Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Facts, no bullshit.

 
 
President Obama made 15 bold assertions about the climate last night.
The only one that was accurate was when he said, “I'm not a
scientist."
 
It shows. What he said might have been politically correct, but it
wasn't even close to scientifically accurate. 
 
Obama: “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”
 
Facts: No, it wasn't.  NASA ignored it’s own and others satellite data
(the best there is) because they show no warming.  Obama's appointees
have used far dodgier thermometer data, and even after they got done
“adjusting” it, the most they could come up with was two little
hundredths of a degree of supposed warming – an insignificant number
way below the margin of error. 
 
Even if it were true, the computer models the whole warming scare is
predicated upon call for much warmer temperatures than we have
experienced.  The models, and the President along with them, have yet
to be right on temperature.
 
Obama: “… we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat
waves, dangerous droughts and floods.”
 
Facts: Scientific and historical data show the oceans barely rising (3
mm per year), just as they’ve been doing since before the industrial
revolution.  Science shows heat waves (and cold snaps) to be
historically normal and driven by natural variability, not people.
Droughts and floods are not only at normal levels today, but actually
down in frequency.
 
Obama:  “The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks
to our national security.”
 
Facts: This would be true only if computer model projections were
correct.  So far they're wildly off.  The computer models that project
these so-called “immediate risks,” inspire even less confidence than
those used to project future temperatures.  The last thing we need is
a politically correct Pentagon in a dangerous world.
 
Obama:  “In Beijing, we made a historic announcement: The United
States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution.  And
China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions.”
 
Facts: This China deal is bogus.  The Chinese merely agreed to build
coal plants as fast as they can and then maybe think about emitting
less CO2 in 2030 -- the year they projected their emissions would peak
anyway!  Soon after this “historic” agreement China promptly announced
that it would never allow outside verification of its global warming
pledges.  The satirists at The Onion got their headline perfect when
they wrote, “China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution
Numbers.”
 
These hard, verifiable facts and many more must be made known! Please
make your secure, online contribution right now, and help CFACT
correct Obama’s faulty science and destructive policies.  
 
 CFACT has surely not been idle. 
 
 We saw this coming and have already taken action.  Our science
updates showing that 2014 was “not the hottest” have already been seen
by hundreds of thousands of people.
 
CFACT’s Marc Morano has our Climate Depot news and information service
in high gear.  Just the other day he did a brilliant job of taking
down the “hottest ever” nonsense on Stuart Varney’s show on Fox. The
Drudge Report also grabbed hold of Marc’s work on this and featured it
as the lead headline last Friday. The resulting web traffic was so
great it actually briefly crashed the Climate Depot website! 
 
Marc’s compelling correction of Obama's ideologically tinged facts is
certainly making the media rounds, but there is so much more to do!
 
 Barack Obama will both accelerate his destructive war on American
energy and sign the U.S. onto the UN climate regime at the big climate
summit in Paris, unless Americans wake up and say "NO!" in a voice too
loud to ignore.
 
 Americans need the facts.  They need energy.  They need to know the
truth about climate alarmism.  They need CFACT.
 
 

 truth about climate alarmism.  They need CFACT.
 
NASA FACTS:
News | January 16, 2015
2014 warmest year in modern record
By Steve Cole, NASA Headquarters,
and Leslie McCarthy, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
 
LOOK AT THIS VIDEO
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2221/
 
===================================
The year, in spite of the longion's bullshit, 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
 
The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
 
In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
 
"NASA is at the forefront of the scientific investigation of the dynamics of the Earth's climate on a global scale," said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity."

 (the best there is) because they show no warming. 
 
"
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2221/
 
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists"
 
Il resto dell'articolo lo leggero' quando si degnera' di citare una fonte che non sia l'opinione dell'articolista stesso, peraltro smentibile, vedi sopra, con una ricerca di 10 secondi.
 
Perche' vedere uno che parla di "accuratezza scientifica" e poi scrive 20 paragrafi senza citare UN dato e UNA fonte e' roba da far ridere i polli.
 
--
saluti
mm

Il giorno venerdì 23 gennaio 2015 13:11:52 UTC+1, Marco Minardi ha scritto:
 
Mina',  senti : quello e' fissato oramai  e'  chiaro. Come e' chiaro 
che  QUALSIASI  cosa   gli  possiate opporre (qualsiasi)  continuera' 
all' infinito come se niente fosse. Anche perche' oramai e' divenuta
una questione di pura tigna. 
 
E allora pure te : e piantala, e MOLLA, NO ?  Ma a che serve 'sta 
... "guerra" infinita ? Tanto e' INUTILE : quello e' convinto che 
il GW e' una truffa, un gomblottone ecc ecc. 
 
E lassalo campa' in pace il tempo che gli resta con le convinzioni 
sue, povero vecchietto ! Ma non ce l' hai il cuore ? Anzi, io quasi
quasi addirittura gli darei ragione per farlo contento. Lo fareste 
felice a quel vecchietto. A costo zero. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 These hard, verifiable facts and many more must be made known! 
 
