The New Global Cooling Thread.

Turns out the US has been cooling sense the 1930's when you look at charts/graphs that have not been "altered". Looks like I'm not the only one that has a problem with fudged data.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

Troll harder.

This describes the corrections made to the data sets in order to account for systematic error:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf

Please look over it Altima and explain to me if you believe it is reasonable or not.

So basically, your link pretty much backs up Altima's link, and people are saying that Altima is trolling?

I'm pretty sure you will counter with something like "But Al Gore said so, so it must be true!"

Honestly I think even the left have disowned Al Gore.

Because they finally found the "Inconvenient Truth"?

I highly doubt that

Because he's Super Cereal about everything. Especially Manbearpig.

And he's been discounted as a total loon for close to 20 years.

How come he is still being praised by the left?

I noticed a lot of people in Altima's links are incredibly stupid, and are confusing Climatologists with Meteorologists. Additionally, "StevenGoddard", as it were, was increasingly obstinate in linking the original articles and data from which he pulled and generated his graphs - which he had been taken to task on, continually refuting initially, to provide for further study.

If, what he claims is correct, then instead of outright bashing those 2,000 scientists who came to a "consensus", which is what those 5,000 other scientists did to sign a petition to have it labeled as a hoax, then they are equally at fault for "bad science" without even looking at the models used for theorem.

Granted, someone did also point out, from an engineering standpoint, that the models were flawed in lieu of the more reasonable and sound theories that they were produced to represent.

Like the minority of the posters following StevenGoddard, I do welcome skeptics to the debate, so long as they can add to the conversation/debate that is happening, instead of going full retard. (This statement also applies to the group "climate change onry!" so it isn't simply one sided)

I'm still going through pleebo's PDF link, so i'll comment on that later.

So controlling CO2 emissions is nothing but a scam to suck money from industry to rich politicians?

If you are basing your entire opinion of a link by the comments section, I would strongly suggest not to go to any mainstream media websites.

You think these people are stupid, you haven't seen anything yet.

What the author is pointing out is that United States Historical Climate Network and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies have been tampering with their data. How are the climate scientists are supposed to know that the data has been tampered with since it is impossible to go back into time for them to record temperatures themselves.

Climate Scientists have no choice but to rely on such data, and expect such data to not be tampered with.

Although, I question the raw data myself. How can we be sure that that data hasn't been tampered with?

No, their studies have basis at the very least.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a city covered by smog 100% of the time and acid rain happens daily.

In other words, I will never visit Los Angeles.

I think one of the funniest things (poltically speaking) in the entire climate change debate is that most conservatives are the ones who are against abortion, who are pro-religion, pro-big-families, etc., etc., etc.

That is to say, they feel the need to push future generations onto the world, and in record numbers.

But at the same time, they're the people who want to *** up the land through drilling, and mining, and fracking. They're the ones who deny climate change vehemently without ever objectively viewing statistics, because doing so would have an effect on their cash flow from all those pollution-spewing industries.

The people who constantly want to pump out little biological units into the world are the same people who seem single-mindedly hellbent on sodomizing the planet and leaving it a damn mess for those future generations.

Because all of these so-called "conservatives" (though the last time a modern conservative practiced conservation I couldn't tell you) don't seem to get that if they're wrong, and we keep on at this pace we're screwing ourselves as a race.

But if they're right, and all this climate change stuff is rubbish, oh no! We're now saddled with....

...***. Less smog, better air quality, less dependance on foreign oil, and a generally nicer place to live.

***. I HATE it when that *** happens.

I dunno, there is so much "evidence" for every which side, while there is a lot of real factual science to climate change as a whole with no one cause. I lean to the scientific community's overwhelming consensus and accept climate change is occurring, but am far from wanting every facet of life being eco friendly.

You are talking about politicians, not the general population.

Nobody truly agrees with who is elected, they agree with the one they voted for because they don't agree with the other guy.

Yeah Beijing is far worse. The country side is much better.

The problem is, most of their basis for climate change comes from historical numbers.

If the historical numbers are incorrect, their basis is incorrect.

Somebody is presenting evidence that their historical numbers are incorrect, and the only person who is defending the numbers provided evidence that supports the disbelief. Which is kindof ironic, so to say.

Given the amount of vehement non-believers in global warming around this forum, I'm talking about a lot of people, not just politicians.

That said, you're pretty spot-on in your analysis of why we vote. I can't remember the last time I voted for someone I actually wanted in office. It's just a vote for the person I feel is less of a threat to me.

I voted for Ron Paul because he's bat ***crazy, which makes me like him.

All I know is when I read stuff like this my mind goes directly to the flow of money. They focus on the money and don't do ***about the actual environment. It's all about raising funds for people to sit on their ***. Stop with the scams and actually DO something. Stop the *** taxes, the funding of lame studies, or the funding of a some douchebag as a candidate. DO SOMETHING!

