Cultists just can’t help themselves
(Real Clear Politics) AL ROKER: Boston, as of this point, is at the #2 snowiest winter ever.Â
LARRY KING: Is this all part of climate change?Â
AL ROKER: I think it is. Look, you can’t point to any one event and say this is climate change, but what climate change opens the door for and allows for is — more extreme swings of weather. So, while you’ve got this ongoing drought out in California, you know there has been almost no snow pack — snowfall — in the Sierras, and it barely has rained. Yet you’ve go monumental forest fires, wildfires.
Here in the East you’ve got brutal cold, yet globally, January was the warmest month on record. All these swings that are happening, climate change makes that more possible.
You have to love the inclusion of the often used “you can’t point to any one event”, followed, as Warmists usually do, by then blaming “climate change” for the events. Could changes in climate have an effect? You betcha. But, what Warmists mean is that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the changes, all while refusing to give up their big “carbon footprints”.
Al Roker is a TV weatherguy, like Anthony Watts. You can safely ignore most of what they say.
Again “January is the warmest month on record” is stated without the temperature being mentioned. It would have been better if he had said
“January is the warmest month on record. (state temperature), breaking the previous record of (state temperature.)(state year).
The reason that he did not was that he does not know what the temperature is. He simply heard it on the news and repeated it without fact checking. Until he tells us different Jeffery also does not know the temperture ether. I assure you Anthony Watts knows the temperature for January.
The cold this winter may be because of AGW, or because the warm trend of the 1990’s has ended or ending and the earth is starting to cool. If so, then this summer likely will be a cooler one, then it was in the 1990’s, and if not, then this summer will likely be warmer. Let’ see.
And yet he’s wrong about almost everything.
Rather than use your superior knowledge (and Watts’) as a cudgel, why don’t you please enlighten us instead?
And while you’re at it, please explain why stating the Earth’s mean temperature is superior to using an anomaly.
so says the weather reporter who admitted to crapping in his pants
Climate trust her Pat Robinson says to be aware that second hand clothes may have demons bound to them and they must be driven out with prayer
Why do most climate truth ears believe in unicorns ?
Enlightenment is reserved to the open minded in search of the truth and denied to those that are close minded and claim to know it.
As stated to Jeffery several times already which means that he does not read my emails properly.
“The reason that we need the temperature is actual numbers instead of graphs is because they are intentionally misleading. They show 0 as the baseline for normal but do not tell you what normal is. Therefore you can not fact check a graph by simply taking today’s temperature and subtract the temperature from a past years to determine for yourself the rate, or lack of warming.
It would be nice to have a chart like 2000 14c / 2001 14.1/ 2002/14.2 etc…
I can’t find one can you?”
If climate change is true why is climate change promoters more transparent. Why was the warming hiatus or pause kept secret for years.
It would have not been possible to do this if the temperature was stated back in the 1990’s in real numbers.
Yes I have superior knowledge. I got it by being open minded and respectful to others not using words like cudgel, or screed.
I got it by not taking information at face value but by independent thinking and deduction. Not regurgitating the party line like “it’s been decided.”
I ask questions instead like “decided by who” Give me the names please?”
I am still waiting for Jeffery to:
Give us the temperature of the Arctic. now and before.
The earth’s temperature now and before.
The names of the scientists of meteorology that he respects.
To watch Easterbrooks presentation to get the other side of the story instead of claiming he knows it all. His questions of late shows otherwise.
I punctured his holier than thou worldview and he thanked my by telling me to go fuck myself. So he also owes me an apology.
The skill of not taking anything at face value is essential in the world of propaganda. You cannot enlighten the brainwashed. However, I am still hopeful in Jeffery’s case.
I apologize if you took offense at something I typed. I take offense at your repeated falsehoods. In addition I question your motives.
Your argument about absolute temperature is not persuasive, sorry.
Do you Deny that the Earth’s surface is warming? How about the oceans? Is the Arctic sea ice melting? Are the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting?
I can tell you what climate scientists and climate charlatans whose proclamations I do not trust: Easterbrook, Watts, Soon, Curry, Muller, Legates, Pielke,Jr., Monckton, and the climate liars at ClimateAudit, ClimateDepot, Hockey Schtick, anyone from Heartland Inst, Singer, the Idso’s, Spencer, Baliunas, D’Aleo, Lomborg, Peiser, McIntyre, McKitrick, Lindzen, the GOP, and talking heads Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity et al.
I suspect I read more skeptic nonsense than you read climate science, and just because I reject your nonsense doesn’t mean I haven’t considered it. But it’s still nonsense. Don Easterbrook may be dishonest or he may be an ignorant old man the believes the nonsense, but in either case he is wrong.