E dove sono i numerelli a supporto ritardato?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:20:08 -0800 (PST), 
radica...@gmail.com
 
wrote:

Povero vecchietto sta minchia, farei una scommessa, in una corsa di 50
metri ti batto senza fare fatica :)
 
PS...Che il GW (inteso come lo intendono gli allarmisti) sia una
truffa lo pensano in molti, inclusi addetti ai lavori.
 
PPS...You've been duped, sucker :)
 
 


La fonte e' una email che ho rivevuto dal sito 
CFACT.COM
, non ti va?
cazzzi tuoi, ma non ti va nemmeno la conclusione che lo spessore del
ghiaccio al polo sud, ricerca fatta con un robot sottomarino, sia piu'
grande di quanto si credeva, perche' secondo te e' stata fatta su
PUNTI CAMPIONE, e chissenefrega di chi ha condotto quell'analisi,
potevano chidere a te e risparmiare un sacco di tempo e fatica (e
soldi) LOL!!
 

 truffa lo pensano in molti, inclusi addetti ai lavori.
 
Strano che tutti 'sti addetti ai lavori non vengano mai citati... Davvero strano...
 
Ehi ritardato perchè non ci parli diffusamente di come il GW abbia rallentanto o di come la somma di ghiacci marini + ghiacci terrestri > ghiacci terrestri dimostri che il GW abbia rallentato...

 grande di quanto si credeva, 
 
Ehi ritardato... Spiega un po' come il fatto che lo spessore sia più di quel che si credeva impatta sulla variazione dello stesso.
Sei veramente il più grande idiota che calca queste lande. Al tuo confronto persino ritardale sembra normale.

 PUNTI CAMPIONE, 
 
Non "secondo me". E' scritto chiaro e tondo nell'articolo in questione, che tu hai citato.
 
Hai mai pensato di leggerlo?
 
--
saluti
mm

Hai mai pensato di leggerlo?
 
I punti campione non dicono niente, il global warming non e' una
bufala (come inteso dagli allarmisti) ed io faccio quel che posso per
contribuire al GW, perche' a me il GW me piace :) ora vaffanculo.
 
 
 

 contribuire al GW, perche' a me il GW me piace :) ora vaffanculo.
 
ROTFL! Che patetico ritardato. :-DDDDDDDDDDD

 I punti campione non dicono niente, 
 
Ti rendi conto che con questa frase hai appena affermato che le rilevazioni del robottino non contano un cazzo?
 
Onestamente: prova a LEGGERE prima e commentare poi.i.
 
--
saluti
mm

Onestamente: prova a LEGGERE prima e commentare poi.i.
 
Prova a leggere (e tenta di capire) tu, you shumck.
 
"Antarctica's ice paradox has yet another puzzling layer. Not only is
the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot
now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a
new study reports.
 
The discovery adds to the ongoing mystery of Antarctica's expanding
sea ice. According to climate models, the region's sea ice should be
shrinking each year because of global warming. Instead, satellite
observations show the ice is expanding, and the continent's sea ice
has set new records for the past three winters. At the same time,
Antarctica's ice sheet (the glacial ice on land) is melting and
retreating."
 
"according to climate models"  HAHAHAHA!!! cioe' GIGO, garbage in
garbage out.
 
"Measuring sea ice thickness is a crucial step in understanding what's
driving the growth of sea ice, said study co-author Ted Maksym, an
oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in
Massachusetts. Climate scientists need to know if the sea ice
expansion also includes underwater thickening."
 
"If we don't know how much ice is there is, we can't validate the
models we use to understand the global climate,"
 
 Maksym told Live Science. "It looks like there are significant areas
of thick ice that are probably not accounted for."
 
 
Se c'hai dei problemi con i "punti campione" perditela con Ted Maksym,
il co-autore dello studio, ora vaffanculo, coglione.
 
http://www.livescience.com/48880-antarctica-sea-ice-thickness-mapped.html
 

 il co-autore dello studio, ora vaffanculo, coglione.
 
No, lo chiedo a te, visto che TU hai postato l'articolo in cui si specifica che l'underwater robot ha effettuato l'analisi solo su alcuni punti campione.
 
Peccato che continui a cancellare quella parte dell'articolo ogni volta che te ne si chiede conto.
 
--
saluti
mm

 of thick ice that are probably not accounted for."
 
Altra informazione inutile: se sono unaccounted sono unaccounted. E non potrai mai sapere, essendo unaccounted, come si sono mosse fino a oggi.
Troppo difficile da capire, vero ritardato?

Peccato che continui a cancellare quella parte dell'articolo ogni volta che te ne si chiede conto.
 
Hai cancellato l'indirizzo del sito che ti mette in imbarazzo,
coglione.
 
Go away.

 coglione.
 
Si perche' in un thread non quoti all'infinito TUTTO, ma solo le parti cui rispondi e le relative risposte, il resto e' dato come acquisito. Ed e' quello che ho fatto lasciando il testo che avevi copia incollato, e rispondendo in merito.
Mentre nel tuo caso cancelli il testo, cancelli il link ed eviti accuratamente di rispondere. Strana coincidenza eh?
 
Mai pensato di imparare a quotare?
 
--
saluti
mm