Why did you get blocked?
Elroch Has Thread Declaring Global Warming.. My Friend’s Thread In 2015 Says This In Regards
Sort:
My good friend’s words on the article.
Well said RM, and WP! We are in an Interglacial! Translation= Between two Ice ages, which is very warm, then it gets cold again. There has been .8 degree C change in 100 yrs, and no change in the last 19, even though co2 emissions have doubled in the past 19 years! Plot that on a graph, and you will see there is no cause and effect. (97% of climate scientist are Government-BootLickers for grant money, and grants and papers saying there is no greenhouse gas problem do not get published, because as Stalin used (created) the term, they are not "Politically Correct".
Scotty, Masters Thesis was on Paleoclimate Reconstruction Using Fossil Wood Anatomy.
One response of his near dozen.
Thank you for this! The whole global warming hoax is simply made up by political junk scientists. There are many, many true scientists that completely reject the idea that man is somehow rising the tempurature of the world with that gas that is so vital to plants.
If you are interested, Michael Savage goes in-depth about the government and global warming in his book Government Zero.
However, while Fox News might seem to be less biased, we need to remember that every media source is biased.
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Why did you get blocked?
Because he didn’t care to hear what I thought.
The whole global warming hoax is simply made up by political junk scientists. There are many, many true scientists that completely reject the idea that man is somehow rising the temperature of the world with that gas that is so vital to plants.
The rest can be read in #4 post
each post #3&4 has additional number because it’s copy pasted and I attempted to just now remove but those two posts will not allow me to edit so I am bringing to your attention so that you’re not confused when viewing those numbers.
Yup
I have already shared I had an additional account, much aware, and chess.com also totally knows I don’t cheat my games, has several times given me compensation for games opponents had cheated, and being on the street with WiFi difficulty the time that I created the additional was to be of help from changed locations of WiFi, only reason simple as that.
Your friend's thread in 2015 started in June......Elroch's thread started in Jan 2015...... https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/climate-scientist-with-us-government-for-quotaltering-dataquot
Dude... that wasn’t tackling you... that was seeing so many making new accounts, but not sharing they had. I do not purposely post on threads, then make an account to then just attack someone by another username from a different acc. I just described my mistake and shared why I have another account fella.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Your friend's thread in 2015 started in June......Elroch's thread started in Jan 2015.. etc.
...and?
Well, Elroch is WELCOMED to reply on my thread. I’m not going to block him lest he deliberately brings such to my attention he wishes me to do so.
Elroch's not interested in posting on your thread......also, what you call a rebuttal is not yours. It was an article by Maxim Lott and Elroch's been aware of it since June 2015.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Elroch's not interested in posting on your thread......also, what you call a rebuttal is not yours. It was an article by Maxim Lott and Elroch's been aware of it since June 2015.
Lol Elroch? That you??
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
In the entire history of the planet, billions of people, not a single intelligent person has posted in huge colored font with Bible verses on their profile.
Just so... you know... maybe next time you want to be taken seriously you can fool a few people instead of no one.
Truly sad you don’t think The Holy Word Of God Is Intelligent. I hope that changes for you.
The scientific consensus is that the planet is warming due to co2 emissions. If some people are upset by that fact then tough. It still remains a fact. Provide an alternative cause for the observed warming and back up your hypothesis with actual data and you might be on to something interesting. But you cannot because there is no data to support any conclusion other than the scientific consensus. Data is key. Without it you don't have an argument. Want to know the truth follow the money. And far more money is made by fossil fuel companies than is made by scientists. Look also at history - for years industry promoted the use of lead in paint and fuel despite lots of evidence it was harmful to our health. Why did they do that? Because it was a lucrative industry that didn't want to lose out on those profits. Eventually, the evidence became too overwhelming and the companies changed. We now have lead free paint and fuel. Same thing with tobacco. Same thing is happening with fossil fuels. No company or country wants to be the first to change and put itself at a competitive disadvantage. Fossil fuel companies have even funded websites and videos to further their cause, And some useful idiots on here seemed to have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker.
