Skip to comments.Need help disputing this link's accuracy
Posted on 03/07/2012 1:15:27 PM PST by spacejunkie2001
This was just sent to me by my daughter's 5th grade teacher. I have been going back and forth with her about global warming; obviously she's convinced it's real.
I need ammo from you all here (a bunch of smarty pants when it comes to this stuff:)) so I can go back to her with solid facts disputing this propaganda.
James Delingpole who writes for the UK Telegraph always has good info.
He invented the term “watermelons” for the envirowackos - green on the outside, red on the inside.
” so I can go back to her with solid facts disputing this propaganda. “
You’d have an easier time convincing an Al Qaeda suicide bomber to give up Islam....
What she needs to understand is that the issue of man made global warming is a hoax.
1) How old is the Earth?
2) Does 132 years of temperature data (1880-2012)represent a trend using statistical anaylsis?
3) How did they measure the temperature of the oceans 132 years ago?
reds indicate temperatures higher than the average during a baseline period of 1951-1980, while blues indicate lower temperatures than the baseline average.
Ask yourself why they chose the period they did as a "baseline".
Rush has been calling environmental extremists “watermelons” since the 1990’s. I don’t think Delingpole invented the terminology.
You’re allowing two fallacies in logic.
1) GLOBAL WARMING does NOT equal ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING - CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! Ask her what the solar cycles have been doing in the same time. Is there a feedback mechanism? What’s the water vapor level...iow what are other causes.
2) GLOBAL TREND means GEOLOGICAL TIME - What are the trends over millenia...not decades. Think like a rock not a human when you think about geological time.
That means there were eight years that were even warmer.
Ask her if she can show you any credible scientific proof that CO2 increases cause warming increases. Ask her about the CLIMATEGATE EMAILS and what was behind the HIDE THE DECLINE comment between the scientists. HIDE THE DECLINE was the fraudulent manipulation that the CLIMATEGATE scientists undertook because the termperturs were dropping while CO2 levels were increasing. This was not what these frauds wanted to see to support their POLITICAL CO2 REGULATIONS SCAM ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
My link was to show they were playing with the numbers. But you knew that.
Don't waste your time. Her ammunition is the limitless articles supporting AGW while she doesn't understand one statistic they write other than the conclusion.
Her mindset is such that she feels that mankind not only has the ability to destroy this planet but that we also have the ability to reverse any such damage she claims we are doing........
My suggestion to you is to stop your useless battle with this idiot and also demand that she stop feeding your child with BS.......
Try to find out the actual numbers.
When they declared that 2010 was the warmest year on record since 2005, I found that indeed the “official” number was warmer- 0.015 degrees C. This implies that they know the temperature of the whole earth to five significant digits, and their error bars are less than 0.001 degree.
And try to find the eight years that were warmer.
“Only a fool argues with a fool.” - Chinese proverb.
Tell her to re-read the history of the Earth. It has been here for 5 billion years and gone through hot, cold, wet, dry and everything in between dozens of times before any sort of life form, human or otherwise, was even around to influence its direction. IOW the Earth is a big kid and takes care of itself on a scale humans cannot even fathom.
You'd have better luck juggling flaming chain saws while roller skating.
did you read the link you provided? it’s skepiticism of climate skeptics :|
perfect reply! LOL
you should see her though...more like...SLUG!
Here’s one about the NASA GISS data showing their “increases in temperature” are caused by alterations in the data, not real warming:http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/global-warming-is-caused-by-computers.html
Ask yourself why they chose the period they did as a “baseline”.
Too easy ,, up to the 1980’s scientists were convinced we were heading to a mini-ice-age ... I haven’t looked at the data (and won’t!) because it is inherently unreliable ,, too many problems normalizing the data with differing temperature measurement technology , changes in microclimates around weather stations and such... how do you compare data taken with a mercury thermometer in a hut surrounded by grass and trees to the same weather station with electronic data recording to the 4th decimal point that is now surrounded by asphalt parking and buildings disrupting the airflow and sunlight?
Thanks to everyone! I have replied with a couple of links provided as well as a REMINDER to her (because I told her before) to look into ‘Climategate’ as there is clear evidence they faked the information on warming.
The AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming, proponents shot themselves in the foot and demonstrated their lack of science orientation when they advanced the “hockey stick” model and then stuck by their guns when the model fell flat on its face.
I have done stochastic modeling. One has to be extremely careful to calibrate models and make sure that all the important controlling variables are included in the model. For my first modeling effort I verified the technology I was using by constructing a model of an open system whose parameters could be calculated with formulas directly. Having this model come up reasonable results authenticated the computer language I was using with the runtime libraries, random number generators, and my event injectors. I ran a separate set of tests just to verify the random behavior of the random number generator.
After I verified the technology, I constructed my real world model and tuned it to produce the results of the working system. Then I modified the model to reflect changes I was proposing in the real system. The model results demonstrated that the modifications would have a positive effect. The modifications were made and we measured the new system. The resulting measurement was within 10% of my model results which was an 800% change from the original system.
Now consider the infamous “hockey stick”. It was built from two different types of data sets. The first pre-historical data set was based on tree rings in a very limited area of northern Asia. The second data set was based on different observations BECAUSE THE TREE RING EXTRAPOLATIONS DID NOT MATCH KNOWN HISTORICAL DATA FROM RECENT HISTORY. HELLO! They admitted the tree rings were inadequate for the known history, but they kept the tree ring data for periods where they could not be validated. That STINKS as a methodology.
Looking back, we can now see that the “hockey stick” that was predicted did not happen. It wasn’t even close. Actual results clearly demonstrated that their models weren’t worth spit. At that point they should have junked their models and started from scratch looking for the correct set of variables.
Instead, they dug in. Some actually defended the hockey stick. Others, discounted the shoddy science and insisted that even though they have no data which backs up their projection and there is plenty of data; e.g., satellite data, which throws aspersions on their assertion that CO2 has had a significant effect on warming, they stick to their guns. Thus they behave like religious zealots rather than scientists.
BTW: There has been global warming. If you visit glacier national park in Canada they will gladly show you how the glaciers have been receding. However, the warming started in the late 1800’s long before man had injected significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact is that during the 20th Century we had been coming out of a little ice age.
Even at that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma documented several periods during the 20th Century when scientists declared that a new ice age was upon us due to global cooling. When I walked into my physics class in college in 1970 the prior instructor was wrapping up her science class. She had charts showing the coming ice age.
The key is that no matter which direction the climate moves. The alarmists claim that only massive government intervention into the economy can prevent the coming disaster. And forget about cost-benefit analysis. I haven’t seen one instance where a global alarmist can name any benefit from the supposed warming. According to them it’s all bad. As my boss once told me: “There’s always another side to every story. You are not being rational if you can’t name a single upside.” Thus, another indication that AGW is a religion rather than based on science.
[I do not plan to go to your cited web page. I refuse to provide them with the “hits” which may enrich them due to advertising.]
Exactly. So then ask her what the correct “global” temperature is.
If it’s -130F at the poles and 270F at the equator distributed in a polar format that made the average per square mile was 70F throughout the planet, would that be just as good as 70F distributed constantly from Antarctica to the Sahara?
Is it a good idea to have seasons? Why? Is change good or bad? Which change? If we stop global warming, how do we know when to start it again?
If you don’t have a pretty good knowledge base on a particular subject, it’s probably not a good idea to get into the argument in the first place.
Let’s also not forget urban heating. Fifty years ago, the NOAA temperature censors were away from population centers, but as we have grown, those centers have surrounded these locations and have effected readings.
All of the above. But what in the he$$ are 5th grade teachers doing arguing global warming over email with parents?
How about spend that time TEACHING MATH OR SPELLING OR READING? Our society is a mess.
Simple. Ask her how she knows that water boils at 212 degrees F or freezes at 32 degrees F. (Hopefully she knows why—based on tests and data). Then ask her how she knows that global warming is caused by humans. There is no proven nexus between humans/huma activities and any increase in the earth’s temperature.
The teacher, alas, is probably a lost cause.
