Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	More evidence of globaloney
Date:	3/7/2016 2:47:40 PM

So in the latest non-sense to come out of NOAA, in their latest "hottest year on record" presser they showed radiosonde data for the last 37 years, which was a bit of a mystery since this data set actually goes back to the late 1950s.  The positive aspect of this data set is it isn't influenced by the urban heat island effect that land based measurements experience.  Well interesting enough, when you look at the entire data set it indicates exactly zero warming for the last 58 years.  If you use their entire data set the trendline is flat, zero, zip, nada, no warming.  I know, you will hate the source but the data comes from NOAA......read it and weep globaloney alarmists.....

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/7/2016 9:17:08 PM (updated 3/7/2016 9:23:38 PM)

MM, you are a piece of work.  Even the rightwing anti-science blog you site does not deny that the average world temp has risen sharply in the 37 years since 1979.  It did as an average cool for the 21 years before 1979 so that the "average" over 58 years is basically flat.  SO WHAT...we are living with what is happening now!  The average is up sharply since 1979 and shows no evidence of a change.  I don't give two hoots in he!! what happened in 1965 any more than 1265.  I am much more concerned with has happened in the immediate recent decades and what will happen in 2025!  I guess if you were standing barefooted on the hood of a black sedan in July but your head was embedded in a block of ice you would be comfortable because on average you are at 86 degrees!

Denying truth doesn't make it any less true!

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/7/2016 10:08:39 PM

How dare you question His Majesty. He is always Right since he did not attend government schools. Even his puppets Hodja, Shortbus, and Wix are buying into his "Data".  He is basing it on "fact" not "opinion". Just ask him.  To be fair, you owe his Majesty an apology. Like Trump, he comes unglued when you point out his errors. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/7/2016 10:13:54 PM

So if it did rise in that period of time what PROOF do you have that it is man-made and not a cycle of nature?

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/7/2016 10:17:50 PM

Hey, douche bag, I am NOBODY's puppet.  I have a mind of my own and use it.   You, who are unwilling to talk to me man to man, are a puppet of the left wing bovine shinola.  Prove me wrong and email me with your real identity.  You know mine, what are you afraid of?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/7/2016 10:30:23 PM (updated 3/7/2016 10:34:11 PM)

Mr. H I don't know personally and have no specific proof whether it is caused by man though I do tend to put more credance in the research based opinion of hundreds of climate scientists than a politically based opinion of a blowhard senator from Oklahoma. What difference does it make whether it is a natural cycle or manmade or a combination of both (most likely)?  If there is the possibility that it can be stopped or slowed by the actions of man before Miami and Long Island are flooded and Lake Martin drys up I say at least take a look at the possibility!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/7/2016 10:54:51 PM (updated 3/7/2016 10:56:06 PM)

While it may be possible, and undoubtedly man is adding to global CO2 emissions, natural cycles happen, and the "evidence" that man is responsible is squishy at best.  There are tremendous economic factors at play, and they play a far too important role in the discussion.  I am not convinced that anything we do, especially as a single nation in a world of nations, is going to make one whit of difference.  Why are we tieing our economic hands behind our backs for unproven "science"?  Opinions of scientists does not equate to science, so don't give me that line.  Show me the scientific proof.  My bachelors degree is in chemistry so I know the difference.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Weathers Happens!
Date:	3/8/2016 8:23:16 AM

And I am going to enjoy these next few days!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/8/2016 8:23:23 AM

Mr H your post is appreciated and well considered, but l think you will agree that scientific "proof" is sometime not possible, at least with the tools we currently possess.  But scientific "opinion" is not based on air!  Scientific opinion is based on evidence gathered and verified.  There is "scientific proof" that the globe is warming and there is "scientific opinion" based on evidence that this warming is at least partly based on human activity which can be changed.  I agree that any effort to slow the trend to the extent we can by changing human behavior has to be an international effort to be successful.  I do not agree that we as a nation should now simply throw up our hands and say "the world will never take up this effort so why try" before we even try.  I also do not agree that the economic well being of the US trumps all (pun intended)!

As an afterthought:  I look at the situation with climate change in somewhat the same way l do, correctly or otherwise, the "theory" of evolution.  Evolution is a "fact", what drives evolution is the "theory".  If you get either part of evolution wrong there is little or no consequence for current life on earth...if we get either part of climate change wrong there is at least the potential for disaster.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Weathers Happens!
Date:	3/8/2016 8:26:35 AM (updated 3/8/2016 8:57:26 AM)

Me too. But remember, there were some warm days even during the ice age...don't let that "fact" spoil your enjoyment of this burst of spring!

