No but catchy studies lead to lots of money
In some cases people with decades of experience are telling me I'm right
If what your doctor said killed your baby what would you say?
Ask that last question to yourself
Printable View
No but catchy studies lead to lots of money
In some cases people with decades of experience are telling me I'm right
If what your doctor said killed your baby what would you say?
Ask that last question to yourself
No but catchy studies lead to lots of money
Great job repeating what I just mentioned a few posts ago. Of course they lead to grants. As usual, I think you have a misconception - this time about how grants work. A university PI on, say an NSF grant for example, can only receive monetary compensation for two months of his or her normal salary. All budgets proposed for a grant must be meticulously outlined and submitted with the grant proposal. Any and all traveling done on grant money must be outlined and included in the proposal. Grants aren't awarded for profit, at least to university academics - which comprise the greatest majority of climate scientists - they are awarded to facilitate research. Most of the money goes toward the research - lab materials, salary for lowly grad students, post-docs, etc. - and traveling is usually only green-lighted for conferences, or travel to a research site. If you have never been to an academic conference, it isn't exactly what you'd call a vacation. Think insurance seminar in terms of fun. It's work related, no matter where you go. Most time is spent in the hotel and at the talks.
Writing a grant proposal usually takes a couple of months at a bare minimum and potentially much longer. Here's a link to the NSF guidelines and policies for their grants (they are one of the primary sources of scientific grants in the US):
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/p...1/gpgprint.pdf
It's worth two month's salary to subject yourself to this process, for which the prime beneficiaries are typically student researchers. Those damn greedy scientists!
In some cases people with decades of experience are telling me I'm right
Good for you. I work in a professional scientific environment surrounded by international experts in their respective fields. UTK keeps close ties with the Oak Ridge National lab, so some of these people were world famous scientists when you were cutting teeth. You'll forgive me if I defer to their expertise in these matters. Or not. Don't really care either way.
If what your doctor said killed your baby what would you say?
Wow. I've always heard that empathy is a strong indicator of character. Since I don't know you personally, I can only hope for your sake that is a fallacy.
To answer your question, the issue is not the doctor's fault. If something does happen to our baby, it will be from natural causes. If a doctor did something that led directly to harm the baby, through carelessness or deliberate misconduct, I would first pursue all legal options, then go back to my country roots if needs be. I would hold the doctor accountable - much like the scientific community holds its members accountable for the results they publish.
Ask that last question to yourself
I have been asking myself more questions in that regard during the last few weeks than you can possibly imagine. I've certainly spent more thought on that than you seem to have spent on understanding anything about climatology, or science in general.
My question regarding the doctor was a hypothetical and certainly not aimed at your one on the way. My point being even in the medical field mistakes get made even though everyone studied, they had the best intentions, etc....Thalidomide was once prescribed by doctors who were smart and well intentioned but it didn't turn out to be a safe/harmless drug.
There are loads of examples like that...yes odds are you still trust your doctors and rightly so but doctors and scientists are not perfect they are still learning (I hope).
You feel free to trust your scientists, I don't mind. But I don't buy what they are selling because it's been wrong in the past. They said Ice Age then we started warming and they changed their tune to Warming which stopped in 1998 and then they thought up the catch all Climate Change...it's the boy who cried wolf. They never want to account for the Sun and how hot it's burning, Orbital Forcing, Milankovitch Cycles.... nope JUST Anthropogenic CO2 that's it. And why? Coal power plants produce CO2, cars produce CO2, factories produce CO2.... and policies have been made which hamstring our economy while China and other developing industrial nations more than make up what CO2 we try to keep out of the atmosphere so again what is the point of this? Save the world? The world will be here looooong after we're gone. Save human life? Actually if enacted and enforced Green policies will kill more people than help.
But hey you buy the bill of goods the scientists sell you. Maybe they are right this time.... I'll wait for the next tweak to their hypothesis which will be along any year now
The thing that bothers me is the contradiction you don't even seem to be aware of making. On one hand you say "odds are you trust your doctors and rightly so" even though they have been wrong in the past. I trust that in a serious medical situation that you would do the same - even though they have been wrong in the past.
Why does that same rationale not extend to climate scientists? Since they have been wrong in the past (and I still argue that a better phrase is that they made the best conclusions the could with the data they had available at the time), you are deadset against giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Why the double standard? I'm very confident you would defer to the expertise of a doctor, yet you have made it clear that you do not defer to the expertise of a climatologist. Imagine you had a condition and you didn't believe the first doctor, so you get a second opinion. Then a third. Then you get the opinion of all leading specialists in that field and 97% concur about your condition. Do you still disbelieve? That seems highly illogical to me, and I just can't understand it.
You feel free to trust your scientists, I don't mind. But I don't buy what they are selling because it's been wrong in the past.
So has medical science, but I bet you buy that one.
They never want to account for the Sun and how hot it's burning, Orbital Forcing, Milankovitch Cycles.... nope JUST Anthropogenic CO2 that's it.
