Are you sure it wasn't James Hansen?
climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Are you sure it wasn't James Hansen?
You do realize it's November 2014?
Ooh, how nefarious.
I don't really know what data feed you're talking about, and you didn't offer a source, so I honestly have no idea.
Not according to the comments in the source code. That you would ask does provide a mildly interesting view into the mind of a conspiracy theorist.
NOAA runs the "National Climate Data Center". After February 3, 2014 NCDC stopped providing record high/low temps.
From Feb 3, 2014:
Then for 6 months the site looked like this:
***As of last month, the site is back up again.
The newspapers did not seem to care about naming them back then, yet they had the same credibility then that you subscribe the so-called experts now. You are just as gullible and duped as they were then so, why should you care what the names of the experts were back then you would believe them anyway... BTW they were not worried about warming you dope they were proclaiming an ice age but, warm is the new cold right?
That is because people were keeping track and it didn't jive with the bullcrap they were feeding the masses.
(Rocket learns that most climatologists in the 70s, worried about global warming)
(Rocket counters with a newspaper article citing unnamed "scientists.")
Yep. But marginally better than big cartoons, and posting faked magazine covers, I suppose.
How convenient.
Nope. I was in science then. If it wasn't in the peer-reviewed literature, it lacked credibility. Particularly anonymous experts in newspaper stories.
You probably should be a bit subdued when "gullible" and "duped" come up. Who was it who was suckered into posting that faked magazine cover, in an attempt to show that scientists once worried about cooling?
You still don't get it. It's evidence, not experts that produces credibility.
You forget that I was in science back then. Oops. Even then, they were overwhelmingly concerned about warming. Let's see...
One myth that's been hibernating, but has recently resurfaced back into popular discussion, is the idea that back in the 1970s, climate scientists were united in predicting global cooling...The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.
But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
See above. You've been had once again.
(Rocket counters with a newspaper article citing unnamed "scientists.")
Yep. But marginally better than big cartoons, and posting faked magazine covers, I suppose.
How convenient.
Nope. I was in science then. If it wasn't in the peer-reviewed literature, it lacked credibility. Particularly anonymous experts in newspaper stories.
You probably should be a bit subdued when "gullible" and "duped" come up. Who was it who was suckered into posting that faked magazine cover, in an attempt to show that scientists once worried about cooling?
You still don't get it. It's evidence, not experts that produces credibility.
You forget that I was in science back then. Oops. Even then, they were overwhelmingly concerned about warming. Let's see...
One myth that's been hibernating, but has recently resurfaced back into popular discussion, is the idea that back in the 1970s, climate scientists were united in predicting global cooling...The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.
But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
See above. You've been had once again.
Correct.
Like I said earlier, the feed from NCDC was used by PBS. PBS called their site "The Widget". Here is what PBS said about their site:
"We’ve built this widget so our viewers can understand the significance of the heat, not only in terms of raw degrees, but in a format that compares today’s temperatures to previous record highs"
Now that the record lows are far greater than the record highs, NCDC and PBS have changed their websites.
See, when we had the record highs, we were told over and over again it was because of man made global warming. But now that we have record lows, it's just weather.
The man made global warming hoax proponents are caught in their lies over and over again.
PhilipJames
New member
No takers?
Here is what happens when junk science is embraced by a large portion of the 'scientific' community and political classes:
Eugenics, the science of improving the human race by scientific control of breeding, was viewed by a large segment of scientists for almost one hundred years as an important, if not a major means of producing paradise on earth.
http://ed5015.tripod.com/BEugenics72Bergman73Potter77.htm
PJ
Preaching to the choir Tet, I know and I agree...
NOAA runs the "National Climate Data Center". After February 3, 2014 NCDC stopped providing record high/low temps.
From Feb 3, 2014:
Then for 6 months the site looked like this:
***As of last month, the site is back up again.
So, it was gone for 8 months?
As I type this, it's 28 degrees here in Pittsburgh. The all time record low for November 2nd and November 3rd is 26 degrees.
Could break the record in a few hours.
Must be all the CO2 trapping the heat.
Could break the record in a few hours.
Must be all the CO2 trapping the heat.
I think it was about 6 months.
Record Lows have outpaced record highs almost 2 to 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-nearly-2-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-nearly-2-1/
Here in the USA, Eugenics thrives under then name "Planned Parenthood".
Just like the man made global warming hoax proponents, Planned Parenthood is made up of Liberal Progressives.
PhilipJames
New member
Just as anyone who proposes another theory aside from 'man made global warming' to fit the data is condemned as a denier regardless of whether the theory is more justifiable ....
Peace!
PJ
There has never been a society that advocated a "flat earth". "Flat earth" is a strawman made up by Progressive Liberals.
If you really think a society existed that advocated a flat earth, please show us who they were.
As for geocentrism, Einstein said neither geocentrism, nor heliocentrism could be proven true or false. Einstein said both Ptolemy and Galileo were correct.
Using Einstein's theory of relativity, either can be proven true.
I can show you more people with PhD's in astronomy who advocate geocentrism, than I can show climatologists who disagree with man made global warming.