Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	More proof of Globaloney and NOAA manipulation
Date:	12/28/2015 11:05:02 AM

Yet another good study of the lengths to which NOAA is going to manipulate the data to try to explain away the hiatus in warming over the last two decades.  Here is a good summary:

"While satellite records have shown no global warming for at least 18 years, the land based data sets like the ones maintained by NOAA for the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) continue to show a warming trend. One reason for this discrepancy, the study suggests, is that NOAA has been cherry-picking its raw data. That is, it has ignored the evidence from those weather stations showing little or no late Twentieth century warming and instead placed undue emphasis on the ones that do show warming. But the ones that do show warming also happen to be the least trustworthy. These are the ones, the study shows, which have been most corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect — and other environmental factors."

This is yet another example of why our government cannot be trusted to be objective.  Manipulating data, ignoring data and hiding data are all too common when it comes to this issue.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	More proof of Globaloney and NOAA manipulation
Date:	12/28/2015 12:24:22 PM

Which right wing newsletter did you cut and paste this from? You are the cut n paste king with no reference to where it originates or maybe, just maybe, you wrote and posted it? It is like shooting duckies in a swimming pool dealing with your cut n paste posts. Now, is this hi jacking or bickering? 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bickering, I guess......
Date:	12/28/2015 12:55:05 PM

I applaud you for staying on topic....for a little while at least.  First of all, I of course got this information from a conservative website.  Do you really think the govt media is going to cover this?!?!?  Anyway, here is the original paper which was summarized in my post.  If you can explain why we should discount the satellite data in favor of land-based measurements in urban areas I am all ears.  Only with globaloney would you prefer the worst and most biased data set over data obtained from a satellite.  So fire away GF, I wait with bated breath to hear your scientific refutation of this study.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/agu-poster-watts-website-release.pdf

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	More proof of Globaloney and NOAA manipulation
Date:	12/28/2015 1:10:16 PM

How do you account for the national weather?  Just a chance weather pattern?  I am asking this honestly, because I am not a scientist and have no idea whether global warming exists or not. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Good question
Date:	12/28/2015 1:34:02 PM

The current weather pattern we are seeing is caused by a natural phenomenon called El Nino.  You can google it and will be inundated with stories about this natural event.  Usually we will also see a lot precip in the southwestern U.S., especially California, in the months of December through March.  So watch for mudslides and flooding in that part of the country over the next several months.  Be wary of the climate nutjobs that try to connect this with global warming.  No evidence to suggest there is any relationship but that doesn't stop them from trying.  Here is a good summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/science/understanding-el-nino.html?_r=0

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Good question
Date:	12/28/2015 1:45:04 PM

Of course I am familiar with El Ninyo.  I don't totally discount the concept of global warming, but if it exists, I don't think man caused it or can change  it. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Good question
Date:	12/28/2015 2:22:01 PM

OK, I may have misunderstood your question.  No doubt we have climate change, always have and always will.  And you are right, nothing we do in the U.S. will change anything especially given what we know countries like China, India, Russia, etc. will do which is essentially nothing.  Anyway, the current weather pattern we are seeing is being caused by El Nino and has nothing to do with man. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	More proof of Globaloney and NOAA manipulation
Date:	12/28/2015 2:31:36 PM

Says MM as he sits in his plush office in Dec 28 with the AC on because it is 75 degrees outside.  Of course the preceding statement is as stupid as those posted on this site to deny climate warming every time it gets colder than normal for a couple of days in the winter.  Folks we have "weather" and "climate" and they are not the same!

The claims that there is no warming in recent years is based on a study that used the warmest year on record to that time as a baseline. This year (unless something DRASTIC happens before Friday) will be the warmest on record and last year 2d.  Both were warmer than that base year while the average of years since that baseline have not exceeded it.

when it comes to climate and weather I think it makes sense to listen to the scientists instead of the politicians or MM!

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Oxymoronic statement archie
Date:	12/28/2015 3:04:42 PM

Cuz MM is a scientist. What you meant was only listen to scientist that receive direct enrichement via govment largesse for perpetuating the fraud. If it is so blatantly obviuos that it is happening why do we constantly hear about manipulation and fraudulent data?

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archimbocile
Date:	12/28/2015 4:01:57 PM

Tell us something.....why did the liberal global warming believers suddenly drop the "global warming" term in favor of the current term "climate change".  Please provide all the references you like, just leave off your usual meaningless BS.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	I don't know Wix
Date:	12/28/2015 4:19:06 PM (updated 12/28/2015 4:30:47 PM)

Obviously you are 2d only to His Arrogance in intellectual capacity so you tell me.  Of course you're very question brings into focus the question in your mind that perhaps the climate is changing...well that change is on average toward warming.

