the failure to engage in followup dialog by B-Rock tells its own story
That is because it is a misdirection. You refuse to consider the important and applicable information I have presented on this thread ofr the benefit of the community.
Climate Change The New Catalyst For Globalists/Communist Utopia
by Perry 372 Replies latest members politics
-
B-Rock
-
B-Rock
Besty sneers at the climate blogs I am posting information from. However, they have been right more than once. Last year, the IPCC said that it was the warmest October on record---only it wasn't. The climate skeptic blogs caught a simple, childish error made by the world's greatest "climate scientists". If it was an error to begin with. By all means, let's commit trillions of dollars based on this political body's recommendations.
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies(only 4 bodies and the other one is the CRU?) responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
Doh!
-
besty
the failure to engage in followup dialog by B-Rock tells its own story
That is because it is a misdirection. You refuse to consider the important and applicable information I have presented on this thread ofr the benefit of the community.
lets just examine the facts here B-Rock
On Page 11 you posted something about the CIA in the 1970's. (134/176) I immediately asked you a simple one line question relating to your CIA post - Is the CIA claiming consensus the same as there actually being consensus? Yes or no would have done by way of an answer. And then I would have replied to your reply. You know - like a discussion forum.....
But on page 12 you posted a new article from forbes.com. (135/176) I reminded you about my CIA question and meantime deconstructed your forbes.com post.
On page 13 you finally make an effort at a response to my CIA question:
The CIA planning document reads like it could have been written last month, just change cooling and warming. Did you actually read past the cover sheet, Besty? You are industrial strength grade A certifiable, buddy.
Despite failing to answer my simple CIA question or forbes.com deconstruction you now proceed on page 14 to open up a new subject with the wattsupwith Eschenbach article. (145/176). I respond by reminding you of my unanswered questions on the CIA, the forbes.com article, the ad hominem against me and ask the reason why you are posting 'new stuff' without answering questions on the 'old stuff'.
Not content with the number of open and unanswered topics you have on the go, you paste another 3 or 4 new ones on page 15 including the Oregon Petition (153 and 154/176)
I again remind you of the unanswered questions and comment on the Oregon Petition, but unconcerned with such trivialities as replying you paste another 2 new links to more material. (155/176)
Finally on page 16 you attempt another reply but can't help yourself avoiding the questions and adding a new ad hominem:
You mean like your posts above copied verbatim from climateskeptic? Your dishonesty is boundless, isn't it, besty?
Factually incorrect, question-avoiding and fact-lite as it was you inevitably saw fit to just throw in a few more cut and paste quotes from yet more new sources. (159-167/176). Why you couldn't just save a bit of effort and paste the wikipedia link to the consensus deniers I don't know.
I again remind you of the unanswered questions but old habits die hard with you and you paste_yet_another_article on page 18 (172/176)
Which brings us nicely up to date where you excuse your failure to answer any questions with the strange claim that I am attempting 'misdirection'.
And I assume, just for the hell of it, you add another new article (176/176) - its like you have some sort of inability to post without adding a new cut and paste - like some sort of commitment phobia to jilted pastes.
Anyways - as always the reader can decide who is attempting misdirection and who is engaging in debate for the benefit of the community.
And you B-Rock, my paste-a-licious friend, have some questions to answer. (with a new cut and paste I assume)