Weather is what it is today, Climate is what it has been over decades.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You are invincibly scientifically illiterate
Date:	3/8/2016 8:28:12 AM (updated 3/8/2016 8:45:15 AM)

Archie, go look at the NOAA data again.  The temperatures 58 years ago were approximately the same as they are today.  Global temperatures have always gone up and down and for the last 10,000 years we have been in a warming phase.  We had a cooling phase in the 1970's as evidenced by the globlanoeyists claiiming CO2 will send us into another ice age....until it didn't.  Then when we had a warming period suddenly CO2 was now the cause of warming.  Then when the warming halted for the last 18 years CO2 now causes "climate change" so they can blame us regardless of what happens.  

I am honestly embarressed to have to explain this to you.  And you wonder why I denigrate your education. It is mind boggling that someone with a degree can be so dumb.  Global climates have always and will always change dufus.  The question is whether there is any correlation to man-made CO2 and to what extent.  The evidence so far is there is no good correlation with CO2 as a causal factor, but there is with the source of our climate energy, the sun.  What a shock.

And its no surprise that Goofy jumped on your stupidity as he too is scientifically illiterate and was failed by his education system in NJ.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	You are invincibly scientifically illiterate MM
Date:	3/8/2016 8:48:36 AM (updated 3/8/2016 8:53:47 AM)

And I am embarassed, but not surprised, to have to explain this to you MM.  For several centuries in the middle ages the world was in a mini-ice age but, except for the influence it had on how the world's social and economic development, it is of little consequence to us today.  People who actually think on occasion, rather than swallow whole cloth the biased blather of a rightwing blog, would likely say that what is transpiring today is more important than what happened between 1958 and 1979!  Today...March 8, 2016...right now...as you mix your first martini...as you get prepared and comfortable to listen to your favorite rightwing radio falsehood mongers...the world is getting a little warmer at an acclerating rate!!  I will continue, as will most people with any sense, to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt to NOAA's interpretation of its own report than to a nut's interpretation!

Now, since you so love talking "average" over the last 58 years, go and see what world temps have done over the last 100 years and report back to us!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/8/2016 8:51:40 AM

Goofy prefers anonymity.  I know who he is from a mutual acquaintance but he has never shared that information with me so I keep it to myself despite knowing me.  And the emails that we have exchanged has a fake name on it.  Lot's of people, including him, know who I am.  Hound and I have exchanged emails and we know each other and still have our disagreements.  He is just gutless.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	BALONEY indeed
Date:	3/8/2016 8:57:15 AM

MrH, you are way too kind in your response.  That there has been no warming from 58 years ago despite massive CO2 emmissions is completely lost on Archie.  He is exactly the useful idiot that alarmists count on when they eliminate the data that refutes their theory.  Because he cannot even have the sense to read a graph and say, wait a second, NOAA says 2015 was the hottest year on record and yet their own data shows that is factually, demonstrably false.  They pick a range of 37 years so it looks like we have had warming.  It is so disingenuous that it defies imagination, but NOAA does not get the best and brightest scientists so it is no surprise.  And they are in my experience mostly left wing nuts that couldn't make it in the private sector or lacked the ambition.  Besides, only in govt will they pay you to lie and mislead the public.......you know, all for the greater good.....which is always bigger and more intrusive govt.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Never mind....
Date:	3/8/2016 9:01:53 AM

Facts, logic and reason are completely lost on you.  You are so dense you can't even begin to understand how wrong you are which is completely sad.  Being dumb is bad enough Archie, but doubling down is bordering on insanity.  There has been no appreciable warming for the last 18 years as demonstrated by our best data set produced by NOAA.  As for the last 100 years, just go back to the dust bowls of the 1930s.  You will not like the answer.  Read the book "The Neglected Sun" Archie, it is every well researched with hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers that closely correlates the activity of the sun with global climates.  Duh!