When the “cure” is higher taxes and more gov’t control over your lives, who could possibly question the legitimacy of the problem? /s
The warming shown in the rest of world is much greater on land and as people have already pointed out, that discrepancy is due in part to urban heating of land thermometers. Also the removal of rural thermometers from the record (leaving the urban ones in place).
The rest of the site is mostly garbage including the claim that global warming causes more tornadoes (it will likely cause less). And blaming forest fires on global warming when overzealous suppression is a much greater cause. In short, global warming is almost all good. The attempt to paint the weather fluctuations (e.g. the La Nina to neutral transition that caused the tornadoes ) as global warming is anti-scientific.
Where did the temp. readings for this chart come from? If they came from earth bound weather stations instead of a satilites, Andy Watts has data on mico-climate effects on driving up earth bound weather station temp. readings. For example, some were located in parking lots or next to large air conditioning units. People devolped around the weather stations over time.
If she says the temps. came from satilites, measuring air temps, that is better but still, how could she have air temp data before satilites were in the air as shown in this video?
I always ask what caused climate change (warming and cooling cycles) in history before man was driving suv’s?
Finally, a chart simply showing the temperature for this sort period of geological history, is not odd at all. The climate changes all the time; it has never been stagnant. The claim that the warming is caused by man made carbon emisions is not true. See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Also, many of the predictions made by warmists have not turned out to be true because their climate computer models are faulty. http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
Don’t forget about the climate gate scandal where lead scientists with the UN panel were exposed (through e-mail hacking of their University accounts) using their power through threats against Journals and researchers to not publish any science that disagree with their own global warming findings. Andy Watts has the best coverage of all these points: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
We also had the liberals doing the same thing only it was man made global freezing in the 60’s and 70’s. Why? How does it benefit leftists to get control over oil use and heavy taxation? Control over the central means of production - the basic requirement of a Marxist economic system. You control the global oil and you control the globe’s production and living and dying. That is why they are called watermelons - red on the inside playing green on the outside.
They claim we should use alternative energy and there is nothing to replace oil with at the moment. (See Obama’s failed stimulous billions in alternative energy “investments.” Wind and sun technology is not ready for prime time to keep the people alive and our economies going.) Electric cars are not ready for prime time either. See the Government Motors Chevy Volt, as an example.
It must be real, because heat rises.
Notice how the heat rises and gathers up north.
that is great, thank you! I sent it to her :)
Then ask him/her what temperatures, humidities, conditions, etc., prove AGW false. If she can't provide that, then request that he/she google "pseudoscience".
One simple question - What temperature is the earth supposed to be? If she can’t answer that, then she can’t say one way or the other whether the earth is too warm or too cold.
Get hold of a book called “The Deniers: The World Renown Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud” by Lawrence Solomon.....
The teacher is sending you nonsense. ‘Hottest year’ claims are pure political statements.
Even NASA’s Hansen admits it is ‘not particularly important’ — Prof. mocks ‘hottest decade’ claim as ‘a joke’ Edit ‘Claims based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree’
There they go again. The global warming establishment and the media are crowing about 2010 being in a tie for the hottest year” ever. Everyone from Senator John Kerry to Joe Romm are screaming that this is proof the planet is burning up in a Co2 induced hell — and it’s your fault!
It is time for Climate Depot to do a point-by-point rebuttal to the latest round of temperature data nonsense.
Hit her with hard data from A-Z on how the entire global warming movement is failing scientifically:
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z —the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing. The A-Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims’
Ask her her why Earth is cooling currently:
How about, the world has been going thru these same changes for hundreds, thousand, millions, billions of years. Look at the ice core samples taken (ice layer upon layer)from the Viking period or tree samples taken from the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) where the rings were so thin, due to Volcanic eruption and the ash covering the sun, that destroyed crops in Mexico. This volcanic eruption is the earliest in written Chinese history (Krakatoa?)The beginnings of the Hawaiian Islands (volcanic plumes under the sea and the rising of the volcano from the ocean). There are millions of years to argue here. Scientific facts abound on how Clinton’s VP is just off the charts with his convincing arguments. Look up the dissention on him, on the computer and you’ll hit her big.(Teacher that is)