Mr. Kokes

2016-10-26 10:44:48 -0400

ELDERLY

NASA

ELDERLY

ELDERLY

ELDERLY

NOT

ELDERLY

ONE

ELDERLY

NSA

PDF

AGW

NASA

NASA

EPA

NOAA

CIA

“BILLYcommented 1 day ago”Kokes,and Hansen have been caught tampering with temp record data sets too often to be deemed credible – so ancient cut and paste alarmist evangelism doesn’t impress me. “You are likely referring to “Climategate” which has run its course a few years back. And the so called tampering was found to be untrue. Have a read here, http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ This site and many others confirm the following:“Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Skeptics claim the words “trick” and “decline” show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.Leading scientists are unequivocally reaffirming the consensus on global warming in the wake of “Climategate.” White House science adviser John Holdren said at a congressional hearing on climate change: “However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement “reaffirm[ing] the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.” The American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists have also reiterate their positions on climate change .”“BILLYcommented 1 day ago”First off Kokes, …”If you want to continue with your personal biastview commentary of who you think I am that I will respond in kind. You have been warned. “BILLYcommented 1 day ago”That said, I have to correct the defamatory falsifying you spew about my position on climate. First I am in “denial” of nothing that can be scientifically objectively proven. Climate changes – this is a primordial fact born out by archeological and geological evidence. Second, I’m not a scientist nor do I pretend to be, I’m an engineer and I offer nothing but my personal opinion on the evidence presented – an opinion which is subject to change as more objective evidence appears or fails to appear. “Firstly archaeologists and geologists are not climate scientists so cannot speak with any authority on climate change. That would be like asking an electrician how plumbing works. Secondly, you are no different speaking from an engineering background. But at least you admit that all you provide is your personal opinion. Unfortunately, for reasons just stated, your personal opinion means nothing. And you suggesting that you base your opinion on objective evidence sounds good but is also meaningless when you don’t provide creditable links containing this so called “objective evidence”. Now why not take the time to do so now. Just ensure that the “objective evidence” has merit in science. I mean, with your engineering background, you should at least be able to differentiate between what is a scientific report and what isn’t so please don’t waste my time on the latter.“BILLYcommented 1 day ago”My experience is in statistical control methodology. This is why I disagree with the idea we are in a climate “crisis” all evidence points to the climate as being within chronological norms. The heating hysteria started because the early climate models have been provably incorrect from the actual measured temperatures and the objective evidence defies the predictions as we pass each model milestone. Modeling (building reliable prediction on known data and known variables) is a tricky undertaking to begin with. We have seen repeatedly that the climate models used to predict climate trends are found provably faulty (and often corrected) as the heating predictions do not match measured observed temperatures by margins of error which are unacceptable to deem the model data extensions to be remotely accurate either by incomplete/incorrect data sets or omitting other mitigating factors. So by demonstration the science and conclusions made from constantly corrected models issettled.”Blah, blah and more blah. All you have done here Billy is regurgitate what the climate change deniers have been saying. This is not “objective evidence” this is nothing more than propaganda that lacks any support in science. And I understand that your experience has been in a controlled environment but when assessing the global temperatures, even you would agree that it is not a controlled environment as there are so many factors affecting those temperatures. Ocean currents, water vapour, winds, etc.“BILLYcommented 1 day ago”Most recently I was impressed by the number of scientists and mathematicians coming forward with papers showing that the reason the climate models always run hotter than objective measured temperatures, is because there are basic mathematical flaws in the algorithm used to determine thermal feedback sensitivity (and the over estimated roll CO2 has in this function). The consensus of these propositions explain why there is always a >3 degree error in the models. I tend to accept the validity of these arguments and await the peer review of the papers. “Are you referring to “Climategate” again Billy? Regardless, you will be waiting for a peer review on those trumped up papers until you turn blue because that will never be forthcoming. Why, because those so called scientists and mathematicians with their so called science, will have no credibility with the scientific community. None whatsoever! And just to prove this, why don’t you post a link to one of these so called studies that impressed you so much. Just! But be prepared for my scrutiny of it.“BILLYcommented 1 day ago”So from the research I have read or care to, I remain unconvinced we are in a climate crisis mode and I certainly do not believe the science is settled as it is still being corrected (and debunked as theTemp data was) and adjusted as new data becomes available and new mitigating factors are injected into the computations. Nothing you can offer aside from qualified peer reviewed fact will change my personal opinion. So this is where I end any further need to justify my personal opinion to someone who evangelizes the science is settled. We are done here.Oh, we are not done yet. Not for awhile yet. But if you give up, I will understand.And you “remain unconvinced” because you do improper research. Your research is not objective as you claim and you obtain your skewed view of things from organizations such as no friends of science, the oxymoron of oxymorons, who receive funding from the fossil fuel industry to promote the lies. With respect to theiron “Why Models Run Hot” that has been debunked by 97% of the scientific community. Here are a few links that dispute the bullshit spewed by so called friends of science:As for the author, Lord Monckton, is a non-scientistdenier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter. The following link is very interesting with his affiliations and such, but more importantly, “According to a search of Google Scholar, Monckton has never published peer-reviewed research in any journal at any time. http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton And then there is this…lol http://grist.org/climate-energy/famed-idiot-lord-monckton-banned-for-life-from-un-climate-talks/ “Famed idiot Lord Monckton banned for life from U.N. climate talks”As for Patrick Michaels, who authored the report in your second link, admitted that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry”. http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels And as for your final link, the author, William Gray, his affiliation is with fossil fuel funded Heartland Institute — Previously listed as a “Global Warming Expert” by the Heartland Institute. The HeartlessLand Institution of Idiots collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations. http://www.desmogblog.com/william-gray So please Billy, find another source of your research because yours is severely and significantly flawed. My recommendation would be for you to research some actual “scientific papers”, ones that are peer reviewed for credibility. And here is what I am talking about:From the Union of Concerned Scientists supported by the 97% of Scientists that agree with Anthropocentric global warming.: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate ChangeWhathas to say:What the American Institute of Physics has to say:What thehas to say:The basics:The National Center of for Science EducationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (National Wildlife Federation:The European Project on Ocean Acidification:State Universities:Yale University:Natural Geographic:U.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Energy Information AdministrationU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationWorld Fact BookWorld Energy CouncilNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryEmissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2009: Independent Statistics & Analysis.U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. March 2011.The following is a summation of the above all neatly packaged for ease of understanding:Now read the above scientific articles above and take heed. btw, 97% of the scientific community agrees with global warming caused by man, the 3% you seem to cite receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and have been totally discredited.However as an engineer, you should know better than to spew the unfounded rhetoric you find on the web. I am disappointed Billy I expected more from learned man! The next time, please provide links to credible science sites and papers that have been peered reviewed. Don’t rely on the dribble you get from the Rebel and other organizations like them (No Friends of Science, Heartattackland, etc.) And good luck with that, you will need it..lmfao