Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Pants-of-dog wrote:That fails to support the claim that the vast majority of funding comes through a few government sources.
BeesKnee5 wrote:This year so far is second warmest since 1949
Truth To Power wrote:So what? By 1949, temperatures had already fallen sharply from the highs around 1940 -- let alone 940. Classic cherry picking of the comparison period. Disgraceful.
Truth To Power wrote:No, it establishes that the vast majority of funding comes from ONE government source: the US federal government.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it does not say that,
nor does it say that all federal finding comes through a single source.
For example, it does not even mention funding for climate research outside the USA.
BeesKnee5 wrote:Can we have your evidence please.
This isn't cherry picking, it's the point at which NCEP research began gathering data after WW2.
Truth To Power wrote:https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs ... e-records/
"Gathering" data?? No. They are just makin' $#!+ up. The heating map you posted shows vast red and orange blotches in remote areas where they indisputably did not have any instruments in 1949, and probably still don't. Your "data" are not observations at all but merely "estimates" based on failed and absurd climate models.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
Everyone can read the quoted text and see that you are wrong.
In fact, it does not even mention the number of funding sources or how funding goes through a small number of sources.
BeesKnee5 wrote:Is this supposed to be evidence of your claim that by 1949 temperatures had fallen sharply from around 1940?
It shows a difference of 0.15C
and that the average around 1940s being 0.6C lower than the last two decades. No year in the 1940s is higher than any of the last thirty years.
If I had shared HadCrut or GissTemp or UAH data it would have a different start date simply because of when gathering started. That's not cherry picking, cherry picking is when you selectively take bits of the data produced to falsely make a claim.
There is only one modification in the NCEP data. 1948-1957 recordings were taken at 3am, 9am, 3pm,9pm. From 1958 the readings are taken 6am, 12 am, 6pm, 12 pm.
Truth To Power wrote:No, it does not. You are either not reading the graph correctly, or you are lying about what it clearly says. I invite all readers to confirm for themselves that the graph clearly shows temperatures plummeted by ~0.4C in just seven years from 1943-1950.
That's a separate issue. I knew you wouldn't accept an accurate temperature dataset; but in the event, you wouldn't even accept one that supports anti-CO2 hysteria because it proves me right about the cherry-picked start date of your other dataset.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
The US federal government has many different departments and committees dealing with climate change. Each have their own budgets and mandates, as do the groups that organize these smaller groups.
Here is a webpage explaining how they are linked:
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_ ... ue_summary
Nowhere does it indicate or imply that all these groups, and the groups they support, receive money from a single source.
BeesKnee5 wrote:And that my friends is a cherry pick.
Take two years that are the extremes and claim they represent a typical average for the period.
I completely accept the temperature dataset and I'm glad you've come round to seeing the data as accurate.
What I don't accept is your hypocrisy of using two cherry picked years .
That sums up your claim pretty accurately.
Truth To Power wrote:So what? They are all part of the US federal government. You are trying to pretend that because there are 200M federal taxpayers in the USA, that's 200M different funding sources. It's not.
But they all do receive money from a single source: the US federal government. Why are you pretending not to know that fact? Your pretense that the US federal government is not a single funding source is absurd, puerile, and disingenuous.
Truth To Power wrote:No, child, that is the period in question. You made $#!+ up about what about what the graph plainly showed, and I called you on your fabrication. Simple.
I didn't claim they represented the typical average for the period. You just made that up, like you do a lot of your other claims. I stated, correctly, that temperature had plummeted in the years before the 1949 start of the dataset you cited.
Then why did you falsely claim that temperature had only declined by 0.15C in the years before the start of the dataset you cited, showing it was cherry-picked?
Huh?? The SECOND of those years was the cherry-picked one YOU cited in YOUR claim! Hello?? And I cited the first one to show why your claim was cherry-picked. Duh.
<yawn> Every year that passes with CO2 continuing to rise more or less exponentially while global temperature increase is either derisory or self-evidently continuing not to cause any significant problem, let alone an "emergency" or "crisis," is an additional proof that I am right and all the anti-CO2 hysteria crowd are wrong. I will continue to be proved right by actual physical events, no matter how many fabricated, manipulated, and fraudulent graphs, maps and numbers you or anyone else may post.
Anyway, I wouldn’t vote for Sanders. He will bank[…]
This is fucking disgusting. Hard times bring out […]
I agree with Ardern. Traditionally Australia and N[…]
There's definitely a difference between austerity […]