Huff Post Source

I'm a conservative, but I don't share a lot of the conservative politician stances when it comes to social issues (anti-gay rhetoric, pro-religion, so on and so forth). I just don't like being lumped up with what politicians state.

Unfortunally, that is how a lot of people do to others.

Wait, I thought Super PACs are evil and should be illegal to the minds of the left.

I guess it's ok when it supports their agenda, but not when it is against it. Which isn't the first time they change their minds to reflect the current day.

Also: How dare you use a Huffington Post article outside the appropriate thread!!!!

I was trying to browse for a good news story before and ended up just getting angry reading that article, lol.

Now I know how Jon Stewart feels when watching Fox News.

I can see it from both sides really. It's all become one big blur to me. Everyone thinks their side is right and mocks the other side. When in reality the system is intentionally being ran that way for maximum profits. More money in bickering and bitching than solutions and peace.

Because of
1. They went full retard,
2. They have a financially vested interest (as do many proponents who politicize ANYTHING, not just climate change) in receiving funding, which eventually gets embezzled into other projects. Sometimes the only way to receive funding for other, more beneficial research,
3. I wanted to type something witty and clever, about not wanting to listen to dissenting opinions, but usually, it's already because of going full retard.

If there is an honest and open debate, both sides can agree, that there is still wasteful spending on proving/disproving climate change, and the effects it has on the various global ecologies and micro-ecologies which sustains the functions of the planet, and the species living on it.

Both sides, admittedly can agree that finding financially sound ways to keep the air and water (and thus our food sources) cleaner and healthier, is a good thing.

However, the biggest argument seen about global warming, coming from the "skeptics", and I use that quoted term loosely because the applicable group of people I am referring to, aren't actually skeptics that question the science, scientific method, or the general consensus, have also gone full retard. I say this, simply because the general referral happens to be "liberal this", "liberal that", or "liberal agenda keeping us in check", when really, any argument that starts off as an anti-political party rant, that doesn't even look at the science from their side, or more accurately, refuses to compare the science from both sides due to political affiliation, it isn't skepticism - it's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, and doesn't deserve to be part of the debate. Again, this also applies to both sides of the climate change argument.

There have been liberally affiliated scientists that have refused to be a part of the debate, because they don't believe in the scientific models, not the method, to test the theories being touted, as an accurate portrayal of the events, or believe there is no accurate model able to be designed by our current way of looking at climate change.

The closest analogy I could possibly give to global climate change, is this:

Take your house for example (yes it's a bad example, but humor me) freshly built, sufficiently insulated so no heat escapes, none gets in. Your ventilation system makes it so that the air continues to be fresh and filtered for years to come, assuming there are no unnecessary particles clogging or accumulating in the filtration system. All particles absorb thermal energy, that would be naturally found in the environment of your home. Of course, they would also reflect miniscule rays of light, and emit some of that thermal energy. Of course, each increase in total surface area would increase the amount of thermal energy being emitted into the environment as well. So it's not necessarily about the particular gas itself, but the concentration of particles absorbing, and re-emitting that stored energy in a greater surface area. Some green house gases, or emissions, have a higher amount of particles found within them. As it builds up, and the filter clogs, your home begins to smell less... fresh. Contaminated even. Of course, in a home, it's much easier to clean, or change the filter, than say that of the Ozone layer of the planet, or the re-planting of trees being cut down annually for human progress.

Add in "industrial toxins", as it were, in this case, we'll scale it down to cigarette smoke as a comparison (you don't actually have to smoke to see where I'm going with this.) there are 108 different chemicals in cigarettes, that are designed pollutants to your lungs, so we'll use that to represent, say, 108 different chemical pollutants in the air. They get mixed together in the air, combining the particle surface that absorbs heat, as well as poisons the air, which poisons the natural filter (clogging it), and contaminates the local fauna and plant life, reducing their life expectancy, and their ability to provide sustenance and impeding their ability to filter the air. The increase in particles that absorb and/or emit heat, will change the climate - it with either become colder in one area, and warmer in another, colder over-all, or warmer over-all.

Now, puncture a hole, or wear and tear happens as the house gets older, and suffers from the long term abuse of collective pollutants in a single area, causing deterioration in the insulating membrane (this could be windows, insulation, crumbling foundation, etc.) and it opens things up to an incredible amount of other factors to consider, in how the climate changes, and affects those dwelling in the environment.

President Obama is just too busy coming up with new ideas for BLU spells to really do anything else.

Sounds like you might be... A DIRTY LIBERAL SCUMBAG WITH AN AGENDA!

It's posts like this that makes me want to go back to work....

Although your analogies aren't flawed, and it is overall a good post, holy wall of text Batman!

Them's fighting words!