As for listening only to the scientists that have been bought by the Feds...give me a break, the feds are pretty intrusive but even they cannot buy off as many as the oil companies could should they choose to do so.  Fact is, today most of the oil Producers own scientists are among the 97%.  Now that is an "oxymoronic" fact!

In the end I may be wrong and you may be right.  If l am wrong but am perceived as right and something is done to cut carbon emissions we will overall be better off.  If you are wrong but perceived as right and nothing is done we are overall screwed!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Had to look against my better judgment
Date:	12/28/2015 4:30:36 PM

You never fail to disappoint with your abject stupidity. First of all, I am a scientist and have been since I got my BSc in geology and MSc in geophysics 30 years ago and spent those three decades working in the field.  Secondly, the study I referred to was done by climate scientists and they rightly pointed out NOAA's embarrassing attempt to hide the truth about the pause in warming. No one was talking about weather here.  It's only the alarmists that rush to the cameras every time we have a warm spell or a hurricane. Finally, I note you had zero of value to add to the discussion about whether the satellite data is more reliable than ground stations in urban areas when it comes to global climates. I recall all the fanfare from proponents of ACC about how wonderful the new satellite data was going to be in finally accurately measuring global climates.....until the data showed otherwise.  

What it really comes down to is you are a true believer and are OK with their silly attempt to discredit the best data we have available.  I don't discount the possibility that man-made CO2 can influence the climate but given all we know today only a fool or someone with an intense desire to keep the money train flowing would be willing to accept the issue as settled.  Since I doubt you are in the latter category it must be the former.  NOAA scientists are no more credible to me than any other, and less so because if they were really good scientists they would be working in the private sector. We work with them all the time and most are mediocre at best.  But hey, believe away.  You are in the minority in this country despite decades of indoctrination in this scam. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Had to look against my better judgment
Date:	12/28/2015 4:39:32 PM (updated 12/28/2015 4:41:29 PM)

Hey MM, stupid is as stupid does abjectly or otherwise.  I may be wrong in the final analysis, but l am not in the minority.  Obviously, you have a selective bias in the polls you believe similar to the science you believe.  The 97% of the climate scientists who believe the earth is warming are not limited to those working or the NOAA.  It includes those working for exxon and BP too!  An inconvenient truth.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Lord Christopher Monckton all you need to know
Date:	12/28/2015 6:07:30 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cssne9Q5KM

Name:	Woodrow -	Reply
Subject:	I don't know Wix
Date:	12/28/2015 7:20:27 PM

Arch -- I know you didn't see this, but I'm here to help. You're welcome.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archimbocile
Date:	12/28/2015 7:59:01 PM

Are you incapable of figuring out the motives of Exxon, BP, etc. employee "climatologists"?  Don't you think it would be in the best interests of the natural gas producers to lie and support "global warming" caused by burning coal?  Can you see a profit motive there, or are you really that out of touch with reality?  Please respond!!!!!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Wiximbecile
Date:	12/29/2015 8:14:41 AM (updated 12/29/2015 8:27:03 AM)

Are you incapable of even considering any fact, scientific or otherwise, which is not in alignment with your political bias?  Are you incapable of considering that at least a few of the T-party, rightwing jack leg politicians and talking heads might be as beholden an "unwholesome" agenda as their leftist counterparts.  If you want the scientific truth you will not find it in politics or political commentary. 

There is very likely a profit motive behind big oil's embrace of climate change to the extent it might discourage coal burning (surely even you can recognize that burning less coal will be good for the air) and encourge natural gas (not as good as wind, solar or nuclear but a he// of a lot better than coal).  That same motive does not neccessarily color their own scientist's opinions.  You see, Wixie Poo, scientists have a much higher concern for ethics than you and any typical politician.  Besides, why are you suddenly concerned with the future of big coal...are you a miner??

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmm
Date:	12/29/2015 8:53:11 AM

Archy..............you sure seem to be one angry dude............go ahead and take another one of them white pills, it'll make you feel soooo much better!

Happy New Year.............

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Had to look against my better judgment
Date:	12/29/2015 8:58:58 AM

Who are the 3% of scientists so out of touch with globaloney?  What facts are they dealing with?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Yes, burning coal is horrible
Date:	12/29/2015 9:03:34 AM

I mean look at what it did to gypsum mining! You see Archie, since the 70's we have been installing scrubbers that clean the discharge air of pollutants. WE do this Archie, not the rest of the world where coal is cheap and plentiful. They just burn it and laugh at us. 