I know the reason that climate science uses temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperatures to express the differences in temperature. You don’t seem to understand.
Certainly it’s understandable that you are frustrated that most people disagree with your stance.
And when I said you had superior knowledge, I was mocking you. It’s clear that you believe you do, but there is scant evidence to support your claim.
Dear Jeffery:
Thank you for the apology. I want you to know I appreciate it.
It seems from your list that there is a lot of scientists that do not believe in AGW.
Googling, “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.”
brings up even more. A lot with some great pedigrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
The question though still remains. Who DO YOU trust? I am still waiting for that.
In all my discussions I never refer to any authority other than NASA, NOAA or the British Met office. (Easterbrook only in my discussions with you.)
The reasons is that warmers would only dismiss the evidence out of hand as they would not trust the source.
Also NASA, NOAA, IPCC and the European satellite agencies, are the only ones with access to the satellite data.
Everyone else relies on proxy evidence and therefore are not as reliable.
>Your argument about absolute temperature is not persuasive, sorry.
Do you really expect me to believe in AGW without knowing the temperature? The question is why are you willing too believe without knowing the temperature?
>Do you Deny that the Earth’s surface is warming? How about the oceans? Is the Arctic sea ice melting? Are the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting?
The question you are really asking is: “Is the earth warming as a result of human activity”
Is the earth warming? Yes, of coarse slightly, over the years as a result of the earth coming out of an ice age. Is it because of AGW? I don’t know. What is the temperature? Is the temperature abnormal to the rate of warming that would occur as a result of coming out of an ice age? Is it warming now? If they were honest they would say no one knows for sure. The increase is so small as to be in the margin of error.
In the 1990’s we were told constantly that the earth has warmed more in the last half the 20th century than the first half. It stood to reason it was because of the large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1945.
Then the warming slowed. Then the warmers changed their tune and said that you cannot look at a short period of time, you had to look at the long term trend. A point they sloughed off in the 1990’s.
Do I believe that CO2 is currently 400ppm. Yes. Why? Because I was told what the amount is and I can independently verify it. (hard number)
How about the oceans. NASA says no. According to their website, they think it might be as a result of the pollutants China is adding into the atmosphere that are being absorbed into the oceans, keeping them cool when they should be warm. Skeptics say it is the cooling of the Sun. So does James Hansen. But regardless NASA say no at the moment.
>Is the Arctic sea ice melting? Are the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting?
Answer: NASA say the Arctic currently not melting. 2007 to 2012 yes. 2012 to now, no. Nasa says Antarctic sheet ice and Greenland sheet ice currently melting. Antarctica land ice is at 35 year high.
>I know the reason that climate science uses temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperatures to express the differences in temperature. You don’t seem to understand.
That is correct. I do not understand. They can also supply real temperatures as well. Why don’t they?
I know why IPCC does not, as well as the media. To cover up the fact that the temperature is warming very very slowly or has stopped compared to climate model predictions. They don’t want the public to say, “What’s the big deal.”
***Bottom line, people can argue all day long about whether the ice is melting or the earth is warming or not. They can’t about C02 emissions. ***
The only way to end the debate is to give us the hard numbers, then the facts are there to accept or dismiss.
Give us the hard number temperatures for every year since 1985 when satellite monitoring began.
>Certainly it’s understandable that you are frustrated that most people disagree with your stance.
I was frustrated but now it seems I run into more non-believers than believers. It certainly seems the public are engaged in passive resistant at it’s best. It a carbon tax was introduced in the U.S. in a referendum would it pass? I’m not sure.
>And when I said you had superior knowledge, I was mocking you. It’s clear that you believe you do, but there is scant evidence to support your claim.
More evidence than you have supplied which up unto now is absolutely none. No links, no temperature, no authoritative references to your claims. Absolutely none. WHY?
As for superior knowledge on this topic if any reasonable unbiased person read our discussions would they for a moment choose your knowledge over mine?
I’d like to put it to a vote.
I am not saying you are not smart. Just that you have not supported any of your claims whatsoever. A while ago you said the the Arctic temperature has doubled. Ok. I am open minded to that. But you have to back it up.
Why are skeptics, skeptics. Some just don’t want deal with the heavy hand off government that they think will occur if climate change is real. Others like me see red flags that suggest we are being lied too.
I am foremost a history buff, and I am not naive to think our governments do not lie to us. History tells us different. But this ones is a doozy, and I do not want precious government revenue channeled away to bureaucrats who have learned how to game the system for personal gain.
You question my motives. That is a very legit question. I will try to answering in another email soon.
Regards
Phil