

Santa Claus isn't for realz????

The horrors!
Top
+2
-4
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 5 years ago
I'm sure all of Oddjob's liberal professors didn't teach little Oddjob to earn his own way in the private sector.
Top
+2
-1
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
Tomm, those links are old and discredited.
Top
+2
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
I knew there was a reason I have never been joined the GSA. I see it's where all the academics reside. The GS of Australia pulled their similar statement after a majority the membership objected to it. Won't happen with GSA as long as the grant-suckers are running the show. Figures that you would be a member.

Nope, Bob. Sorry to pee all over your "fantasy of the day", but the only time I ever worked for the government was when I spent a few years protecting the Free World from the Communist menace. Providing liberty and security for all of your classmates, so they were free to beat you up on the playground every recess.

I don't think the $87/month I got paid, contributed too big of a hardship on the taxpayer.
Top
+2
-2