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Never mind....
Date:	3/8/2016 9:13:06 AM

I think Archidiot's problem is that he invested heavily ($673,786) in all those o-BAMA, dimokrap windmill farms and he's got to try to protect his $5,576 (present value) investment.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Maybe so...
Date:	3/8/2016 10:09:14 AM

I can't find any other explanation other than rank stupidity for not understanding how to read a graph of temperature data.  It is completely lost on him why NOAA selectively eliminated the earlier data as it demonstrates the falsehood of their claims.  They know it which is why they eliminated the data and he can't seem to comprehend it.  I would actually be amazed and dumbfounded if it weren't Archie.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Maybe so...
Date:	3/8/2016 10:38:03 AM

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21013-climate-expert-lord-monckton-global-warming-ceased-over-18-years-ago

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	OK your Omnipitance
Date:	3/8/2016 10:38:26 AM (updated 3/8/2016 10:40:59 AM)

Take out 1998 from the last 18 years and see what you get.  Until 2014, 1998 was the warmest year since modern records have been kept.  In 2014 it became the 2d warmest...in 2015 it dropped to 3d.  1998 was spiked temp wise due to the strongest El Niño on record (you might want to google to see what the thinking is on how El Ninos are being influenced by climate change...oh no of course not, silly me, you know everything there is to know already because you read the rightwing talking points before your bedtime prayer every night). But I digress, take away 1998 completely and tell us what has happened to the average since 1999...for one thing 2013 replaces 1998 as the 3d warmest on record! Keep your head in the sand MM.  That way we get to see your better half every time you pop off!!

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Climate Happens!
Date:	3/8/2016 10:47:45 AM

And miniscule me will be enjoy the years the Lord gives me.  After that I hope to avoid a place with true global warming!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You mean omnipotence????
Date:	3/8/2016 11:44:47 AM (updated 3/8/2016 12:43:02 PM)

You just don't get it Archie.  Take out or leave in what you like and don't like, pick a range of temperatures or whatever and you can come to any conclusion you want.  That would make you an official climate scientist perpetuating the hoax of ACC and you are in good company with all the other prostitute scientists.  

Looking at the entire data set, which by the way only covers about one one millionth of the history of global climates, and you would rightly conclude that there has been no warming since the late 1950s.  The trend line is exactly flat.  Looking at the best data set from the last 18 years while CO2 has been spewed forth and you would conclude there has been no appreciable warming if any at all.  If you look at the actual global temperatures and compare them to the model predictions you would conclude that maybe this is a more complex system and dramatically reducing our standard of living or transferring wealth to failed countries is not remotely justified.  That you don't get this and keep doubling and tripling down on stupidity is completely insane.  You are invincibly ignorant or mentally ill, there is no other explanation.

You don't have to be omnipotent to see the truth, you simply need to follow the data. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Excuse me...your OMNIPOTENCE
Date:	3/8/2016 1:51:00 PM (updated 3/8/2016 1:56:09 PM)

Do you ever actually read a post.  That old "warming has leveled out over the last 18 years" canard is completely negated if you simply change it to the last 17 years when the rise had been dramatic and generally accelerating!  Having you scold anybody for not looking at the whole evidence is a real belly laugh.  Nobody in the galaxy is better at cherry picking a report than you.  Go cherry pick the actual NOAA memo rather then cherry picking the cherry picked rightwing biased analysis of the memo!  Further, if you decide to base your opinion about the average of the entire history of climate on earth (and trust me the last 18 or 34 or 58 years are a lot less than one millionth of that spectrum) then I guess nobody came attack your argument because it becomes meaningless!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Good for you...maybe you can learn
Date:	3/8/2016 2:04:09 PM

No Archie, there has been no appreciable warming for the last 18 years.  And there has been no warming at all since the 1950's.  It was warmer, then it got cooler and then it got warmer.  So basically we are back to where we were in 1958.  Did CO2 cause the warming in the 1950s?  Did the same CO2 cause the cooling?  If we had more and more CO2 from the 1950s and on why in the world would it have cooled off?  It should have continued to warm, right?  Or maybe global climates are being controlled by the only source of energy, the sun.  Ding, ding, ding.....we have a winner.  

Those are facts from NOAA's data.  Even NOAA admits there has been no warming in the satellite data, which used to be called their best data set until this happened.  You see Archie, the data speaks for itself and you can see for yourself....or not.  Up to you.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	More evidence of globaloney
Date:	3/8/2016 2:52:13 PM

I'm not a scientist or a statistician.  I have no idea if we are experiencing climate change.  For all I know, we are just in a cycle that has been repeated before and will be repeated again in the millenium.  But the point is this - suppose it is climate change based on C2O emissions by man.  Even if the U.S. immediately embraced every carbon reducing idea, we are still but one country, and not the largest country at that.  So what is to be done about it?  We have not yet reached the point where even scientists agree. So aren't there more important things to worry about and spend money on? 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	On the 18 year hiatus
Date:	3/8/2016 2:56:56 PM (updated 3/8/2016 2:58:41 PM)

Just so you know, the source of global climate data using satellite data comes from two sources.  The first is the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the second is the Remote Sensing Corporation in Califormia.  Both data sets agree within a very small range.  A trendline of that combined data set is flat as a pancake over the last 18 years.  I wish it were easier to post the plot of the data because it is so dead straight forward that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty would agree that there is no warming trend for the last 18 years.  This is not some anti-ACC data set or presentation, it comes from reliable sources.

