Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Snow in October

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:49:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thank you for demonstrating how ignorant the public is about global warming. Some of you deniers insist we are as cold as ever, some say "OK it's warming but it's not man-made," and still others say "OK it's warming and man-made, but we shouldn't be worried."

And then there are scientists, who say we should be worried. I wonder if I should believe a bunch of internet know-it-alls, or trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to the objective study of the environment.
Rob
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:56:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:49:32 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating how ignorant the public is about global warming. Some of you deniers insist we are as cold as ever, some say "OK it's warming but it's not man-made," and still others say "OK it's warming and man-made, but we shouldn't be worried."

A.) It was warming now it's getting colder. That's how the climate works. It's natural.


And then there are scientists, who say we should be worried.

And fail to prove it with sound science

I wonder if I should believe a bunch of internet know-it-alls, or trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to the objective study of the environment.

I'm sorry but the scientist who support global warming shouldn't even call themselves scientist. They do not use any sound scientific methods, and refuse to allow their work to be subject to peer review, or questioned period..
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:12:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Politics needs to be in science less than religion needs to be in politics.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:15:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

When it didn't get cold the CRU changed their minds. Now they are saying that the horribly cold/snowy winters are caused by Global Warming

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Actually if there are crop failures it is because of the cold and bad weather. And as far as the drought NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. In 2008 Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University said "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," (ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free).

Actually Arctic Ice, is thicker and temperatures are not rising.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period. And thats the NASA numbers which have been known to have a problem accuracy, because instead of collecting data from temperature stations, NASA makes assumptions regarding what the temperatures should be.

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions." With the possible exception of the atmosphere directly over congress, air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970. Remember before we were warned about global warming, we were told that the Earth was facing an Ice age.

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Granted, Obama is no fan of our close friends across the pond, but according to today's news, England was still there.

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

Maybe he was talking about the US Gulf Coast during the BP oil spill?

9. Al Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane. Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: "It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It's going to lead to more hurricanes."

Contrary to the hysterical nonsense being spewed by global warming experts, the past 50 years has been about the quietest on record for US hurricanes. The 1940s was the worst. Researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years. This year there were plenty of hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they were generally weak and did not hit land. Pacific hurricanes were at a record low in 2010.

10. The Silly Stuff- Those Global Warming Moonbats figure out ways to blame the dumbest things on global warming. I call it the official crazy list of things Moonbats say global warming causes. The list contains, Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Severe acne, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish,Longer days, Shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, and Heroin addiction and a rise in bear attacks in Japan and Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, and Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide,water -borne disease outbreaks,heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests just to name a few.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the "man-made" global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth's climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren't even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.

Well, as it turns out, they can't.

All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environemental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called "models" into which current climate data is entered and the programs then "predict" future climate conditions.

The problem is, they don't work!

A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could "predict" current climate conditions.

All 22 climate models failed!

Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.

In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.

This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.

Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.

Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temerature hasn't changed since 2001!

This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any "mainstream" media news source? No, of course not. And you won't.

The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:16:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the "man-made" global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth's climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren't even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.

Well, as it turns out, they can't.

All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environemental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called "models" into which current climate data is entered and the programs then "predict" future climate conditions.

The problem is, they don't work!

A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could "predict" current climate conditions.

All 22 climate models failed!

Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.

In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.

This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.

Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.

Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temerature hasn't changed since 2001!

This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any "mainstream" media news source? No, of course not. And you won't.

The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?

http://americanelephant.wordpress.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:38:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:15:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:

<snip>

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.


When it didn't get cold the CRU changed their minds. Now they are saying that the horribly cold/snowy winters are caused by Global Warming


2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.


Actually if there are crop failures it is because of the cold and bad weather. And as far as the drought NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.


3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. In 2008 Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University said "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," (ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free).


Actually Arctic Ice, is thicker and temperatures are not rising.


4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period. And thats the NASA numbers which have been known to have a problem accuracy, because instead of collecting data from temperature stations, NASA makes assumptions regarding what the temperatures should be.



5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions." With the possible exception of the atmosphere directly over congress, air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970. Remember before we were warned about global warming, we were told that the Earth was facing an Ice age.

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Granted, Obama is no fan of our close friends across the pond, but according to today's news, England was still there.

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

Maybe he was talking about the US Gulf Coast during the BP oil spill?

9. Al Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane. Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: "It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It's going to lead to more hurricanes."

Contrary to the hysterical nonsense being spewed by global warming experts, the past 50 years has been about the quietest on record for US hurricanes. The 1940s was the worst. Researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years. This year there were plenty of hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they were generally weak and did not hit land. Pacific hurricanes were at a record low in 2010.



10. The Silly Stuff- Those Global Warming Moonbats figure out ways to blame the dumbest things on global warming. I call it the official crazy list of things Moonbats say global warming causes. The list contains, Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Severe acne, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish,Longer days, Shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, and Heroin addiction and a rise in bear attacks in Japan and Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, and Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide,water -borne disease outbreaks,heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests just to name a few.


http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com...

The only one of these quotes that even comes close to what I was asking for is the first, but is still general while I was talking about specifics.

