re: Global Warming is BS: coldest temperature EVER recorded on Antarctica this month

quote:

---

And granting tax breaks/exemptions on oil companies in the south, which I greatly benefit from, doesn't help either.

You should look up the natural gas exemption Louisiana has. Absolutely idiotic. My main issue with all of this is there never seems to be a middle ground that can be reached.

Subsidies and grants for new industries and business has always occured.

---

I don't disagree with that.

Look, we once put a man on the moon in under a decade. We literally had to invent the technology to make it happen. I read Gene Krantz's book. You know those procedures Ed Harris' character had to follow in Apollo 13? Well the real Krantz wrote the manual on the fly during Project Mercury. From scratch. Without any data. The Saturn IV rocket is still the most complex machine ever built, and it was built by guys with slide rules and pocket protectors.

Innovation can be encouraged, but can never be mandated. Its a tough problem to figure out. We've got to take politics out of it, stop the gloom and doom, and start encouraging people to make it better because they can and its the right thing to do.

But that'll never happen so long as you have some assclown sitting next to you yelling "The Sky is Falling and you're and idiot if you dont agree!!!!!!"

Since there was an ice age over 10,000 years ago it is certainly possible the earth is in a warming phase.

The weather can be unpredictably predictable

quote:

---

Since there was an ice age over 10,000 years ago it is certainly possible the earth is in a warming phase.

The weather can be unpredictably predictable

---

2 things,

1) what you are referring to is interglacial vs glacial state. A longer role of this in Earth's history is icehouse vs greenhouse. This part of the Cenozoic is an icehouse state.

2) The weather is not the climate. The climate is the 30 year average of the weather of a particular zone.

Weather may seem unpredictable on a day-to-day basis, but climate is far more predictable.


We are working on 4 different time-scales here!

quote:

---

the entirety of the scientific world says its real so get over it

---

False. The 97% number constantly floated around by liberals is completely made up outside of 1 or 2 very small studies. Most scientist polls come in between 50%-75% and even that can be skewed because it is mostly climate change activists that enter that field of science.

In the 1970s every agency listed in the graph, including NASA had determined the earth was entering a sustained period of global cooling. Now that climate change/ global warming is in vogue there has been a concerted effort to discredit the findings of the 1970s. Even as late as the last 10 years there has been a massaging of the data to fit the needed outcome. When there are large sums of government money involved science is as subject to corruption as any other endeavor.

LINK

Worst case scenario, we have cleaner air to breathe and a generally cleaner environment


No, worst case is we absolutely dismantle our economy and personal freedoms at a power grab by statists, internationalists and big government liberals for no reason.

Did you read your link? I mean it is wrong from the start if you actually read the linked articles he references

quote:

---

The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

---

I mean who cares if just the US warmed?

LINK

LINK

quote:

---

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago. "He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time." Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists. Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day. "Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said. In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

---

quote:

---

Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesn’t really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. If the composition does change, you will often find that stations dropping out will result in climatological biases in the network due to differences in elevation and average temperatures that don’t necessarily reflect any real information on month-to-month or year-to-year variability. Lucia covered this well a few years back with a toy model, so I’d suggest people who are still confused about the subject to consult her spherical cow. His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed.

---

So this:

quote:

---

Even as late as the last 10 years there has been a massaging of the data to fit the needed outcome.

---

Isn't what it was "massaged". It was adjusted to account for factors that had changed such as location, time of day, and everything else listed above.

quote:

---

Goddard’s approach is the only one that shows a large warming bias in recent years, though all absolute approaches unsurprisingly show a larger effect of infilling due to the changing station composition of the non-infilled data. We also have a very good reason to think that there has not been a large warming bias in USHCN in the last decade or so. The new ideally-sited U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) agrees with USHCN almost perfectly since it achieved nationwide spatial coverage in 2005 (if anything, USCRN is running slightly warmer in recent months):

---

Argument is about whether man has anything to do with the warming. The problem is every model used to calculate the future makes dozens of worst case scenario assumptions to try to scare people. When those models are wrong everyone stops believing any warming is happening. It keeps any legitimate discussion from happening.

You are dumb doe