A byproduct of the scrubbing process is the production of gypsum. So much so that APCO can barely give it away. You being an architect I'm sure you know what gypsum is and its importance to the building trade. For those that may not know, gypsum is the main ingredient in sheetrock!

Name:	Woodrow -	Reply
Subject:	More proof of Globaloney and NOAA manipulation
Date:	12/29/2015 9:43:39 AM

Arch -- Something else to consider.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I can't believe you used the 97% malarkey
Date:	12/29/2015 10:20:56 AM

Stupid truly is as stupid writes.  That so called poll has been totally discredited.  Basically they did a poll of climate scientists that believe in globaloney and surprise, surprise, 97% of them agree.  That it wasn't 100% is truly amazing.  That statement is pure fiction and I recommend you at least read some of the research that examined this so-called poll to see how truly stupid it was. At this point the only ones who quote that poll are celebrities, politicians and those in the public that are gullible and scientifically illiterate.  Even in my industry where a lot of firms make money providing clients with climate change consulting services more than half the CEOs do not think man is causing climate change.

You have to ask yourself, if its such a slam dunk then why hide data?  Why eliminate your best data?  Why don't the models come even remotely close to reality?  Why threaten scientists that are skeptical with prison? As I said earlier, you have to either be a fool or in it for the money to not be skeptical.  Back on ignore Archie.  You are completely incapable of intelligent discourse.  Sigh....

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Don't confuse him with reality
Date:	12/29/2015 10:24:22 AM

It hasn't worked with the abject failure of big government liberalism and it won't with this information.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Stupid reply from MM...yet again
Date:	12/29/2015 1:34:56 PM (updated 12/29/2015 1:46:55 PM)

My response was on two separate claims.  first you said that those who Accept global warming are in the minority.  That is absolutely not correct.  Every poll from a reputable polling organization without bias has shown a large majority believe that the earth is warming and almost as large a majority believe it is man made to some degree.  This is In spite of the efforts of the deniers such as MM and those of similar politically based bias to discredit fact.

l then mentioned the 97%...if you are trying to get the concensus on the science of climate who would you suggest be questioned...astronomers, archeologists, chemists?  Oh, I know let's ask the creationists!  I am probably wrong, but I think I would approach the climatologists first.  Now, you really are smoking something if you are trying to peddle a claim that the only scientists polled about where they stood on climate change were those who had already expressed an opinion supportive of change.  Reference just one unbiased and creditable source for this claim...note: Lush Windbag is not a creditable source!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	You know Woodrow
Date:	12/29/2015 1:58:10 PM (updated 12/29/2015 2:00:19 PM)

I would not depend on Michael Moore to provide an untainted opinion on this subject.  Perhaps you should not be so accepting of input from Tucker Carlson.

There have been models which predicted greater temperature rises than occurred and there have been models which predicted lower rises than occured...bottom line is ALL predicted a rise.

Now here are several verifiable facts...2015 will be recorded as the warmest year globally since records have been kept, 2014 will be the 2d warmest, the last 10 years have been the overall warmest 10 years since records have been kept and the 14 warmest years on record have occured within the last 20 years.  

To to be sure, leaders can claim it is all a lie...a bit like 16th century when the leaders claimed such about the findings of Galileo!

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Slow down Archy baby......
Date:	12/29/2015 4:29:39 PM

Looks like you just had a personal control failure in the three posts above.  Slow down.  The whole world is not caving in around you.  This is only a forum where we share opinions.  You WILL survive this crisis........maybe.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Slow down Archy baby......
Date:	12/29/2015 6:21:08 PM

Don't you fret Wixie Poo.  I am doing fine but computers do strange things when your office internet craps out just as you are clicking send.  Even my posts that say nothing make more sense than yours filled with rants and nonsense.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Case in point
Date:	12/29/2015 6:30:35 PM

Poll from Quinnipiac University*

"Should the next president support policies to combat climate change?"

                            YES           NO

ALL......................69%          23%

DEM.....................91%           4%

IND......................70%          22%

REP!!!!!.................47%          44%    MM, even your fellow Republicans are not on board with the nut-job wing!!

* The Quinnipiac Polling operation is a highly respected and non-biased polling organization that often slightly overstates republican support due to its internals and methodology.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	I can't believe you used the 97% malarkeyi
Date:	12/29/2015 7:22:14 PM

Cat got your tongue?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Once again Woody
Date:	12/30/2015 9:24:47 AM

You should not go to a blog with a political bias (left or right) for untainted info, and you should not base your climate change thinking on what a physics professor says.  If you want to know something about quantam mechanics would you ask a climatologist?

