Sciencescience

Fri Jul 5, 2019, 02:25 PM

The Truth About Global Warming

By climatologists Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. A Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The video lists other qualifications and positions held.


101 replies, 1052 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 101 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Truth About Global Warming (Original post)
Iron Condor Jul 5 OP
def_con5 Jul 5 #1
bernt-toast Jul 5 #3
def_con5 Jul 5 #4
bernt-toast Jul 11 #33
Lowrider1984 Jul 6 #6
oflguy Jul 6 #9
Lowrider1984 Jul 7 #27
oflguy Jul 7 #28
Lowrider1984 Jul 8 #29
oflguy Jul 8 #30
Lowrider1984 Jul 8 #31
Cold Warrior Jul 8 #32
oflguy Jul 11 #34
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #35
oflguy Jul 11 #36
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #37
oflguy Jul 11 #38
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #40
oflguy Jul 11 #42
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #44
oflguy Jul 11 #45
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #46
oflguy Jul 11 #47
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #48
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #49
oflguy Jul 11 #50
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #51
oflguy Jul 11 #52
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #53
oflguy Jul 11 #54
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #55
oflguy Jul 11 #56
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #57
oflguy Jul 11 #59
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #61
oflguy Jul 11 #62
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #65
oflguy Jul 11 #66
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #70
oflguy Jul 11 #76
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #79
oflguy Jul 11 #81
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #84
oflguy Jul 11 #85
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #86
oflguy Jul 11 #87
Cold Warrior Jul 12 #88
oflguy Jul 12 #89
Cold Warrior Jul 12 #90
oflguy Jul 12 #91
Cold Warrior Jul 12 #92
oflguy Jul 12 #93
Cold Warrior Jul 12 #94
oflguy Jul 12 #95
Cold Warrior Jul 12 #96
oflguy Jul 12 #97
oflguy Jul 11 #58
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #82
Cold Warrior Jul 5 #2
nolidad Jul 5 #5
oflguy Jul 6 #8
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #10
oflguy Jul 6 #11
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #12
oflguy Jul 6 #13
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #14
oflguy Jul 6 #15
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #17
oflguy Jul 11 #39
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #41
oflguy Jul 11 #43
oflguy Jul 6 #16
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #18
oflguy Jul 6 #20
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #22
oflguy Jul 6 #23
oflguy Jul 6 #7
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #19
oflguy Jul 6 #21
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #24
oflguy Jul 6 #25
Cold Warrior Jul 6 #26
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #60
oflguy Jul 11 #63
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #67
oflguy Jul 11 #68
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #71
oflguy Jul 11 #74
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #77
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #64
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #69
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #72
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #73
Cold Warrior Jul 11 #78
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #80
oflguy Jul 11 #75
SatansSon666 Jul 11 #83
oflguy Jul 12 #98
SatansSon666 Jul 12 #99
oflguy Jul 12 #100
SatansSon666 Jul 12 #101

Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2019, 02:49 PM

1. Thanks much

It's all modelling, not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 5, 2019, 03:28 PM

3. you realize that most all of physics is modeling, except the part where it's pure

mind-boggling mathematics, right?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bernt-toast (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 5, 2019, 03:36 PM

4. No i don't

The courses i Took in HS, and college were all experiments. Observation theory and experiment.

Calculating horsepower as an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 01:44 PM

33. oh, the math all works and you can see the results

but *how* things work ...for example, the "solar system" model of the atom... is just a model. Nobody knows for sure what an atom really looks like. Likewise, the photon started out modeled as a little particle, but then in other experiments it acted more like a wave, so now there is the wave/particle model, but nobody really knows what it is or looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 11:21 AM

6. And the "models" all ignore water vapor.

When questioned, the "scientists" say including water vapor would not be possible. It is too complex for the algorithm. That is like "modeling" a fire without accounting for an ignition source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lowrider1984 (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:03 PM

9. Saying what temperature it is without including the dewpoint

Is like looking at a picture frame without a picture.

You can more than double the heat content of air simply by adding more moisture to it.

Like you say, global warmers pretend water vapor does not exist when analyzing data. Their results are bogus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 7, 2019, 12:33 PM

27. Indeed, but don't try to point this out to them.

Their response will be to label you a "denier".

