Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Maybe, but using it does your argument no favours because all you have to do to disprove global warming is point of a single area where temperatures have either stayed the same or fallen.

 

As i said, i certainly think the climate is changing, as it always has done.

 

Only if you insist on using the term outside its normal usage.

 

It is a bit like arguing that someone isn't homophobic because they don't fear humans or homosexuals, just that they hate them.

[Wildcat]

If it is, it'll have been 'shopped

 

http://thebenshi.com/2010/05/10/37-photoshopped-polar-bear-is-the-climate-science-community-really-really-really-this-clueless-yes/

 

And obviously photo-shopped too. So what? Magazines do that a lot for illustrative purposes.

 

Deniers do the same, Roy Spencer for example using a photo-shopped image for his book cover.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php

[convert]

And obviously photo-shopped too. So what? Magazines do that a lot for illustrative purposes.

 

Deniers do the same, Roy Spencer for example using a photo-shopped image for his book cover.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php

 

The fact that it has been photoshopped to help in an appeal to emotion, rather than scientific 'fact'.

 

The fact that images such as this are used to blatantly decieve the general public into 'believing' in the great MMGW scam.

 

 

Oh and do you remember NOAA-16, well it appears that at least another 4 of NOAA's 'birds' may be faulty.

 

US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” -temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speakout.

 

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

 

Source http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6144&linkbox=true&position=2

[freespeech]

The Earth's mean temperature is actually falling. This Global Warming/Climate Change nonsense is entirely political. for whatever hidden agenda the politicians have

 

Along with Political Correctness it goes to show how easily the population's mindsets can be manipulated with a constant barrage of dis-information. I wonder Climate Change Denial hasn't been added to their list of taboo subjects

 

wrong, the earth is getting hotter, we are not sure why thats all.

[Wildcat]

The fact that it has been photoshopped to help in an appeal to emotion, rather than scientific 'fact'.

 

The fact that images such as this are used to blatantly decieve the general public into 'believing' in the great MMGW scam.

 

It is hardly a deception when it is obviously photo-shopped.

 

Oh and do you remember NOAA-16, well it appears that at least another 4 of NOAA's 'birds' may be faulty.

 

Source http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6144&linkbox=true&position=2

 

You mean the microwave sensors that are not incorporated in any of the global mean temperature records.

[Wildcat]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/

 

This addresses the point very well. Watch all the way to the end to see why Watts is not just wrong, but trying to trivialise something that we clearly should be very concerned about.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/08/great_video_on_arctic_sea_ice.php

[convert]

It is hardly a deception when it is obviously photo-shopped.

 

 

 

You mean the microwave sensors that are not incorporated in any of the global mean temperature records.

 

Sorry old chap; it's still a deception.

 

As for your insistence that the faulty microwave sensor outputs aren't used in the global mean temperature, could you tell me which sensors are, and how many of them are likely to be faulty?

 

Also why didn't NOAA admit they had faulty sensors, why did it take and outside source............Oh wait a minute I've already asked these questions and you evaded them...

 

...The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ since its launch in September 2000. Yet on the advice of top climate scientists I’m reliably informed that such failures were made known to NOAA years ago.

 

Nonetheless, the U.S. agency continued to sell its flawed data products to numerous international institutions without making it public that satellite sensors were “degraded” and unreliable for assessing climate change...

 

[retep]

wrong, the earth is getting hotter, we are not sure why thats all.

 

Too many takeaways.

[convert]

More here on the problems that NOAA have

 

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html

 

...I have written many posts that our ground surface temperature record based on the collapsing network of weather stations around the world, is biased upward with the urban heat island effect and by obviously bad grid interpolation schemes. I had thought that the only reliable temperature records were the satellite and ocean buoy temperature records. I was wrong. It now appears that since at least 2005, the satellite temperature records have not been reliable...

 

...This led to questions to NOAA, which generates the primary temperature records in the U.S. and supplies its raw data to NASA and the CRU at the University of East Anglia in the UK. NOAA has not been very forthright with what is going on, but it has admitted that the NOAA-16 satellite has severe sensor problems. Then they also admitted that other satellites have suffered degradation of their sensors...

 

...It is a wonder to me how one can use data from IR sensors to contribute to the global temperature record if the temperature measured is either that of the ground or of the top of a cloud or just total nonsense. Let us suppose that the data is examined against independent cloud coverage measurements, which it is not clear is carefully done. But, if it were, then all the temperature data would be shifted systematically to higher temperatures. Ground and water areas under clouds are cooler during the day and will also be cooler at night more often than not if the day was also cloudy. Charles Pistis has evaded the repeated question of whether the temperature measurement data from such satellites has gone into the NOAA temperature record...

 

...One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us...

 

...It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth. There is clearly no basis for the claims that the Earth has warmed at unusual rates in recent times or that we know anything more than some local temperatures, mostly from urban heat effect zones...

 

[Wildcat]

Sorry old chap; it's still a deception.

 

As for your insistence that the faulty microwave sensor outputs aren't used in the global mean temperature, could you tell me which sensors are, and how many of them are likely to be faulty?

 

Also why didn't NOAA admit they had faulty sensors, why did it take and outside source............Oh wait a minute I've already asked these questions and you evaded them...

 

No you asked those questions and I answered them look back and you will see.