Are These Guys Lying?

[mikegideon]

NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

[Garufa]

Who knows anymore? However, I would tend to listen to NASA scientists over a bunch of gun forum posters when it comes to such matters.

Then again it might be part of the Al Gore/Obama plot.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Garufa

[Guest bkelm18]

Well, Global Warming is a known fact, the point of real contention is what is causing it. Is it us or just the natural cycle of the planet?

[buck1032]

I dont know. These days if they are in any part of the Gobberment, if thier lips are moving.... well they probably are lying. LOL

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep.

Hansen's a bought and paid for global warming queer.

[mikegideon]

Well, Global Warming is a known fact, the point of real contention is what is causing it. Is it us or just the natural cycle of the planet?

Couldn't possibly be us

http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/earth_2.jpg

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, Global Warming is a known fact, the point of real contention is what is causing it. Is it us or just the natural cycle of the planet?

Don't make a claim that global warming is a fact unless

you can prove it and what it is. There is kind of concensus

about the concept of global warming. Before that, there

was a concensus about the concept of global cooling.

Ther are no facts, only that the climate seems to change.

Imagine that. Just because Gore says "the debate is over"

doesn't mean anything. There are no other facts about

global warming because it is just a concept that has been

given a name. That's also why some those guys were

starting to use another name "climate change". How

original. A piece of fiction, but well documented, is

"State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton. He wove a plot

around the folly of the warming crowd.

[gregintenn]

Stick your head out the window and form your own opinion.

[Kelemvor]

I wish it would globally warm up around here already. I'm tired of freezing my ass off every morning on the way to class.

[Guest bkelm18]

Don't make a claim that global warming is a fact unless

you can prove it and what it is. There is kind of concensus

about the concept of global warming. Before that, there

was a concensus about the concept of global cooling.

Ther are no facts, only that the climate seems to change.

Imagine that. Just because Gore says "the debate is over"

doesn't mean anything. There are no other facts about

global warming because it is just a concept that has been

given a name. That's also why some those guys were

starting to use another name "climate change". How

original. A piece of fiction, but well documented, is

"State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton. He wove a plot

around the folly of the warming crowd.

I'm not going to debate it. Scientific evidence is in abundance. You can refuse to believe in it since that seems to be the "in" thing to do, but I'm a man of science and I'm educated enough to know up from down. I never said WE are causing global warming, just that the fact that the climate is changing has been known for some time now.

[Hgunner]

The climate changes what 4 times a year Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall.

Global warming or cooling has more to do with the cycles of

the sun than anything man could do. I think its awful damn arrogant

of us to think we can control and change nature and natural occurences.

[oldogy]

just that the fact that the climate is changing has been known for some time now.

Yep, since long before records have been kept. But the overeducated power hungry fools we have running the country would have us believe it is something new and all our fault.:D.....Just give us enough money and we'll not do something about it.

oldogy

[Garufa]

I think its awful damn arrogant

of us to think we can control and change nature and natural occurences.

In turn, I think it's mighty arrogant to think that Humans do not have an impact on the planet.

[Hgunner]

In turn, I think it's mighty arrogant to think that Humans do not have an impact on the planet.

Oh I think we have an impact especially when it comes to

polllution. But to stop developing our resource resposibly

and claiming that we are causing climate change is rediculous.

The climate of this planet has gone from hot to cold to hot again

even before man walked upon it. Global warming is nothing but

a scam developed to take more of your money and freedom and

promote big brother goverment.

[Mike.357]

climate change is about money.

Near as I can tell the climate of earth is is constant flux, always has been and always will be. I doubt we can kill the planet. Maybe human life here can be killed but this place will be around for a long time.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wasn't trying to argue. It is only known that there is a

concensus, not any of it is a scientific fact. That's all I

meant. The name and concept has changed several times.

Hard science does not support it, only consensus does.

There is another science attached to it: political science.

[mcurrier]

I'm not going to debate it. Scientific evidence is in abundance. You can refuse to believe in it since that seems to be the "in" thing to do, but I'm a man of science and I'm educated enough to know up from down. I never said WE are causing global warming, just that the fact that the climate is changing has been known for some time now.

No... believing it is the in thing to do. The so-called 'global warming' scientists admitted in the past three weeks or so that the data was cooked and that there was a huge conspiracy (politically motivated) proven by email trails. It has been officially debunked by real science that there has actually been a cooling trend since 1995.

