Monday, January 14, 2013

16 (increasingly hot) candles

Has global warming paused over the last 16 years? The record high temperatures in the continental U.S. and the following video suggest it hasn't.



Source: Skeptical Science.

11 comments:

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

(sigh)

Cherry-picking, along with unfounded assumptions ("antropogenic global warming is rea, and it's significantl") does wonders when your true believer religion worldview needs bolstering.

Unfortunately for the true believers,their are too many things like this.

There's more along the same lines.......MUCH more.

But there's little hope that something along those lines will cause the True Believers to actually become academically and intellectually honest about the bogus meme they've been promoting these many years.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

And let's not forget that the record actually shows that "global warming" for the last 16 years is virtually non-existent.

I love this quote: "...the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few....."

Gee, can we think of some people locally who fit the description above?

Dave Ribar said...

Bob:

Hmm, you must have read the page very carefully to link to exactly the same page that was linked in the original post.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

No, I posted it to remind you that your original link has been proven wrong, despite the feeble attempt to deny on your original link.

You didn't bother to read the material in that link, did you? Nor did you bother to read ANY of the information in my first comment.

I find it amazing that you continue to ignore things not convenient to your always pre-determined position on the issues.

Do you have anything else to provide on this issue? I've got LOTS of source data that supports the empirical evidence that "global warming" has had insignificant impact over the last 16 years.

You, however, have nothing to offer but the standard babble, dribble, drool,spew,hysterical conjecture, and outright academic fraud that defines the Alarmist position.

Dave Ribar said...

Bob:

Seriously?

You reposted the October 2012 Daily Mail article that the January 2013 Skeptical Science video and article rebutted to remind me that the Skeptical Science video and article had been proven wrong?

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

No, Dave. I posted it to show you that their rebuttal to the material provided established absolutely nothing.

Really.

How much more of this would you like to talk about?

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

Shall we discuss your link point by point?

1. It presumes "global warming' is caused by human activity. There is NO empirical evidence that supports that outrageous prevarication.

I will repeat that for your benefit:There is NO empirical evidence that supports that outrageous prevarication.

The information in the WUWT establishes that.

2. The WORLD temperature record does not correlate with the US temperature record, as shown in the other material provided.

3. Watts has previously shown how global recorded temperatures have been massaged to emphasize the Alarmists' prevarication. The likelihood is when global temperature measurements are adjusted for bias, global temperatures have DROPPED since the peak in 1998.



4. "Skeptical" Science has little credibility. Lord Moncton discusses some of their previous nonsense here:

"One day, the useless “Skeptical” “Science” blog may perhaps have a curiosity value to historians studying the relentless, lavishly-funded deviousness and malice of the tiny clique who briefly fooled the world by presenting themselves as a near-unanimous “consensus” (as if consensus had anything to do with science) and mercilessly bullied anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs. The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won."

"Skeptical" Science has about as much credibility on this subject as you do.

Namely, none.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

Oh, by the way, Dave.....stop getting your talking point tips from Think Progress.

They're more than a little bit full of bovine excrement.

You obviously jibe well with that kind of nonsense, as evidenced in what you offer on this blog.

Dave Ribar said...

Bob:

Now I wonder whether you read the things you cite.

1) "NO empirical evidence that supports" man-made global warming.

The Daily Mail article that you cited says, "So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels."

2) "The WORLD temperature record does not correlate with the US temperature record."

This takes American Exceptionalism to a whole new level--the range of statistical impossibility.

3) Watts.

Maybe I missed it but Anthony Watts has not responded to the Skeptical Science post.

4) "Lord Moncton"

Yes, Christopher Monckton is very credible, especially with the other Lords.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

You really have to stretch to be relevant, don't you?

!. Anthropogenic "global warming", as a cause of global warming is so small as to be statistically and materially insignificant, as indicated in the first WUWT link I posted. Apparently, you didn't bother to read it.

2.You obviously failed to note the distinction previously, didn't you?

3. "Skeptical Science" is too easy a punching bag. Why pick on an irrelevant source of agenda-driven quackery?

4. You don't understand British politics at all, do you? Don't quit your day job to become an international political pundit.

Anything else of no significant merit or value you wish to contribute on this subject?

Fred Gregory said...

16 years Dave. A nano second in the recent history of the planet.

Most of these days don't fall within the conveniently selected period.

10 hottest days in NYC

"These are the ten hottest weather temperature days in New York City history dating back to 1870. Weather temperature data has been collected in Central Park since 1870. I've lived in the New York metro area most of my life, and though it can get hot in the city, the heat is usually not oppressive except for heat waves in the summer.

The hottest temperature ever recorded in New York City is 106 degrees, which occurred during the summer of 1936. The summer of 1936 was the hottest in the history of the United States. Dozens of hottest weather temperatures were set for states and cities all over the country in 1936.

Since 1870, there have been a total of 58 days when the temperature reached 100 degrees or more in New York City. The decade with the most 100 degree days is the 1950s. During the 1950s, there were 12 days when the temperature reached 100 or more degrees.

With all the talk of global warming one would think New York City would have had many 100 degree weather temperature days in the last decade. But there were only four 100 degree days in the last 10 years in New York City."
.........