As this became apparent there was initially a wave of explanations about why there was no warming (ocean heat sinks, etc.).  When none of these passed muster NOAA and NASA decided to eliminate this data set in favor of land-based data long criticized for being impacted by the urban heat sources.  I have read a couple of peer reviewed papers that demonstrated the problem with land based data.  This too has been thoroughly discredited because prior to the hiatus both NASA and NOAA claimed satellite data was the best and most reliable source of actual global climates because they measure temperatures in the troposhpere and are not biased by urban heat sources.  

What is abundantly obvious is that the long-term variations in global climates tracks extremely well with the activity of the sun.  This makes perfect sense as the sun is the source of the energy that heats the earth.  This is not hard to understand.  Only someone who is scientifically illiterate could accuse a person using an entire data set as cherry picking for criticizing another group that selectively used a portion of the data set that supported their contention.  That is exceedingly humorous and equally ludicrous.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bingo!
Date:	3/8/2016 3:08:12 PM

Hound, you are exaclty right.  What those of us who are unconvinced about ACC want is to continue to study this issue using science and not politics.  And until the science is significantly less ambiguous and uncertain we should not entertain any of the solutions that are regularly being proposed, all of which would reduce the standard of living in developed countries while doing nothing but tranferring wealth to failed countries.  And who gets harmed the most?  The poor and the vulnerable.  The fact is that developing countries like China and India are not going to reduce CO2 emissions.  China has proposed the construction of over 2,000 coal fired power plants over the next decade and they are not going to stop.  India has similar plans.

People that want us to do something today based on a spurious and unfounded theory act as if there is no harm from the proposed solutions.  That is demonstrably false and reckless.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	I Often Wonder
Date:	3/8/2016 5:17:53 PM

If the Gov't proposed eliminating lead in gas today would you support it? If they proposed  catalytic converters today, would you support it? If they proposed emission controls on car engines today, would you support it? Do you believe that these incremental changes have helped with the air we breath?

They were not universally supported at the time but over the years I assume they have helped to the point that the air is cleaner. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	On the 18 year hiatus...YES YES
Date:	3/8/2016 6:42:52 PM

Look at the graph in the rightwing blog you yourself referenced as evidence of "globaloney" in the first post in this string (all other readers please do likewise).  Look at the graph (do you know what a graph is MM, do you understand how to read one?).  Look along the bottom and see there are numbers, these are the years MM.  Look for the numbers 1998.  Now look a little higher and you will see a jagged line running across the graph.  This line is sort of a drawing of what the average temperature was for the year shown directly below.  Now MM l know this is hard, real hard, but look straight up from that number 1998.  Do you see how the jagged line goes way way up in that one year.  Do you see that MM?  Now look how the next year the line goes way back down...see it MM?  Then it starts up again then down a little then up a lot then down a little then up some more.  Do you see that above the number 2015 the jagged line has gotten even higher than that big spikey pointy line in 1998?

MM, a stop sign has a more open mind than you!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	To answer your question Hound
Date:	3/8/2016 6:48:05 PM

If MM and the anti-science right wing talking points crowd are right then YES, if the scientists (and they are in fact in near unanimous agreement... 97 % think it is a serious concern) then probably NO.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	To answer your question Hound
Date:	3/8/2016 7:30:15 PM

My exerience with scientists is that while they love to debate and discuss their findings and conclusions, on the whole they are not very political.  So that makes me think the politicians found the scientists that support their beliefs on the subject.  I'm not sure about the 97% - being scientists, they like to be 100% sure and that is what makes them so frustrating to work with.  It makes me skeptical and wonder if the politicians, reading the various papers and articles aren't merely interpreting them to suit their position. 

I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon either way with the information I have. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Please tell me you aren't that silly
Date:	3/8/2016 9:15:01 PM

The trend line of that data set over the last 18 years is very close to flat.  What that means is that there has been no appreciable warming over the last 18 years.  Of course there is variability you silly fool, global climates are always variable and will always be variability especially on a yearly basis.  You see in basic mathematics that is how you analyze a data set to determine long term trends.  Grade school stuff really....maybe middle school.  Now there was warming in the middle of the graph after it cooled from the late 50s. You have now quadrupled down on stupid.....do you want to keep going.  This is really amazing to me.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Said answer happens to be flawed
Date:	3/8/2016 9:20:12 PM

Let me help you here Hound.  Archie's statement about the 97% number is from a thoroughly discredited poll and is complete hogwash.  In essence they polled so-called climate scientists that were working to prove ACC and surprise, surprise 97% of those polled agreed with ACC.  It is an embarrassment that he quoted this bit of non-sense.  There is no consensus on ACC and a significant number of reputable scientists are not convinced that man-made CO2 is causing climate change.  