Though I will concede that I guess I didn't not consider the scope of your criticism. Given this new information, if we were to take your standard, then all of science, literally all of science, would be a cult that we should not put faith in.

I mean, quotes from 40 years ago? Seriously?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:40:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the "man-made" global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth's climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren't even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.

Well, as it turns out, they can't.

All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environemental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called "models" into which current climate data is entered and the programs then "predict" future climate conditions.

The problem is, they don't work!

A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could "predict" current climate conditions.

All 22 climate models failed!

Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.

In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.

This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.

Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.

Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temerature hasn't changed since 2001!

This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any "mainstream" media news source? No, of course not. And you won't.

The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?

I guess the same reason people trusted Newton even though his models "failed" to predict the correct orbit of Mercury.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 5:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:40:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the "man-made" global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth's climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren't even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.

Well, as it turns out, they can't.

All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environemental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called "models" into which current climate data is entered and the programs then "predict" future climate conditions.

The problem is, they don't work!

A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could "predict" current climate conditions.

All 22 climate models failed!

Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.

In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.

This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.

Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.

Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temerature hasn't changed since 2001!

This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any "mainstream" media news source? No, of course not. And you won't.

The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?

I guess the same reason people trusted Newton even though his models "failed" to predict the correct orbit of Mercury.

Newton uses Empirical science. Global Warming alarmists don't.

Newton allowed for peer review. Global Warming alarmists don't.

Hell Global Warming Alarmists don't even allow others to criticize their beliefs.... They simply Attack the person, and repeat the mantra.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 5:25:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.

This was in direct responce to your claim that 2001 was the hottest year (clearly shown false).

Much of our data is from water surface tempuratures, so the heat island does not effect. Heat islands are also a minimal effect. You may see a lot of heat islands compared when comparing 2000 to 1950, however, comparing 2000 to 1990, you see little difference, so the heat island effect cannot expain that tempurature difference.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 5:29:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was going to comment here the second he made this thread, but I didn't because I thought he might be joking, and I didn't want to look like an @ss. :p
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:50:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 5:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.

This was in direct responce to your claim that 2001 was the hottest year (clearly shown false).

Much of our data is from water surface tempuratures, so the heat island does not effect. Heat islands are also a minimal effect. You may see a lot of heat islands compared when comparing 2000 to 1950, however, comparing 2000 to 1990, you see little difference, so the heat island effect cannot expain that tempurature difference.

some of the UN stations used for surface temperature readings. I personally like the 1 on the runway.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 2:08:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:49:32 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating how ignorant the public is about global warming. Some of you deniers insist we are as cold as ever, some say "OK it's warming but it's not man-made," and still others say "OK it's warming and man-made, but we shouldn't be worried."

And then there are scientists, who say we should be worried. I wonder if I should believe a bunch of internet know-it-alls, or trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to the objective study of the environment.

Are these the same objective scientists from the University of Essex that were caught cooking the data?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:18:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 5:19:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:40:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:02:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

I'm not aware of any predictions regarding what weather should be expected at a given location during a specific month made by current climate theories. Since you suggest that there are many that have been debunked, perhaps you can provide a reference?

My understanding is that it is a statement about average temperature trends over the entire planet, in which case, "Snow in October" can hardly refute it.

Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the "man-made" global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth's climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren't even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.

Well, as it turns out, they can't.

All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environemental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called "models" into which current climate data is entered and the programs then "predict" future climate conditions.

The problem is, they don't work!

A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could "predict" current climate conditions.

All 22 climate models failed!

Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.

In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.

This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.

Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.

Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temerature hasn't changed since 2001!

This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any "mainstream" media news source? No, of course not. And you won't.

The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?

I guess the same reason people trusted Newton even though his models "failed" to predict the correct orbit of Mercury.

Newton uses Empirical science. Global Warming alarmists don't.

Newton allowed for peer review. Global Warming alarmists don't.

Hell Global Warming Alarmists don't even allow others to criticize their beliefs.... They simply Attack the person, and repeat the mantra.

You didn't allow for that in your initial criteria. The only criteria you provided were failed predictions. That's it. So now you're moving goal posts. When you want to settle on those goal posts, pick them and let me know.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:24:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:52:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:40:32 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:37:50 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:54:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Must be that global warming Gore is so worried about.

Weather != Climate

The Climate has to be right for certain weather.

Agreed, but climate is broad, where weather is specific. I'm not aware of any model of "global warming" (which, admittedly is a poor name, this thread being an excellent example of why) that suggests that such weather patterns are impossible, or even unlikely.

Well I don't know a single model that can make an accurate prediction.

If a church constantly made dooms day predictions for certain dates, and those dates went by without the prediction coming true; it would be blown off as nonsense, and few would continue to follow that church.

If global warming theorists make constant failed predictions, without a single right prediction, it's seen as simply a error, and the date is corrected, and faith is renewed.

I call cult.

"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'.

'Children just aren't going to know what snow is,' he said. "

http://www.independent.co.uk...

That was 11 years ago.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:26:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:56:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:49:32 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating how ignorant the public is about global warming. Some of you deniers insist we are as cold as ever, some say "OK it's warming but it's not man-made," and still others say "OK it's warming and man-made, but we shouldn't be worried."