You don’t have to like my thread but just forewarned you easily can be stopped to post too.
"Lol Elroch? That you??" Yeah...the OP makes a lot of strange comments.
You'd think that after a yr and a half the OP could go to my homepage and see that it looks nothing like Elroch's homepage......so who knows.
TheBestBeer_Root wrote:
You don’t have to like my thread but just forewarned you easily can be stopped to post too.
Please do me a favour and block me from posting here 
. I understand the truth must be painful for you to hear but the scientific consensus is clear. Experts have looked at every possible explanation for the observed warming and come to the conclusion that co2 is the culprit.
You may say you don't believe the scientists but every single day of your life you are relying on scientific knowledge and technology. Including of course, every time you play chess over the internet.
I suspect that I will not convince anyone to change their mind and you won't change mine either so this is all a bit pointless.
I will therefore leave you with this.
If, in the future, my side of the argument is proven to be incorrect then some countries will have wasted money developing and installing renewable energy. Not completely wasted mind you because the renewables will have provided energy without adding other pollution (for example small particulates that contribute to lung diseases and breathing problems) to the atmosphere. In addition their economies might have taken a hit by not digging up and selling the fossil fuels.
Now lets think about the consequences if your side of the argument is wrong.
There will be floods in some areas. Droughts in others. Wildfires, storm surges, hurricanes and tropical diseases will increase in number and geographical scope. People will die. Possibly millions of people will have migrate away from badly affected areas. The cost to economies will be huge. Wildfires alone for example can be a very expensive business.
You may think I'm being 'alarmist'. Well, the really alarming thing is that small increases is temperature (caused by man made co2 emissions) could nudge the planet to warm itself up through feedback mechanisms such as snow and ice melting (releasing methane into the atmosphere - also a greenhouse gas) or wildfires. Once the cycle gets going we won't be able to stop it.
So to summarise - if my side of the argument is wrong we incur some financial losses. If your side is wrong well - the planet will be fine. Humans - not so much.
Anyway I shall leave you to your conspiracy theories and wish you a nice life. I just hope your grandchildren (and mine) will get to live as good a life that you and I have.
Goodbye
I was blocked by him but here’s my rebuttal.
Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases ‘pause’ in warming
By Maxim Lott
Published June 10, 2015But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.
“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.
And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.
“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”
The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures.
Global ocean temperatures are estimated both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines, and by thousands of buoys – floatation devices that sit in the water for years.
The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships’ engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common. The result, Karl says, is that even if the world’s oceans are warming, the unadjusted data may show it not to be warming because more and more buoys are being used instead of ships. So Karl’s team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. They also double-checked their work by making sure that the readjusted buoy readings matched ships’ recordings of nighttime air temperatures.
The paper came out last week, and there has not been time for skeptical scientists to independently check the adjustments, but some are questioning it because of how much the adjusted data vary from other independent measurements.
First, it disagrees with the readings of more than 3,000 “ARGO buoys,” which are specifically designed to float around the ocean and measure temperature. Some scientists view their data as the most reliable.
The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in 2003. But Karl’s team left them out of their analysis, saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic.
In an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data “if scientific methods can be found to line up these two types of temperatures together … (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) … This is part of the cumulative and progressive scientific process.”
Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments.
The satellite data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karl’s adjusted data.
“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.
“We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years,” he said.
Karl said satellite data also have issues, including “orbital decay, diurnal sampling, instrument calibration target temperatures and more.”
Spencer said he agreed that those are issues, but they are less problematic than using data from thousands of ships and buoys. He added that there are a couple of satellites monitoring temperature at any given time, and that they are used to check each other.
Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted.
Some climate scientists applaud Karl’s adjustments and say they debunk the idea that the Earth has stopped warming.
“[This] points out just how small and fragile a notion that was,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com
Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper.
“I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.”
But skeptics say Karl’s adjusted data is the outlier that conflicts with everything else. “Color me ‘unconvinced’,” Curry wrote.
Maxim Lott can be reached at or atmaxim.lott@foxnews.com