GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

 

still waiting for you to show us a trend over the past ten years is down

 

Check the link from Turbguy above...thank you for your support.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

38 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I thought your "choice of statistics" would be at odds with other choices.

Statistics don't lie?

Here ya' go!

 

Your statistical analysis shows a decline in recent years, just click on "Smoothed Time Series" and "Binomial Filter" to see this.

Thanks for the support.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

24 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In April coal in the US fell to a new all time low and for the first time was less than wind.

Got your blinkers on, again, Jay?  Those are American numbers only, world-wide coal is up to all-time highs.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

You posted a link supporting that the planet is warming. Haha

"the global warming seen since 1860..."

The issue is to what extent CO2 is responsible for global warming/cooling. Are you still stuck at the start point? Slow, man.

Wake me up when you get the brain charged.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,556]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your statistical analysis shows a decline in recent years, just click on "Smoothed Time Series" and "Binomial Filter" to see this.

Thanks for the support.

Huh??  You choose your analysis.  I'll chose mine.  And it does not show a "decline".

Edited July 15, 2023 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

7 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Huh??  You choose your analysis.  I'll chose mine.  And it does not show a "decline".

You have got part of 2023 included here, unlike your link above which ends in Dec. 2022. That shows a downturn. You like to change the goalposts in midstream?

Part years do not give an annual story, so we need to see the full 2023 Jan-Dec to make any conclusions.

But thanks for your link above which shows the downturn in the curve. That was helpful. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 83]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Would you like me to quote the language of some of your fellow climate alarmists on this thread? I didn't think so.

Go ahead, but I have already read them. I have read everything you have posted, too.

[turbguy + 1,556]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You have got part of 2023 included here, unlike your link above which ends in Dec. 2022. That shows a downturn. You like to change the goalposts in midstream?

Part years do not give an annual story, so we need to see the full 2023 Jan-Dec to make any conclusions.

But thanks for your link above which shows the downturn in the curve. That was helpful. 

You choose your analysis.  I'll chose mine.  And it does not show a "decline".

 

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

Go ahead, but I have already read them. I have read everything you have posted, too.

Then you know what I am referring to.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

3 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You choose your analysis.  I'll chose mine.  And it does not show a "decline".

 

It does. Here is for the full years through 2022.

Thank you for providing this link for us to see. This is the link you chose for us above.

Too late for you to worm out of this now. Nice try, though.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2022

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,556]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It does. Here is for the full years through 2022.

Thank you for providing this link for us to see. This is the link you chose for us above.

Too late for you to worm out of this now. Nice try, though.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2022

You could say the same thing about data through 1985.  How well does THAT work out?

Want more cherry-picking?

NONE of these statistical methods can reliably make solid prediction.

1985

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

23 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You could say the same thing about data through 1985.  How well does THAT work out?

Want more cherry-picking?

NONE of these statistical methods can reliably make solid prediction.

1985

 

You are still avoiding the story, look at Dec. 2022 as the terminus and you get a curve downward.

Thank you for providing us with this chart, that was very helpful. You made your choice.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

Sigh.... The temperature increase has been linear Since the mid 19th century or nearly so regardless of CO2 increase which is NOT linear.  In fact CO2 is asymptotic.

Now add idiots like NASA Berkley etc all show ~3X higher increases in temp than satellite or buoy's all over the worlds oceans.  Then throw in USCRN data which goes from Puerto Rico to Alaska(last ~20 years) shows essentially zero temp increase yet NASA shows otherwise of course... as NASA loves its temp stations in paved parking lots in cities instead of only using stations far away from cities which can't be easily manipulated.  Throw in NASA's blatant temperature manipulations which ALL make old temp data COLDER across the world... they haven't even tried to hide their FRAUD recently at Reykjavik Iceland and multitude of other long term northern temperature stations so they can play make believe of massive Arctic heating even though we know the Northwest passage was open in ~1920's or so... yet today is full of ice.

[surrept33 + 612]

the american right.... oof:

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

1 hour ago, surrept33 said:

Humans are indeed herd stampede animals.  Look at all those fools responding to a PEW research "study"... Assuming there were any subjects being studied to begin with.  You would think with the vast number of "studies" being conducted, someone I know would have actually participated in one...

Lets take a poll... has ANYONE on this forum EVER been contacted by a research study group to participate in a poll? I'll bet not.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Got your blinkers on, again, Jay?  Those are American numbers only, world-wide coal is up to all-time highs.

Yes my post clearly says US. What is interesting is that the US is the #3 consumer of coal in the world. So a big decrease in the US will have a very real impact on global consumption. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

NONE of these statistical methods can reliably make solid prediction.

I do believe that was part of this discussion long ago. A possible negative of no proof..Defined: A narrative.

 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes my post clearly says US. What is interesting is that the US is the #3 consumer of coal in the world. So a big decrease in the US will have a very real impact on global consumption. 

Then then 1300 plants in China are merely ornaments? Time a neutral corner commentary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Polyphia + 83]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Humans are indeed herd stampede animals.  Look at all those fools responding to a PEW research "study"... Assuming there were any subjects being studied to begin with.  You would think with the vast number of "studies" being conducted, someone I know would have actually participated in one...

Lets take a poll... has ANYONE on this forum EVER been contacted by a research study group to participate in a poll? I'll bet not.

There is roughly a 1 in 170,000 chance of being selected.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

Lets take a poll... has ANYONE on this forum EVER been contacted by a research study group to participate in a poll? I'll bet not.

You lost that bet.

I've been a participant for several research groups.  However, only one was an opinion poll and that was about high pressure liquid chromatography of all things.  Two were psychology research, one was a exercise physiology study (that one hurt). 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The issue is to what extent CO2 is responsible for global warming/cooling. Are you still stuck at the start point? Slow, man.

Wake me up when you get the brain charged.

I never made any claims to the cause.

You posted a paper saying the planet is warming so STFU about cooling.

[turbguy + 1,556]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It does. Here is for the full years through 2022.

Thank you for providing this link for us to see. This is the link you chose for us above.

Too late for you to worm out of this now. Nice try, though.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2022

Why ignore recent data?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

54 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

There is roughly a 1 in 170,000 chance of being selected.

There are thousands of polls going on supposedly... Yet no one I know has ever been contacted.  Used to do it via land line phone and since NO ONE has a home phone or next to no one anyways and you can't poll Cell phone users... One has to wonder at validity of ANY "poll".  Appears more like nothing but propaganda if you asked me. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Then then 1300 plants in China are merely ornaments? Time a neutral corner commentary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

 

The big decrease in US coal use offsets the small increase in China use. 

[Polyphia + 83]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

There are thousands of polls going on supposedly... Yet no one I know has ever been contacted.  Used to do it via land line phone and since NO ONE has a home phone or next to no one anyways and you can't poll Cell phone users... One has to wonder at validity of ANY "poll".  Appears more like nothing but propaganda if you asked me. 

Then you don't understand the process.