Global Warming

[The Troll]

Okay, I HAD to do a little research, but here you go:

Joe Bastardi, a professional meteorologist, has said the following:

It's bad enough when the media indulge in sensationalism, but it is totally unprofessional when weather and climate institutes do the same.

In his latest Saturday Summary, he goes after and rips US weather and climate agencies for poor, and often hyped forecasts.


  "And that's one of the big problems we have today. People that are here today are classifying things that happened before and changing everything that was recorded before."


As an example Bastardi cites GISS in their dubious claim that September 2014 was the warmest on record, when clearly it was not. Bastardi shows that at least 7 or 8 other satellite-era years were warmer, such as 2003.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.2spxIBgw.dpuf

  Henry why don't you just SHUT UP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING when you don't know shit about anything.   

[Bo D]

Joe Bastardi is a frickin TV weatherman, not a climatologist. And the the Sam Hell are satellite years? The NOAA clearly showed the charts of  temperatures recorded since 1880. I, for one, don't think they had satellites in 1880. But I'm not a scientist, so who knows?

[The Troll]

Joe Bastardi is a frickin TV weatherman, not a climatologist. And the the Sam Hell are satellite years? The NOAA clearly showed the charts of  temperatures recorded since 1880. I, for one, don't think they had satellites in 1880. But I'm not a scientist, so who knows?

  See Henry doesn't know shit about anything. 

[Bo D]

Joe Bastardi lies ....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/one-confusedi-bastardi.html

[Henry Hawk]

Joe Bastardi is a frickin TV weatherman, not a climatologist. And the the Sam Hell are satellite years? The NOAA clearly showed the charts of  temperatures recorded since 1880. I, for one, don't think they had satellites in 1880. But I'm not a scientist, so who knows?

Wait!  You said a legitimate scientist.  He received a degree in meteorology from Penn State.  He has a scientific understanding of our Atmosphere. 

http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-october-18-2014

Go to the 2:54 mark...he explains himself. He says Sept, 2003 was actually warmer.  Listen to him.

Oh, I know, he is NOT a climatologist.

If you get a chance read this.....another reason as to why I am sometimes "skeptical" on this issue.

[Bo D]

Wait!  You said a legitimate scientist.  He received a degree in meteorology from Penn State.  He has a scientific understanding of our Atmosphere. 

http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-october-18-2014

Go to the 2:54 mark...he explains himself. He says Sept, 2003 was actually warmer.  Listen to him.

Oh, I know, he is NOT a climatologist.

If you get a chance read this.....another reason as to why I am sometimes "skeptical" on this issue.

This is the guy you want to believe? September 2003 was warmer in the contiguous United States, which doesn't exactly fit in the the GLOBAL definition. But then I'm not a scientist, so who knows?


From the link I posted above ...
Re-Writing History

Bastardi began the Fox News interview by saying that the global climate "was as bad...or even worse" in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, as today.  This is a twist on the myth that 1934 was hotter than today, when in fact globally it was the 48th hottest year on record (though it was among the hottest years in the contiguous United States, which is the basis of the myth, but which covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface).

Somehow Bastardi expanded this myth not only from local (lower United States) to global, but also from one year to three decades!

[Exterminator]

This is a pointless discussion.  The obvious difference between people like Henry and me and anyone with critical thinking skills is that the former look only for information that will support that which they have been led and want to believe while the rest of us look specifically for information that will challenge us to learn, regardless of whether or not it is convenient.  I want to believe that we aren't destroying the planet but sadly, it simply isn't true.

[me]

This is a pointless discussion.  The obvious difference between people like Henry and me and anyone with critical thinking skills is that the former look only for information that will support that which they have been led and want to believe while the rest of us look specifically for information that will challenge us to learn, regardless of whether or not it is convenient.  I want to believe that we aren't destroying the planet but sadly, it simply isn't true.

Common sense far outweighs critical thinking skills from my point of view.  You can think something to death but without common sense added in it means nothing other than a person can critically think something until it comes out their way and that makes it right.  What amazes me is the "critical thinker" doesn't even realize they're being told what to think. 

[Exterminator]

Common sense far outweighs critical thinking skills from my point of view.  You can think something to death but without common sense added in it means nothing other than a person can critically think something until it comes out their way and that makes it right.  What amazes me is the "critical thinker" doesn't even realize they're being told what to think.

What you're describing isn't common sense; it's willful ignorance.

[me]

Exactly when was reasoning changed to "critical thinking" and why was common sense dropped out of the equation?

[Exterminator]

No reasoning person possessing common sense would seek to deny that which is tangible and measurable.

[me]

No reasoning person possessing common sense would seek to deny that which is tangible and measurable.

Data plugged into a computer with no concept of possible variables which may change the ultimate outcome of the data plugged into it.  The less expensive route, conserving and recycling, would do just as much i the long run so why go to the more expensive route?  Is it so the rich can get richer and we underlings, not including you of course, can foot the bill for their companies to flourish?  Like I said before, science is experimentation, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it's right, or can be made to appear that it is, and sometimes it isn't. 

[Exterminator]

 

[Locutus]

Don't like that astute and thoughtful analysis? 

[Bo D]

Data plugged into a computer with no concept of possible variables which may change the ultimate outcome of the data plugged into it.  The less expensive route, conserving and recycling, would do just as much i the long run so why go to the more expensive route?  Is it so the rich can get richer and we underlings, not including you of course, can foot the bill for their companies to flourish?  Like I said before, science is experimentation, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it's right, or can be made to appear that it is, and sometimes it isn't.

The article I posted has nothing to do with carbon credits and said nothing about what is causing the warmup .... it was simply an analysis of global temperatures gathered over the last 135 years.

Here it is again, because I don't think you even bothered to open it.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2014/10/warming-earth-heading-hottest-year-record?et_cid=4220789&et_rid=54725525&location=top