Come on. Really? So you truly believe that the world's leading experts in climatology haven't considered these effects in their research? Are you the only person who has access to Google, and thus are the only person who has heard of these phenomenon? Most of these experts also teach, and my guess is that they've taught these topics so long they no longer need any notes to do so. And yet you, with the power of the internet, have uncovered possibilities that - again - world's leading experts haven't yet considered? Do you know enough about these topics off the top of your head to discuss them with people who hold PhDs in the field? I'll wait while you consult Google again.
Coal power plants produce CO2, cars produce CO2, factories produce CO2.... and policies have been made which hamstring our economy while China and other developing industrial nations more than make up what CO2 we try to keep out of the atmosphere so again what is the point of this? Save the world? The world will be here looooong after we're gone. Save human life? Actually if enacted and enforced Green policies will kill more people than help.
Again, this is all your opinion. History is absolutely littered with dire economic predictions which - gasp - didn't come true. You attack climatologists for making erroneous predictions, but apparently economists never make a mistake. This is the part where I get to roll my eyes.
Your arguments are filled with double standards. You can repeat them all you like - you've made it clear that your mind is made up - but when you try to make the same argument apply to two logically different conclusions, you just look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
How much faith do you put in these scientists who in the 1990's were baffled by El Niño....you're telling me they can get confused by a weather cycle but their computer models for the next 50-100 years are spot on?
Yes I doubt their predictions.
Medical science is a good point there have been failings there but there has also been tangible success. Where's the tangible success for the global warming crowd? There has been 0 warming since 1998 but we're pumping out more CO2....odd that considering how close to killing the planet we are. By Al Gore's clock we have about 1 1/2 years left before the whole world burns. You can tell me Al is not a scientist but correct me if I'm wrong he won the Nobel Prize......along with the IPCC whose models (along with Gore's) are well off the mark when compared to reality.
This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here :mad:.
How much faith do you put in these scientists who in the 1990's were baffled by El Niño....you're telling me they can get confused by a weather cycle but their computer models for the next 50-100 years are spot on?
As far as I can tell, the El Niño phenomenon of that era were something of an anomaly. Scientists had not seen such an occurrence in modern times, so of course they were put off. You seem to believe that climate science should be perfection incarnate while you allow medical science to grow and learn. Science is science, bud. With the few exceptions I've noted previously, all science must defer to the current data and change to incorporate new information. That's the whole damn point. If human beings suddenly generated the ability of telekinesis, then medical science would be baffled and then work hard to try to explain it. That's the whole game.
Yes I doubt their predictions.
This is my shocked face. :o
Medical science is a good point there have been failings there but there has also been tangible success. Where's the tangible success for the global warming crowd? There has been 0 warming since 1998 but we're pumping out more CO2....odd that considering how close to killing the planet we are. By Al Gore's clock we have about 1 1/2 years left before the whole world burns. You can tell me Al is not a scientist but correct me if I'm wrong he won the Nobel Prize......along with the IPCC whose models (along with Gore's) are well off the mark when compared to reality.
There has been 0 warming since 1998. Bold claim - especially with absolutely zilch to back it up. You can say that you have an 18 inch pecker too, but until you provide proof, no one is gonna believe you.
I challenge you to offer scientific proof of this claim. Using a source of respected data - you can choose, so long as it is a reputable source (and www.idontbelievesciencecauseidontunderstandit.com does not count) - I challenge you to show me the veracity of your claim. When I get a chance, which may be a couple of days, I'll gather data from at least three different sources and do the analysis myself. This is not modeling - we're not talking about predicting the future - but using established data to support your claim.
Note that links to websites making this claim do not constitute proof. I want to see your data and your method for making such a claim. Time to walk the walk instead of talking the talk.
You are correct in a lot of ways. Industry scientists are usually bought and paid for. I'm talking about true academics. We're usually the reason corporations have to hire their own 'experts' - we actually go by what the science says, instead of the man writing the checks. Those type of scientists are scum in my opinion. They confuse the laymen with complex terminology and a whole bunch of bullshit, which is clearly crap to someone in the field. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays just believe whatever side lines up with their personal ideology rather than trying to determine where the truth lies.
Well alright let's talk specifics
Atmosphere
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 1%
Trace Elements - 0.1%
Of that CO2 varies from 0.03% to 0.04%
Roughly 96% of THAT CO2 is produced by NATURE leaving around 3.5% produced by humans and it's destroying the entire world.
CO2 isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas, that title goes to H2O by a wide margin. But CO2 is destroying the climate..... or 3.5% of the CO2 released in to the atmosphere is. Seems legit
Seems like you're dodging the challenge. I'm aware of the chemical composition of our atmosphere - I learned that in middle school. I want you to put up or shut up.
There has been 0 warming since 1998.
This is your claim. Show me evidence to support your claim. Find a source of data that you believe that is also reputable; i.e., I assume you won't choose NASA/NOAA. There are other sources of data from many other countries. The only criteria is that it must be a reputable source of data - not just a joe schmoe website.
Use this data to convince me of your claim. When I get some extra time, I'll use multiple data sources to rebut your claim. You must also detail your method of arriving at your conclusion.