I would trust NOAA wayyyyyyyyyyyy before I would ever believe a word that NASA said. NASA has political motivation, NOAA does not.

I guess all of those blizzards over the past three weeks were caused by global warming. Yeah... Righhhhht.

[Smith]

I think it just goes to show that the more we know the more we realize how little we know. Thing about science is that it is constantly correcting and adjusting what it "knows"..... if it is honest. Things always change but to ascribe us as being able to create or destroy something that we can not control is the height of arrogance. I would be happy if we could stop just one devastating Tsunami, one 8.8 earthquake, or even one Hurricane. You know I'd be happy if we could just predict one of these things. To think we can predict what will happen in 100 years from now when we can't predict current events seem backwards.

NASA has some sharp guys, but they have shown they make many miscalculations. Thats not a knock on them just the nature of the beast.

[TMMT]

Yes they are lying.

First off the study is based on the GISS surface temp analysis which its self is flawed because they not only cherry picked the reporting stations they used in the model, but these cherry picked reporting stations were located extremely close to areas affected by what is called Urban Island Heating Effect. Some of the sensors were actually physically located within twenty five feet of such places as huge parking lots, highway over passes made of asphalt. And one famous picture of a reporting sensor was taken showing it located next to some type of metal recycling factory complete with two massive melting smelts.

Next if you look deeper and do a search for Met Office Hadley Centre, you will find that NASA cooperated with these guys and shared many computer models and computer model programming projects in the past. And alot of the data is based on these models.

Further digging will reveal a nice fat link between The Hadley Center and the IPCC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And there's nothing wrong with believing in it or not.

That one questions something is at the beginning of

scientific inquiry. One would just expect more honest

inquiry from the authors of that data than we get.

It just seems true scientific inquiry is hard to find

with the global warming crowd. I've seen this stuff

since the seventies change more than the climate

has.

[DWARREN123]

Global climate change has been going on since day one, before people and will continue to do so after people are no longer around.

The earthquake in Chile has caused the days to be "possibly" shorter, you can not blaine this on people, it has happened in the past and will do so in the future.

[mikegideon]

Who knows anymore? However, I would tend to listen to NASA scientists over a bunch of gun forum posters when it comes to such matters.

Then again it might be part of the Al Gore/Obama plot.

[molonlabetn]

It all depends on how, where, and with what precision you take the data...

Surface data tells one story, lower atmosphere analysis tells another, upper atmosphere tells another, and ocean temperatures another. Naturally anyone wanting to make a point will choose the set of data which supports their theory. When it all comes down to it, the other planets in the solar system are experiencing similar fluctuations, and the accuracy of temperatures NASA did not log themselves or repeat is of questionable precision anyways... plus, when a single volcanic eruption can put a spike in the chart orders of magnitude larger than the standard deviation, I get skeptical of the accuracy of a loosely supported trend which has only been tracked for a very small portion of what is obviously a much larger, complex, natural cycle.

Basically, I believe that NASA put out good data... and I believe them when they imply that they can't attribute their findings to anything in particular. They'll be taking data for a long time after I am dead before a true cycle or trend emerges.

[Mark@Sea]

I'd love to post links, but haven't found a way to do that with a cellphone. TMMT covered it pretty well, though.

AGW (man-caused global warming) isn't a Theory. It is a hypothesis which has been repeatedly shown to not match the data. The biggest reason that hadcru AND NASA ignored FOIA requests is that the data they were using was clearly cooked - cherry picked, 'adjusted', and slanted toward supporting their hypothesis. The other excellent reason for them to not share raw data and methods is that even using faked temperature data, the hypothesis falls apart. Results can't be repeated by others except by using their computer model - which has been demonstrated to give the same results no matter what the input.

Scientific method does not operate by concensus. A hypothesis is made, tests are devised to determine if it matches the real world, and if it does, it becomes a theory. It is critical that the data, methods and results can be duplicated by others.

None of this holds true with anthropogenic global warming.

Conclusion? These people are snake oil salesmen, hoping to shut the sceptical up through peer pressure, funding pressure, and fear of the mob.

[Mark@Sea]

Postscript: Warmest year on record? Historical record is plain that during the mideival warm period, vinyards were grown in northern England. Raw temperature data from the modern era still shows the 1930's to be the warmest. If the brits start growing grapes, and the dustbowl comes back, I will believe it's getting warmer. Until then, it's plainly a case of "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? ".