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	NO, NO, NO
Date:	12/30/2015 10:44:01 AM

"If you want to know something about quantam mechanics would you ask a climatologist?"  No, I would ask MM or one of his puppets like Wixxxie or Hodgieee. I am of the opinion that MM is sneaking a peek when no one is looking and reading Archie's posts. Shame on you MM. If you can't be believed about reading Archie's posts, how can you be believed about Global Warming? After all, the President certainly knows more than you do about Global Warming with his access to all the government research. Your conspiracy theories may work with your puppets but certainly not with free thinkers.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Not at all
Date:	12/30/2015 4:25:21 PM

Archie, you and I are talking apples and oranges.  When I use the term globaloney I am talking about the whole package (ACC/AGW, carbon exchanges, taxes, wealth transfer to 3rd world countries, etc.).  If this were such a big issue in this country you would think people would actually care.....yet they don't and for good reason.  List of top 10 issues of concern to Americans from recent Gallup poll.  Don't see climate change?  

1. Economy

2. Education

3. Health Care

4. Social Security and Medicare

5. Poverty

6. National Defense

7. Crime

8. Taxes

9. Distribution of wealth

10. Energy policy

The closest globaloney comes is at number 12 when lumped into the category of environment, which covers a lot more than just the man-caused climate change hoax.

As for your 97% comment, let me explain so you will understand.  First of all, you do know that there is no such thing as a degree program for climatologists, right?  So people out there claiming to be one actually have a degree in some other science program like meteorology, physics, geology, geophysics, etc.  So what you basically have is a poll of people who have self proclaimed themselves to be climatologists.  And where do you think 99.9% of the funding to climatologists come from?  You guessed it, the study of man-made climate change.  Now if you poll a group of scientists that are being paid to study man-made climate change what percentage of them would you expect to think it is happening?  You are so naive when it comes to these things.

This is a hoax and the last 20 years with no warming while CO2 is being pumped out in exponentially greater quantities ought to be enough to give any person with half a brain, even if they were a true believer, the sense to acknowledge that before we do anything drastic that will lower the standard of living, especially for the poor, we ought to rethink this theory.  As I said, I am open to the possibility but think there is way too much scientific doubt to make any policy decisions.  You scientifically illiterate are being led around by the nose by hucksters like Algore, politicians looking for an excuse to raise taxes and whorish scientitsts looking for that next research grant.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Bickering Again
Date:	12/30/2015 4:42:24 PM

I'm throwing in the "bickering flag".  Y'all went from a good discussion down to bickering.  Time to agree to disagree.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	What degrees do so called climatologists have?
Date:	12/30/2015 5:44:16 PM

There is really no such thing as a climatology degree. It is in atmospheric science, meteorology, etc.  Look at college programs for Climatology and you'll see what I mean.  The vast majority of self proclaimed climatologists have degrees in a variety of fields. I would,note that more than half of degreed professional meteorologists do not believe in ACC. But hey, what do they know about stuff like the weather......well maybe it's because they know how hard it is to predict the weather next week, let alone fifty years from now.  We get that you have bought this hoax hook, line and sinker. You are not alone.  Many of the scientifically illiterate do.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Who made you referee?
Date:	12/30/2015 5:49:50 PM

We like to bicker.  But I would agree that we have to agree to disagree. No amount of facts, logic and reason can penetrate the false religion of globaloney.  If you are going to throw the flag I demand to see a picture of you in the striped shirt.  Just be advised that referees are instructed to run off the field as soon as the game is over lest they be accosted by unhappy players,,coaches and fans. By the way, have a happy new year and note that Hillary is doing overly well with women in polls. I will be collecting on our bet, even if she loses.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM why are you unable to separate subjects?
Date:	12/30/2015 6:37:06 PM (updated 12/30/2015 6:38:42 PM)

In your post "Had to look against my better judgement" you go through one of you typical "I am smart and you and everybody that does not agree with me 100% is stupid" rants which ends with the claim that those who accept global warming "are in the minority."

Try to follow now...that is one of your claims that I refuted and presented the latest Quinnipiac polling as evidence in my post "Case in point." You statement is not correct, but what else in new.

Hound is correct, this has degenerated into bickering and I will have nothing else to say.  You continue to believe whatever you want and I, along with most Americans, will continue to believe what is backed by facts!