Their results are bogus, even BEFORE they start falsifying data to support their position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lowrider1984 (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 7, 2019, 07:21 PM

28. And then they want to tell us the earth has warmed 9 tenths of a degree in the last hundred years?

Give me a break

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 8, 2019, 09:34 AM

29. I remember back in the late 70s

all of the "scientists" were warning of the coming Ice Age caused by catastrophic Global Cooling!
Some of the loonies were proposing to spray granulated carbon all over the North and South Pole to encourage the melting of the ice caps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lowrider1984 (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 8, 2019, 09:57 AM

30. sssssshhhhhhhhhhh

Nobody is supposed to remember those days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 8, 2019, 09:58 AM

31. Oh, yeah.

Sorry, I forgot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lowrider1984 (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 8, 2019, 04:05 PM

32. Yet another Denier !Myth

Only a small minority of peer-reviewed articles predicted global cooling. On the other hand, a large segment of the popular media did.


https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:02 PM

34. skepticalscience.com

funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:18 PM

35. And you have a source that shows otherwise?

Or is it all just feeeeeelings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:25 PM

36. I don't give a shit

The conventional "wisdom" back then was we were headed for global cooling, no matter what your left wing propaganda says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:29 PM

37. Left wing propaganda??

So all you got is feeeeelings? Typical Conservative thought process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #37)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:46 PM

38. You better come up with an unbiased web site

If you want any creditability

You have already proved you don't understand significant figures and little to nothing about meteorology and psychrometric science.


Not to mention how NOAA gathers and manipulates data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:02 PM

40. Sigh. First you did not reference significant figures but rather the nonsensical significant numbers

Then you demonstrated a complete ignorance of statistics.

But since I “better” produce another source, ok. But it will simply demonstrate you did not even look at the link. The chart is drawn from an article in the Journal of the American Metrological Society.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

I know, I know. More “left wing propaganda “ and the U.N. put fluoride in our water to control our minds. I apologise that I can’t find something similar on Loudmouth Crowder or from the Failed Weatherman.



You could save yourself embarrassments like this if you just took the time to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #40)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:07 PM

42. Significant figures is not a hard concept to understand

Except for you

Your link does not work

There you go again, off on another crazy tangent about fluoride and the UN. Next you will say I said all NOAA people are UFO aliens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #42)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:15 PM

44. Significant figures yes; significant numbers, no

Link works fine for me. Takes around 30 secs to load the paper. Do you need help in following links on the internets?



If you can’t figure out how to follow the link, can you handle googling:

“Peterson myth global cooling” Don’t use the quotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:31 PM

45. You're on to me

I called a significant figure a number once.

Obviously I can't get anything past you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #45)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:35 PM

46. To anyone with the least knowledge of mathematics, that phrase would

“sound” incorrect immediately. But you still do not seem to understand a uniform distribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:46 PM

47. Thats your 4th admission of your ignorance

Wanna try for 5?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:58 PM

48. What a great response. Right up there with nyah, nyah, nyah!

Seriously, why don’t you stop embarrassing yourself? Just today, you have shown you did not even read before you responded. If you had, you would have known that the chart debunking the 1970s cooling myth did not originate from a website. But you know it’s all “left wing propaganda” because you feeeeel it is.

As to the UN reference, that was a conspiracy theory back in the 60s and 70s. Just like the current conspiracy theory that climate change scientists are all conspiring to fake research demonstrating man made climate change. So tell me, why do you believe one and not the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 05:40 PM

49. yeah, they just ignore water vapor.










Stop listening to the fucking loons.
Water vapor is also calculated as an absorber.. Do you want to see the section on that too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 06:02 PM

50. Do you have a point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 06:13 PM

51. "global warmers pretend water vapor does not exist when analyzing data"

Au contraire, mon ami.
They have thought an awful lot about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 06:49 PM

52. So what's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:11 PM

53. But, but, but his feeeeelings tell him differently

As you know, for Conservatives it’s all about feeeeelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #53)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:15 PM

54. You don't have a clue what Lowrider was talking about, do you?

And it is liberals that run their lives through their feelings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #54)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:22 PM

55. As when you just know (feel) the consensus in the 70s was global cooling

Despite the numbers. Feeeelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #55)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:28 PM

56. Thats what I thought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #56)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:32 PM

57. Because you listen to your feelings, rather than objectively examining the evidence

All you need to do is throw away your confirmation bias and look at the actual evidence. You may find evidence that supports opposing positions but you need to look at the sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #57)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:35 PM