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Please tell me you aren't that silly
Date:	3/8/2016 9:22:03 PM

Please keep going!  Election returns are boring, and Voice is so so.  More entertainment here!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	I Often Wonder
Date:	3/8/2016 9:25:57 PM

What the he!! does that have to do with the claimed climate change?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Goofy is just being goofy as usual
Date:	3/8/2016 9:39:49 PM

It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Pretty soon he will lump us in with Holocaust deniers or the 911 conspiracy theorists.  He is trying to change the subject because he is at least smart enough to not join Archie in his abject craziness with the temperature data.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Please tell me you aren't that silly
Date:	3/8/2016 9:42:31 PM

Glad watching Archie being unable to interpret a simple time trend plot is so entertaining.  If I had any respect for him I would stop but it is like shooting fish in a barrel except after you shoot them 3 or 4 times they still keep asking for more.  I would suggest a remedial math course for him but I don't think he would take the hint.  Just amazing to watch.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	The density of your gray cells is amazing to me
Date:	3/9/2016 8:32:51 AM (updated 3/9/2016 8:41:48 AM)

to put it in language you may understand with an example in reverse...if on Jan 1 you deposit $100,000 in company profits, then on Feb 1 you deposit $140,000 (things lookin good ain't they MM) and $120,000 on March 1, $100,000 on April 1, $80,000 on May 1 and close out the 2d qtr with a deposit $60,000 (uh oh what's happenin MM) June 1. The average profit is $100,000 whether you include all 6 months or just the 5 months Feb - June.  So on average the profits are flat, but I suspect, as a the  smart businessman you always love to let it be known you are, you would be concerned with the "trend" being established!!

Was your private school education so lacking that you are unable to understand what an "average" represents or what a "trend" is?! You see in "basic" mathmatics, if there is a sudden spike in a sequence used to establish an average it is still included to establish the average, but in "basic" science smart people stand back and take another look at the whole sequence before determination what the trend is.  If there is an outlier with an verifiable cause it may not be as relevant to determination of the "trend" regardless of its relevance to the average!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	What exactly are "grqay" cells?
Date:	3/9/2016 8:39:35 AM

I officially give up Archie.  If you can't understand a trendline you are completely hopeless.  You act like variations in annual temps are somehow indicative of something other than the natural variablilty that has always existed.  You have officially quintupled down on stupid......congrats....I guess.  I am no longer going to provide you with your much needed remedial math education.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	A key mistrike MM!!
Date:	3/9/2016 8:49:38 AM (updated 3/9/2016 8:51:56 AM)

You give up?!

What, no put down, belittle the messanger reaction to my profits analogy.  If you were putting less profits in the bank every month for many months in a row, would you say "no problem, no change on average, steady as she goes" or would you as CEO call in your accountants, BoD's, Division heads, marketing group, and maybe the Hispanic lady who cleans your office and ask "What the he!! is going on and how do we change it"?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Said answer happens to be flawed
Date:	3/9/2016 8:57:10 AM

My grreat grand kids will remind yours' of this idiotic post when Miami has been abandoned and they and their family have to wear a gas mask every hour of every day!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I know...I'm just tweaking you
Date:	3/9/2016 9:04:30 AM

Archie, it is a dumb analogy.  A better one would be I have $140,000 and it drops in value to $60,000 and then rises to $140,000 and then drops to $80,000 and then up to $100,000 and then down to $50,000 and then up to $140,000.  The trendline is flat.  Over the period in question there has been no increase in the value over the time period in question.  There is no significant increase or decrease.  Just like our climate over the last 18 years. The average is really not helpful in determining trends in data other than it provides an average.  You can also do statistical analyses, probablistic analyses and other types of analyses if you want.  Thanks for proving my point.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Want to bet?
Date:	3/9/2016 9:10:06 AM

Oh wait, you and I will be long gone so I won't have the satisfaction of saying I told you it was a hoax.  If I truly believed that it was caused by man-made emissions I would be right along side you in wanting something to happen.  But there is no convincing evidence that there is a causal correlation between CO2 and global climates.  There is a very strong one between the sun's activity and global climates......duh!