Happy New Year!  I hope it cools off soon!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Who made you referee?
Date:	12/30/2015 9:52:45 PM

No one appointed me referee, but it's no longer fun or imformative when a thread degrades to bickering and name calling.  No doubt someone, perhaps you, will jump on me and berate me for  throwing a flag.  You notice that I didn't get involved in the thread, because I know, in this case, what I don't know.  It's very complex.  And I still don't believe passing a bunch of laws and restrictions will change a thing. 

I don't think women are going to turn out for Hilary.  I suspect now that Trump has turned to her, there is going to be a bloodletting.  Trump is ruthless and will say anything.  Their "friendship" won't mean squat.  He'll find her soft spot and then the others won't be able to contain themselves to not jump on it too.  You and I both know that there are a lot of areas he can probe.  Among my very liberal friends, more of them are on board with Bernie Sanders rather than Hilary.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Why are unable to think logically?
Date:	12/31/2015 11:40:49 AM

You claim to have faith in climatologists and denigrate a physicist for opining on climate change. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of your faith in self proclaimed "climatologists" when no such thing exists except in the minds of those who are self proclaimed.  In fact, from this point on I am also self proclaimed to be a climatologist. Have just as much right as the others and am now an expert.  So as of this moment only 96.4% of climatologists agree about ACC.  

As to your poll, if a majority of Americans really believed in globaloney it should be our number one concern.  Who cares about the economy, war, etc. if we are all going to burn up.......you know, the warming that isn't happening.  I find it funny that you buy this hoax based on polls while we scientists that are skeptical do so based on intellectual analysis of the data and models.  Yeah, that's a liberal for you.

I am skeptical of ACC because I am a scientist that has examined the theory and found it wanting.  You are a mind numbed rube that would believe anything as long as it can be used to increase taxes and redistribute wealth.  I feel pretty good about my beliefs.  Besides, if you are such a believer then you should out of good conscience give up your car, turn off the gas and electricity in your home, your condo in Florida, only walk or take public transportation, never fly the airlines, etc.  Come on Archie, at least show some conviction here.......yeah, I didn't think so.  Giving stuff up is for the other guys.  As for me, I will keep on using carbon as fast as I can, especially while it's cheap! And all with a completely clear conscience informed by facts, reason and logic and not polls. Life is so good!  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Current polls say otherwise
Date:	12/31/2015 11:45:53 AM

I suppose it could change between now and Election Day but for now she is doing much better with women than prior male candidates. I hope you are right that women won't turn out for her.  Would be happy to lose that bet because if she doesn't do well with women she will lose.  Has been fun watching her and Trump go at it over Slick Willies sordid history with rape, adultery and intern staining.  I keep hearing that Dems would love to run against Trump but this recent back and forth might change their minds. Watch for Hillary and/or her surrogates start to go after him even more. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Current polls say otherwise
Date:	12/31/2015 6:33:39 PM

We're still over a year away from the election.  The polls, while interesting, really don't mean much to the future outcome, at this point.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Current polls say otherwise
Date:	12/31/2015 10:37:44 PM

On that note I agree. Time will tell. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You know Woodrow
Date:	1/1/2016 9:53:33 AM

You state these things as if they are fact when they are not.  This whole warmest year on record thing is a total joke because it is false in the first place and stupid in the second place.  How long have we been keeping "records" on global climates and by what methodology?  Have you even looked at the estimates from ice core data?  How do you explain the periods that were warmer than the last decade?  What about the warming period in the Middle Ages?  What were the highest temperatures then?  How do we know?  Why is it that best data set we have from satellites have shown no appreciable warming for the last nearly two decades?  You see Archie, you cannot see beyond the lies you are being told and do your own research yet you are quick to impugn any source that doesn't agree with your false religion.

You admit that the models were wildly wrong for the last two decades, at least the ones that wrongly predicted warming as CO2 levels rise.  I will agree that the models that predicted no warming were correct, but of course that undermines the slavish desire to connect CO2 to climate change.  Despite all this you can't connect the dots and have even a shred of skepticism.

You act as if limiting carbon can be done pain free.  Give up carbon for a year and if you are still alive you can lecture us.  I recommend the book Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg, who by the way is another true believer in ACC.  If you think limiting carbon is the road to happiness you are simply sharing with us your invincible ignorance.  Read the book, it is well researched and well referenced.

And finally, 1933 was the warmest year on record.  More data manipulation to fool the gullible.  But hey, if you can get them to regurgitate the lies on a forum and act like they are fact it is mission accomplished.  All good hoaxes need the useful idiots.  Good job Arch!