59. Well, there is a bunch of psychobabble

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #59)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:38 PM

61. Well, thats what I get for trying to be polite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:40 PM

62. When you think you have figured out what lowrider was talking about, give it a try

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #62)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:46 PM

65. Why should I?

SS666 is handling it pretty well. I’m not a physical scientist, but rather a numbers guy — maths, stats, CS. Unlike you, I tend to comment on things I know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #65)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:49 PM

66. "A numbers guy"

who can't comprehend what significant figures are



You are both the same person anyway. You have the EXACT same kook agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:59 PM

70. Only a complete maths idiot would use the term significant numbers in lieu of significant figures

ot, more commonly, significant digits. And only an maths idiot would not understand the implications of iniform distributions on large datasets. But hey, the world is full of idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:09 PM

76. You just displayed your ignorance for the 5th time

going for 6th?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #76)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:13 PM

79. Nyah, nyah, nyah?

You need a new routine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #79)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:15 PM

81. Satan, if you know what significant figures are

For GODS sake explain it to him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #81)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:19 PM

84. Yes, explain to me SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS please

I believe 3 and 7 are significant numbers to the Christians.

And maybe we can both explain to our colleague what a uniform distribution is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:25 PM

85. Every time you say uniform distribution

You make a fool out of yourself

That's 6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #85)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:27 PM

86. Really? What do you think would be a uniform distribution of the numbers 0-9?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #86)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 10:40 PM

87. You never listen

Trying to teach you anything is like talking to a wall

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #87)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 07:53 AM

88. What? You don't like being on the receiving end of the little gotcha games you love to play?



So tell me, from a uniform distribution of the integers 0-9, what is the probability of a “6” being drawn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #88)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:08 AM

89. Nice diversion

You have no point other than to evade being spanked

I took great pains to explain to you how NOAA gathers and miniplates data.

You didn't listen to a thing I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #89)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:09 AM

90. I am simply attempting to instruct you on basic statistics

Something you seem painfully uninformed on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #90)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:13 AM

91. What does that have to do with NOAA and how they manupulate data?

Remember? That is the issue

Try to deal with reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #91)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:20 AM

92. Because, as I have repeatedly instructed you, rounding over a digit that is uniformly distributed

in very large datasets does not cause information loss in averaging. Your silly little example used a dozen or so data points. What would be the impact if using 100s of 1000s of data points.

So answer please. Drawing from a uniform distribution of the integers 0-9 what is the probability of drawing a “6”?

If you can’t answer, I’ll need to go into your typical schtick of “well, if you don’t know, I’ll just have to give you a hint.” How does it feel?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #92)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:28 AM

93. You just made a fool of yourself for the 7th time

Google significant figures

You never listened when I described how NOAA gathers data. They take numbers with fractions and round them off to the nearest whole number.

The product can be no more accurate than the data used, which means a tenth or a hundredth of a degree is insignificant.

(I can't believe I'm actually taking the time to explain this to you again)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #93)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:49 AM

94. And that rounding does not impact the average. Now, why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #94)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:54 AM

95. When you discard data (albiet data that is not accurate)

You always affect the product

Google significant figures PLEASE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #95)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:23 AM

96. I know very well what significant FIGURES (not NUMBERS) are

Google uniform distribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #96)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:43 AM

97. Google "I just made a fool of myself for the 8th time"

You know what I'm saying. You are too hard-headed to admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #55)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:34 PM

58. I was alive and aware back then

If you were breathing, you was probably stoned out of your mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #58)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:17 PM

82. I was in graduate school in the 70s and doing quite well, thanks

My drugs of choice have always been Tanqueray, JWB, and Cognac.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2019, 03:17 PM

2. Mark Levin? He might have well have appeared on Glenn Beck. Oh wait!!

Michaels is the primo hack for the fossil fuel industry.

Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/16/113717/oil-fueled-pat-michaels/) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases," two books skeptical of global warming and attempts to curtail greenhose gas emmissions. The books were published by the right wing think-tank Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1) ALEC advisor. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11310 and http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3558
https://exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

He has virtually no peer-reviewed articles but rather publishes but rather relies on the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute to publish his crap.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_J._Michaels_-_his_articles_and_papers

Not sure when the video was made but his comments about published models are simply wrong.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 5, 2019, 05:22 PM

5. Cheer up!

We are entering a grand solar minimum that may rival the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century!

