The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

Show me the NASA evidence. Put in bold what you consider evidence. I only see opinion and conclusion. Where is the blue dress?

 

Scroll up. Again, I'm not going to spend anymore time chasing your goalposts. You, as stated before, are free to refute all the evidence and believe as you wish.

 

No need to scroll, I read it. I'm asking you to put in bold the part or parts you consider to be evidence. I'm really trying to understand your position here. All I see is opinion, conjecture and conclusions.

 

If true, then do you disbelieve the NASA evidence and conclusions or not? If not, why not? Do you have contradictory evidence and conclusions?

 

I have not seen NASA evidence that man is changing the climate and apparently you have not either or you could point it out to me. I see NASA so called climatologist looking at data and models and then making conclusions based on those but I see no actual evidence. Real science has real evidence.

"Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult and means, for example, spending years working on a single experiment, traveling to Antarctica to measure carbon dioxide levels in an ice core, or collecting DNA samples from thousands of volunteers all over the world. Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected. And ideas that are protected from testing or are only allowed to be tested by one group with a vested interest in the outcome are not a part of good science."

There is pertinent line here you could say the warmers have done and I put it in bold but at best that is evidence the planet is warmer than it used to be but it definitely does not provide evidence man is the cause and that is the debate here and there is no evidence of that.

 

Science.house.gov is run by right-wing GOP politicians who are funded by big oil and climate denial interest groups and has a political agenda to shut down climate science research into global warming. We saw this happen on a small scale when the GOP governor of Florida banned scientists in the state from using the terms "global warming" and "climate change." Scientists know that the GOP want to attack science and want to keep politics out of science.

When you look at the NOAA data from 1998 to 2013. There is still a pause so I don't know what you are talking about with erasing the pause. The reality is that if you look at even a wider spectrum of data the pause disappears. Its a pretty common trick on the part of GOP politicians to cherry pick the data to get an unusually hot year like 1998 on the left side of the graph to make the rest of the graph look lower. Thats not how true statistics works. You shouldn't cherry pick your starting point but instead find a starting point that reflects the average at that time. The way GOP politicians have cherry picked the data reveals their agenda and loyalty to big oil lobbyists and its so disgusting and shameless. No wonder they don't get along with scientists.

 

So you arbitrarily take on faith from science that the sun warms the earth but decide to be all skeptical about CO2? Political agenda maybe? My question to you is what has been causing the 2 F of warming from the past 150 years?

 

Translation: I refuse to read the NASA links you've posted multiple times.

No problem. Figured you wouldn't.

As for the NOAA flap, your link is flawed since Bates himself said there was no data manipulation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But ScienceInsider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
The NOAA study was one of several peer-reviewed studies published in recent years that found the so-called global warming “slowdown” did not occur. The studies countered the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 assessment report, which suggested a slowdown in global warming had occurred.

The Republican press release was issued a day after John Bates, a former NOAA scientist not involved with the study...

...But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.

Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn’t followed NOAA protocol in “the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability,” the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed “to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.”

 

I ask over and over for the evidence you guys are basing your strong beliefs on and over and over you can't deliver. Think about that.

 

No need for scientist to tell me if the sun went out earth would freeze and if the sun went supernova earth would burn. Some things are patently obvious.

 

This has been debunked multiple times. Dr. Bates had to retract his statement and admitted that no data had been "manipulated". He then changed his story and claimed that Karl didn't make his data available to the public. That's also patently false. It can be downloaded here. And "the pause" is quite clearly there. You can download the data and see for yourself. By the way, Karl's data actually shows less warming than the consensus.

 

If you have been believing that the sun warms the earth without any need of science then surely you will be able to provide your own evidence that this is the case. Calling it "obvious" doesn't cut it.

Also, supernovas aren't obvious, they come from the theories of scientists. We haven't even seen a supernova get created visually. We just have pictures of the sky scientists give us and theories about how they were created.

Tell me, what in your opinions explains why the earth's temperature has risen 2 F in the last 150 years.

 

The fact that earth had a climate before man and the fact that it had many rapid and severe changes before man is the baseline and needs no evidence to support. The fact that the sun warms the planet is evident every morning as the temperature increases as the sun comes up and cools again as the sun goes down. What needs evidence is that man is changing what would be naturally occurring and you still have not shown me any. Believe it or not my default position is man is ****ing up the planet in countless ways and I'm very open to AGW being one of them but I'm not a follow the crowd kind of person and I need evidence. So far I just have not seen any that persuades me to jump on board the warmer band wagon.

 

You guys? Why are you sweating this? I'm not. Let the Earth warm up. Global warming saves lives. If it's a problem 100-200 years from now, let the kids figure it out. What's the real problem here?

 

I'm sweating nothing, I'm just a seeker of wisdom and truth.

 

You don't breath C02 you exhale C02

Pulling trailers is a pain in the butt btw you know how much gas my 454 Chevy dually sucks down?


This is really cool if I had the money this is what I would buy

 

By a half of a degree using 130 year old temperature records from old guys wearing bifocals and writing down temperature readings using a thermometer?

 

I like my mini motorhome, it fits in most any state or NP campground and is great fun to travel in. Trailers and mega motorhomes are very limiting.

http://www.phoenixusarv.com/2400.html

 

That's not empirical evidence it was staged ...

Their is no lab experiment you can do to prove ..increase C02 raises temperature's .

 

That's the right size one for camp grounds.. you can zip to the store or other tourist traps, the huge ones your right its a pain in the butt , you got to spend an 1/2 an hour it seems backing it up with 5th wheelers then unhitching it (spl?)

 

Great!

 

Correct. So, if you put a plastic bag over your head and have to breath your own CO2 for 30 minutes, what happens?

Yes. I'm guessing about 10-12 MPG.

Nice, but the truck/5th wheel trailer configuration works best for me for several reasons. Each to their own.

 

You do know AGW cult nut bag James Hansen was Al Gores adviser right and he also was ahead of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies i

 

So the earth has a plastic bag over it's head now? Tell us what would happen if earth had no C02 on it?

You do know we need C02 right?

Well then get one I am not stopping you , but why are you burning all that fossil fuel ? And I am warning you not all campgrounds are huge..

Some are $50 to $70 bucks a night but if you can afford it I am happy for you.. really I am

 

Correct, but a lot easier to go to the store in a truck than an RV. Besides, I intend to write my truck off as a business expense. Heck, maybe I'll be able to write off my entire vacation to the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana and wherever as a business expense.