A.) It was warming now it's getting colder. That's how the climate works. It's natural.

By all reputable accounts you are dead wrong. The climate is getting warmer. Just because we have a cold day in October doesn't mean the science is faulty. Shall we compare studies?

And then there are scientists, who say we should be worried.

And fail to prove it with sound science

By who's standard? Yours? Last I checked, the guys with the degrees were in agreement...

I wonder if I should believe a bunch of internet know-it-alls, or trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to the objective study of the environment.

I'm sorry but the scientist who support global warming shouldn't even call themselves scientist. They do not use any sound scientific methods, and refuse to allow their work to be subject to peer review, or questioned period..

If all the scientists who agreed with global warming suddenly resigned their commissions, there would be something like 1% of them left.
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:32:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:50:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.

This was in direct responce to your claim that 2001 was the hottest year (clearly shown false).

Much of our data is from water surface tempuratures, so the heat island does not effect. Heat islands are also a minimal effect. You may see a lot of heat islands compared when comparing 2000 to 1950, however, comparing 2000 to 1990, you see little difference, so the heat island effect cannot expain that tempurature difference.

some of the UN stations used for surface temperature readings. I personally like the 1 on the runway.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

As I said, care to debate?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:34:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:32:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:50:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.

This was in direct responce to your claim that 2001 was the hottest year (clearly shown false).

Much of our data is from water surface tempuratures, so the heat island does not effect. Heat islands are also a minimal effect. You may see a lot of heat islands compared when comparing 2000 to 1950, however, comparing 2000 to 1990, you see little difference, so the heat island effect cannot expain that tempurature difference.

some of the UN stations used for surface temperature readings. I personally like the 1 on the runway.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

As I said, care to debate?

"The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase."

Based on your previous comments, you appear to be against this.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:41:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:26:16 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:56:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:49:32 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating how ignorant the public is about global warming. Some of you deniers insist we are as cold as ever, some say "OK it's warming but it's not man-made," and still others say "OK it's warming and man-made, but we shouldn't be worried."

A.) It was warming now it's getting colder. That's how the climate works. It's natural.

By all reputable accounts you are dead wrong. The climate is getting warmer. Just because we have a cold day in October doesn't mean the science is faulty. Shall we compare studies?

List your sources

And then there are scientists, who say we should be worried.

And fail to prove it with sound science

By who's standard? Yours? Last I checked, the guys with the degrees were in agreement...

Check again, not everyone with a degree, agrees.

I wonder if I should believe a bunch of internet know-it-alls, or trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to the objective study of the environment.

I'm sorry but the scientist who support global warming shouldn't even call themselves scientist. They do not use any sound scientific methods, and refuse to allow their work to be subject to peer review, or questioned period..

If all the scientists who agreed with global warming suddenly resigned their commissions, there would be something like 1% of them left.

BS,
nice how you cited your sources
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:42:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:32:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:50:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.

This was in direct responce to your claim that 2001 was the hottest year (clearly shown false).

Much of our data is from water surface tempuratures, so the heat island does not effect. Heat islands are also a minimal effect. You may see a lot of heat islands compared when comparing 2000 to 1950, however, comparing 2000 to 1990, you see little difference, so the heat island effect cannot expain that tempurature difference.

some of the UN stations used for surface temperature readings. I personally like the 1 on the runway.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

As I said, care to debate?

Sure I won my last Global Warming debate
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:43:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 2:08:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:49:32 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating how ignorant the public is about global warming. Some of you deniers insist we are as cold as ever, some say "OK it's warming but it's not man-made," and still others say "OK it's warming and man-made, but we shouldn't be worried."

And then there are scientists, who say we should be worried. I wonder if I should believe a bunch of internet know-it-alls, or trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to the objective study of the environment.

Are these the same objective scientists from the University of Essex that were caught cooking the data?

Are you even the slightest bit interested in the truth? Or are you simply so enamoured with Sean Hannity's talking points that you don't even bother to check them out? A simple google search of climategate reveals multiple studies and articles that exonerate the scientists and re-affirm their conclusions. In your own defense, you may have been distracted with the new McRib hype...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 11:11:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:42:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:32:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:50:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 5:20:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:39:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

This is up to date as of 2007 (these are 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one is up to date of 2005 (has both yearly and 5 year averages).

http://www.google.com...

This one, 2009.

http://www.google.com...

This one 2010.

Would you care to debate this issue?

A.) Correlation does not = causation
B.) The Heat Island Effect makes surface temperatures inaccurate for Global Readings.

This was in direct responce to your claim that 2001 was the hottest year (clearly shown false).

Much of our data is from water surface tempuratures, so the heat island does not effect. Heat islands are also a minimal effect. You may see a lot of heat islands compared when comparing 2000 to 1950, however, comparing 2000 to 1990, you see little difference, so the heat island effect cannot expain that tempurature difference.

some of the UN stations used for surface temperature readings. I personally like the 1 on the runway.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

As I said, care to debate?

Sure I won my last Global Warming debate

Challenge sent.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"