Of course the left will blame it on fossil fules. The real culprit is that big ball in teh sky we call teh sun.

Abnormally low sunspot and other solar activity which is the main driver of our weather since the earth has had weather!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 08:56 PM

8. You attack Michaels and post the kook Hansen? Wow.

Scientists develop a computer model, then insert real data to test it. If the model is 700% off, they discard the model and go back to the drawing board.

"Scientists" that do not do this because they are making a living off fudged results are not scientists. They are scam artists.

This kind of scamming can last only so long. They have already been exposed by the real data, but the propaganda arm of the democratic party, called the mainstream media, refuses to report reality. In time, even they won't be able to cover for the United Nations and the IPCC.

You can attack Michaels all you want to, but you can't attack reality.

You do this all the time. You attack the interviewer rather than the expert being interviewed. It's really quite funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:20 PM

10. Hansen presented his three scenarios in 1989, not as an afterthought

“Scientists develop a computer model, then insert real data to test it.” Please do not continue to embarrass yourself! Historical data can be used to validate the model, but the model can also be parameterized with alternative scenarios that reflect multiple possibilities.

Micheals is a hack who has admitted that his income is derived from the fossil feul industry. Or do you claim that the numbers in my post are incorrect?

BTW, why are you bringing American political parties into a scientific discussion? It has no bearing on the science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:25 PM

11. Judging from the video, Michaels needs every penny he can get to spread the truth

Hansen is a kook who uses fudged and fake data. Problem is, they keep releasing him from jail.

But you do this every time. You attack an author of an article instead of the expert he interviewed, It really is funny.

You should watch the video before you attack who is on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:31 PM

12. When the author is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, yes.

Do you deny yet the numbers cited, because if you do, I am happy to supply more citations.

I’ll bet 50 years ago you would have been defending the “science” that showed smoking was not harmful. Those studies came from “scientists” in the pay of tobacco companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:34 PM

13. You can cite every fake number you want to

If you had the courage to watch the video, which you don't, you would know what I'm talking about.

Sorry fella, I've never smoked and have never defended smoking, but nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:43 PM

14. I watched the video

The only claim was that the average temperature rise from the 70s was minor, stopped during the late 90s, and was only started again by the El Niño. All of which have been refuted either as incorrect or as a misrepresentation by real science.

Please prove that the numbers relating to Michaels being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry are fake. Michaels himself has acknowledged this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:54 PM

15. You have already failed the test of significant figures

and i'm sure you don't remember my explanation of how NOAA measures and manipulates their data.

We never got around to discussing how drybulb data is almost useless.

I missed the part where Michaels endorsed Hansen, the kook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:03 PM

17. Again, you sadly demonstrate your complete ignorance of mathematics

And so, it’s “significant figures” now? Rewriting history? It used to be “significant numbers.”



But you still sadly do not understand why rounding over a uniform distribution with very large datasets does not affect the average and cling to the notion that your pathetic little example with a dozen or so data points makes some sort of “gotcha” point. Please take a math course.

You still haven’t come out and said that the numbers cited regarding Michaels take from the fossil fuel industry are false. Please do and I will be happy to elevate it to an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:53 PM

39. See? You just proved your ignorance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:06 PM

41. I have demonstrated to you why rounding over a uniform distribution

over a very large dataset does not impact averaging on that dataset. If you do not have enough mathematics to understand it, well that sounds like a personal problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 03:10 PM

43. Want to demonstrate your ignorance a third time?

Be my guest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 09:57 PM

16. "The only claim was that the average temperature rise from the 70s was minor, stopped during the

late 90s, and was only started again by the El Niño"

Why lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:04 PM

18. Please elucidate on the other points claimed by Michaels in the video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:08 PM

20. Sorry, you'll have to watch the video

nice try though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #20)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:10 PM

22. In other words, and as usual,

you got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:12 PM

23. Watch the video

Don't be such a coward

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 08:46 PM

7. How do they say it on Seinfeld?

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

I'm going to take a stab at it and say this guy has no hope of obtaining government grant money. He speaks too much truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:07 PM

19. Why does he need a paltry government grant?

He makes 100s of thousands from the fossil fuel industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:09 PM

21. Says you

doesn't matter anyway, as long as he speaks the truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:15 PM

24. I dont say so, he does

Again, “it doesn’t matter.” You would have been standing side by side with the many “scientists” in the pay of the tobacco industry saying they had scientific proof that tobacco was not harmful.

