Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What do we really know about global warming??

from Roy Spencer. Good stuff. Sorry, I just can't leave this stuff alone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0

It's a huge money maker for the dems. There's nothing we can do to stop or even slow it down. It was going through it's cycles before we were here and will continue to do so when we're gone. Donate all you want to the DNC. It won't change a thing. It is the most blatant lie ever put into a campaign promise. "End global warming" my ass.

Might as well campaign to slow the earth's rotation to get a longer day. Those that truly believe that climatic patterns, or the rate of changes to those patterns, can be changed as a result of human actions are delusional.

only thing negative that happened last time it got warm was the French got pissed the English were growing grapes and not buying French wine and the native americans had some fights with my ancestors when they showed up looking for new land.....if the historical stuff is anything to go by most the world does better when temps are higher than they have been the last few hundred years....opens a hell of alot of land up to cultivation that is impossible to farm otherwise....

We know they were wrong about global cooling and then global warming so they now call it climate change. Now they can't be wrong when the Earth does its thing. Nothing but a money making scheme.

BTW most th high water level predictions are bullchit, they rely on Antarctica melting.....while sea ice may have shrunk some now and then Antarctica hasnt thawed in 20 million years.... and short of it running into another continent and killing the circumpolar water currents its not going to any time in the near future....whole lot of those low tropical islands had people happily living on them during the medieval warm period.....

Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[41] In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[42]

So he's one for two.

And your point is? Antony Flew, probably the leading philosopher of science and defender of evolution of the 20th century changed his mind and became a theist because he had to follow the evidence and the evidence shows a designer, not blind chance and material processes.

All I really know is that 10,000 years ago my cabin was under a sheet of ice, and that ice melted without any help from cars, trucks, SUV's or modern manufacturing emissions.

have yet to find a theologists that can explain to me the Wallace Line...i dont necessarily doubt a guiding hand due to the odds otherwise of things turning out like they did but evolution is in there aswell....without evolution in there a hell of alot doesnt make any sense at all...the fact so many think evolution = no God cracks me up...that also suggests gravity = no God yet we know gravity exists....might not be able to explain it very well but its there....

whole lot of gneiss bolders around here loaded with garnets.....our "native stone" is sand and mud stone.....closest gneiss deposit is up and over in Manitoba.....whole lot of ice was over my head at one point aswell

Nat Geographic is BIG into global warming. The last issue has a long article about what will happen to Florida when the water is 5' deeper. They predict that things will be nasty in another 35 years. I think so, too. We're going to need a lot more coal and oil to stay warm.

I can't believe you all. Why do you hate polar bear cubs? Why do you want them to die? Haven't you seen the Coke commercials? They're like a cute little family. You guys are so mean!

Devil is in the details... I don't see anything incompatible, except in timing/methodology/narrow minds. And mine ain't nothing to write home about.

Here is a good summary:

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
Something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists, writes Christopher Booker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

By Christopher Booker
9:05PM GMT 24 Jan 2015
1563 Comments
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was �the hottest year on record�, I saw the headline on a climate blog: �Massive tampering with temperatures in South America�. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those �2014 hottest ever� claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records � Nasa�s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) � Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss�s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN�s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long �Little Ice Age� around 200 years ago.
This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth�s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia�s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).
The adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as �the hottest years since records began�. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.
One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.
But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth�s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 � and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the �urban heat island effect�, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.
Below, the raw data in graph form

To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised �infilling� or �homogenising�, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.
But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual �adjustments�, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.
An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous �hockey stick� graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the �dust bowl� 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.
Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when �unadjusted� data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been �adjusted� to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see �New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck� on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).
By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, �Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?�, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D�Aleo and WUWT�s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).
One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was �the hottest year evah� came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth�s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.
In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidaliy crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.
But at least, if they�re hoping to see that �universal climate treaty� signed in Paris next December, we can be pretty sure that it is no more going to happen than that 2014 was the hottest year in history.

<><><><><><><

The facts and unadjusted data are out there but they won't be found in the mainstream media. For the straight dope on bears and how the data was shamelessly manipulated of data I recommend http://polarbearscience.com.

Wolf

I watched a disgusting disney propaganda movie about polar bears. They showed polar bears swimming in the ocean and then attacking and being killed by walruses because they were being starved by "Global Warming". What a load of bullstuff. There are more polar bears now than anytime in the last 50 years.

Acutally, we know exactly how slow the earth's rotation. That is fairly simple physics. All we'd need is a bunch of rail guns mounted at the equator lobbing rocks into orbit against the direction of rotation.

Cost? I don't think we want to do it, but every time we launch a rocket into space we do change the rotation of the earth by a small but calculable amount.

Motive? For what it would cost, I do not think we would find any reasonable benefit.

Unintended Consequences? Damn! Seeing as though the rotation of the Earth is the main driver in creating weather, changing the period of rotation would really screw things up.


. . . Gee! This is getting to sound more like the Climate Change Agenda as I go on.

What do I believe? That it is a HOAX , just like "global cooling" was back in the 70s,perpetrated by the socialist, anti-capitalist, utopian leftists as a strategy, in order to bring the entire western economic engine down. And again if you subscribe to the theory you are either a gullible rube or one of them. There are no other options.

That you apparently have a new hobby?