Zero Warming for 58 years... based on raw NOAA data!

Nine_Ender said:
You are posting a lot of stupid shit lately. I think the reason that you encounter a lot of intelligent people ( including some scientists ) that "attack" your ideas is because they are dumb ass ideas that need to be confronted. The US seems to be at a point where a significant percentage of the population, like yourself, is under educated or willfully ignorant and believes far too much in superstitious or questionable bs.

Anyone who posts that they "hate science" has issues.
More...

ehhh... not really. I'm a Mensa member for one thing. I turn over rocks and find a lot of things crawling out like shitty personalities that can't admit they are wrong, will throw a tantrum first, will destroy careers before admitting they need to change their views... they don't belong in science at all but they dominate the field. I can't find any real reason to view origins by evolution as anything but fantasy. That's not because I'm some kind of stubborn personality, it's because I looked at the circular reasoning that underpins the idea and it's obvious that it's... well, circular reasoning used to create a fantasy! I'm looking at the field of medicine and finding that it's worse than the other fields that are also dominated by introverts. It's equally stupid but it's directly destroying people.

People should try doing their own thinking, it's refreshing and profitable.
 
ETcallhome said:
I think if you had attended a better school like we have here in the USA you would fully appreciate the relevance of time to all topics.
More...

Better schools in the US is a bit of a myth. I prefer higher quality Canadian schools. On a value basis, no comparison, I feel badly for young Americans who saddle themselves with massive debt going to school.
 
Last edited:
Nine_Ender said:
Better schools in the US is a bit of a myth. I prefer higher quality Canadian schools. On a value basis, no comparison, I feel badly for young Americans who saddle themselves with massive debt going to school.
More...

Top Universities in the World
Let's look at the top 10:

1) Harvard (USA)
2) Stanford (USA)
3) MIT (USA)
4) University of California at Berkeley (USA)
5) University of Cambridge (UK)
6) Princeton University (USA)
7) California Institute of Technology (USA)
8) Columbia University (USA)
9) University of Chicago (USA)
10) Oxford University (UK)

Where are the "higher" quality Canadian schools?
 
gwb-trading said:
Top Universities in the World
Let's look at the top 10:

1) Harvard (USA)
2) Stanford (USA)
3) MIT (USA)
4) University of California at Berkeley (USA)
5) University of Cambridge (UK)
6) Princeton University (USA)
7) California Institute of Technology (USA)
8) Columbia University (USA)
9) University of Chicago (USA)
10) Oxford University (UK)

Where are the "higher" quality Canadian schools?
More...

Every list is subject to the writers biases; lists are pretty much useless in determining where to get educated.

I went to the University of Waterloo. Microsoft recruited heavily there for decades, because of the quality of the programs and students. I suppose attending MIT at a much higher cost would have offered up similar opportunities upon graduation. No need. When I chose U of Waterloo, it was recognized as one of the top Mathematics based programs in the world. I suspect it still is.

Canada has numerous high quality universities and the right one to attend is more to do with your specialty then what is the "best" school. Canada's graduates are well respected in world businesses. I highly doubt your client hesitates to employ graduates of Canadian universities, or question their education.

Quite seriously, Canada has far less education related issues these days then the US. There are far too many Americans that are poorly educated, and that makes for a somewhat unstable country. It really doesn't matter what your "best school" is when your worst public schools are horrible.
 
Considering the empty suit you just elected as PM, I question your claim to Canadian intellectual superiority.

Of course we elected Obama twice, so maybe you do have a point.
 
The bottom line is that in the data sciences when you've got opposing camps of people all massaging the data (not just smoothing and removal of outliers but wholesale offset of entire datasets) you eventually just go back to the raw data and start over and that is what has occurred here.

The raw data says there hasn't been climate warming in 58 years so claims of global warming due to human activity are moot.
 
jem said:
I see fraudcurrents tried to hijack the thread with a similarly named thread.

this is his link...
Since we are not afraid of science... perhaps he would like to tell us what he thinks these scientists are saying.

Other than they are trying to excuse away the reality that the NOAA data set shows no cooling.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html
More...
Not a peep out of him for days regarding this. Sure took a long time for them to get their talking points set but the misinformation patrol is back in action.
 
Wallet said:
Not a peep out of him for days regarding this. Sure took a long time for them to get their talking points set but the misinformation patrol is back in action.
More...

He had to get his instructions from the Skeptical Science "crusher crew" on how to twist the facts on global cooling.
 
In case futurecurrents come here and presents the surface temps on this thread too.
I thought I would beat him to the punch.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.

2016-03-07114423.png




2016-03-07152234-1.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top