And no, his observations (they are not findings) are not supported by the data nor by the scientific community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:17 PM

25. See? I keep telling you to watch the video

I already debunked your tobacco claim

YOU DON'T LISTEN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 6, 2019, 10:29 PM

26. Telling me you don't smoke does not in any way debunk the claim

that you are of the mindset to believe any pseudo-science that comes along that fits your confirmation bias.

As I said, I have watched the video. Please state that Michaels’ income is not significantly derived from the fossil fuel industry and I will be happy to (as I have done with you in the past) elevate your statement to an OP and prove you wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:37 PM

60. Once, he argued with me for days saying that I didn't watch a video.

After I listed a bunch of things in the video from throughout it.
He still said I didn't watch it.
lmao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #60)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:42 PM

63. You are too much of a coward to watch or read anything telling the truth

As soon as you see who wrote the article or made the interview, you immediately launch into an attack on that person without knowing what the article or video said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:49 PM

67. You're projecting again.

You see a 15 minute video on a website and think you know more about climate models than the fucking people that program them.
You constantly get debunked and never see it or understand how.
You can't claim something as a fact, then when the fact is shown to be wrong, say "What's your point?"
Then you call me a coward for "not wanting to read or tell the truth."
Seriously.
It's fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #67)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:52 PM

68. You still have no point. How could you? You don't understand what Lowrider said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #68)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:01 PM

71. Lowrider.

Says "scientists" and "models" and a couple others with the quotes on them. Like they aren't real.
So was he saying "scientists" because they are fake scientists, or is he making fun of people that don't believe in what the fake scientists say?

That's why I replied to you, because you really actually do think that way.
So I showed you that what he said was wrong.

Now you know and can drop that whole "models and warmers don't think about H2O" bullshit you continue to spread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #71)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:06 PM

74. I'm amazed

You really don't know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:12 PM

77. But now YOU know.

What you continue to spread is wrong.

I don't care about the means to how it was achieved.
Whether I misread a post or did not reply directly to the poster, does not change the fact that you have a choice now.

You can be a coward, like you called me earlier, and ignore it like you claim I do.
or
You can understand it and see how it works and be really be "amazed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #60)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:43 PM

64. Particularly ironic when he criticised a chart linked to from a blog

without even going there to find out the chart is from a paper from the American Metrological Society. He just keeps doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 07:55 PM

69. Just trolling at this point.

He accused me of being like 3 different people at the same time.
Knowing how he likes to project, that probably means he is 3 different names on here.
He doesn't post as many bullshit OPs anymore though, can't really blame him. Runs out of the same lame debunked canards after 3 posts and it's just like arguing with A.I. after that.
Then the always wonderful, "blah blah blah" to know the conversation is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #69)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:03 PM

72. But you and I are the same poster, aren't we?

It’s all so confusing. I am (we are) in St. Pete Beach right now, so you (we) must be as well. I’ll see you (me) in Paris in a couple of weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #72)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:06 PM

73. ya, and me and nolidad too.

and some other dude that got banned or some shit.
Next he'll accuse me of being him.
lmfao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:12 PM

78. ...some other dude that got banned...

Was that Freedumbbell2001, i.e., “you really don’t want to argue the Bible with me” or the “LOL@the rapist NPC” guy? Freedumbbell was a lot of fun until he ran away and refused to discuss his holey book he thought he knew so well.



I do miss Nolidad’s Science posts, though. Since you are he, can you start those again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:14 PM

80. No, it wasn't him.

I can't remember now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #72)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:07 PM

75. You may as well be the same person

You both march in lock step to what the IPCC tells you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #75)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 08:17 PM

83. How?

When have I posted shit from the IPCC?
I've posted shit to debunk the lies you spread about what the research says. I don't think I've ever linked to IPCC. I don't need to.
Unless you think I'm someone else.
Who the fuck knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #83)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 06:38 PM

98. You don't need to post a single thing

You live your whole life based on the IPCC socialist agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #98)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 07:33 PM

99. You live your whole life putting people in boxes and assuming shit based on internet posts.

Posts you don't like because you disagree with them.
Especially when they constantly prove that you are as wrong as you can be about almost everything you post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #99)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:16 PM

100. Gee, you are gonna hurt my widdle fweelings

talking like that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #100)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:30 PM

101. Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience