Comment

Thank you LinkedIn! You can’t stop the inevitable progress of mankind towards maturity. Slowly, but surely, society is growing up…

about 7 hours ago on Updated LinkedIn user agreement prohibits 'escort services or prostitution,' even where legal 2 replies

Comment

Fortunately, opposing views are not suppressed yet on this website. Here’s a book you should read:

about 9 hours ago on Heat-related deaths in Manhattan projected to rise 20 percent by the 2020s

Comment

Yeah, thank goodness the deniers don’t think like that either!

about 10 hours ago on Heat-related deaths in Manhattan projected to rise 20 percent by the 2020s

Comment

The alarmists seem to be quite certain, despite all the “difficult to predict”, “chaotic”, and “complex” circumstances they are working with…kinda makes you wonder whether all the so-called alarms are based on sound decisions…

about 10 hours ago on Heat-related deaths in Manhattan projected to rise 20 percent by the 2020s 1 recommend

Comment

Then why do the alarmists keep using ‘local’ phenomenon to raise the alarm? I seem to recall the alarm they raised several years ago was based solely on air temp of a few places around the world. Do you see the problem here? Changing your mind is fine, but claiming that the ‘science is settled’ was clearly jumping the gun, even by your own statements.

about 11 hours ago on Heat-related deaths in Manhattan projected to rise 20 percent by the 2020s 1 recommend

Comment

You understand that the graph gzaleski shows above uses the same two axes, right? In fact the two gaphs use the identical data points, except mine starts at an earlier time period.

You have to read both graphs the same. Every year is compared to the “Zero” year (typically an average of a certain range). A delta of 0.5 does not mean every year it went up 0.5, it means each year was it was the same 0.5 above the average of the range you picked. For example, if the zero year was an average of 23, and this year it was 24, you would put a data point at “1.0”. If next year the temp was the same as this year, you would still put the next data point at “1.0”. So, considering the graphs above it is clear that the temperature for the last 15 years has been steady at ~0.5 above whatever average they picked (the average itself is another sticking point but that’s an argument for another day).

The point is there are well-known, well-understood events taking place that clearly explain temp increases/changes over the last several decades. The problem is the alarmists have COMPLETELY ignored this fact and tried to put the blame solely on the quantity of CO2 that humans produce, which, as you can easily tell from the above graph, is a ridiculous claim.

about 11 hours ago on Heat-related deaths in Manhattan projected to rise 20 percent by the 2020s

Comment

The graph you show above may have the correct data but the fake trend lines were placed there by the authors themselves as way to try and discredit “deniers”, when in fact he is simply manipulating your ignorance and hiding what actually caused temperatures to rise in the past.

That graphic was shown to be a manipulation and mis-representation of the facts and data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/

A more ‘realistic’ description of what is going on is given in the graphic below. The cause of any rises in temperature were the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift, the 1986/87/88 El Ninos, and the 1997/98 El Ninos. These are well-known and studied phenomenon, and have been active long before anybody started pumping out CO2, let alone complaining about it. Notice that during the last 15 years there has been no appreciable warming.

about 23 hours ago on Heat-related deaths in Manhattan projected to rise 20 percent by the 2020s 1 reply 1 recommend