Simply citing a website is not sufficient. I want to see the details. Since you pose this claim as true, then back it up.
I still think our biggest problem will come from the ocean because current change there means irreversible global climate change. We kill shit out there too, large amounts of it underwater forests, we kill the reefs that have taken hundreds of thousands of years to grow and we till underwater mountains like the earth with drag nets in search of orange roughy and other deep sea fish. Then theres the upper reefs bleached dry by the ozone layer depletion. We shave old forests bare for cash and turn it into fields with cows that release pure methane back up there and wonder why the rain clouds are attracted elsewhere. Meanwhile petrol is cheaper than bottled water.
We could now argue that by polluting the air with cars and industry we now create a barrier of smog that is protecting some things from the increased suns radiation from depletion :rolleyes:.
Swings and roundabouts pay as you come pay as you leave,they'll tax you on what ever they can tax you on and try to balance the books with that percentage paying for people to back their cause; meanwhile the real issue is out there slowly grinding to a halt and about turn around and work in reverse.
Here's a link to the UK's Hadley Centre site. I believe they have already compiled data sets, if you want to take a look.
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
NOAA admitted to the warming "plateau" in their 2012 State of the Climate Address and RSS the satellite data backed up this claim. People no doubt say "It's nothing, it means nothing unless this plateau lasts 20 years". This warming "stagnation" is a model buster....but I suppose that means nothing.
I'm not going to launch a satellite, I'm not going to start collecting my own data because I'm not a scientist and while I suppose your point could be to get me to admit as much but again the professional scientists have been wrong which is why NASA and NOAA have revisited their computer models and made adjustments. Are the adjustments better? Closer to the truth? Who is to say? Scientists made predictions for an ice age in the 1970's that has not come to fruition. They've predicted warming and the stagnation poked holes in that theory. Now it's a general cover all of climate change by using hand picked random weather events....I mean what's the difference between Y2K and The Mayan Calendar and these Climate scientist when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science? If you're looking for answers and you're constantly wrong then you're no different than someone not looking for answers or one who is wrong on purpose.
But go ahead and ridicule me
World Meteorological Organization: (Lots of links to other datasets)
World Meteorological Organization Homepage | WMO
University of Virginia Climatology Office: (another link page)
Online Climate Data Sources
RealClimate.org: (See the contributors page for the administrators and their credentials, also with links to multiple datasets)
RealClimate: Rossby waves and surface weather extremes
Nope. Not getting off that easy. You come on here and start bashing scientists and making claims that you read on other websites and choose to believe based on your expert understanding of science. Then you make specious claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up, again because you read it on a website somewhere. That's not good enough.
Your claim is this: There has been 0 warming since 1998.
I just gave you a wealth of places to search for data sets that are already compiled. It took me all of five minutes to find reputable sources who publish their data online free, with complete transparency, for all the world to see. That's how the scientific community works. Results must be independently verifiable. You now have access to every bit of the data used by both those who agree with your claim and those who rebut it.
You came on here bashing my profession. I'm calling you on it. Either you show me some kind of evidence - any kind of evidence - that is based on the data, or you quit acting like you're privy to information that the rest of the world isn't.
If you make a claim, you have to be able to support it. That's what science is. Your opinion is great and all, but it doesn't mean diddly squat without some concrete evidence. When you make a claim, you have to back it up. All you keep doing is blathering about how the science can't be trusted, that it's incorrect, that models don't work - with absolutely no understanding of how the science works.
"...when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science?"
You keep claiming they "fudged" data - that has already been shown to be a completely disingenuous claim, made by people with other agendas than pursuing the truth. You keep babbling about these things as if you understand them. You have already shown that you don't understand what a model is or does. I doubt you have any understanding of the relationship between data and correlation. I just provided you with multiple links to access all the empirical data you need.
I'm tired of your ignorant ranting. I'm asking you to do a very simple thing. Back up the claim you've made, using basic scientific techniques. This isn't graduate level work. Take the data and find a damn line of best fit. That's the most simple technique here - it's high school statistics. If you can't do that, find someone to help you do it. I would much rather you learn how to perform simple analysis for yourself - then maybe you can better discern the truth instead of relying on the interpretations of others.
The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."
Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman???
I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?
I see why you're on a boxing forum. I haven't seen this much ducking, dodging, and running since the last Laras fight. Still waiting for a simple, straight piece of evidence to support your claim.
The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning.
Interesting - a two-minute internet search debunks this statement. I believe once again, as usual, you get your information from sources with only one point of view. This statement seems to originate from an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian. Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the full article, but apparently the actual statement is that global surface air temperatures have plateaued. That is not the same thing. Show me an audio or video link where Dr. Pachauri makes that claim - then I'll listen.
Either way, the claim is independently verifiable. That's the great thing about science. I will do my own analysis as soon as I get a chance (a little busy this weekend between writing code and family visiting from out of town and arguing with you) and present my own findings with evidence and methodology. More and more it seems like you are not inclined to do the same.
Do it yourself. Make the claim, then back it up. Until you do that, all you are doing is flapping your gums in the wind and looking more and more incapable of reason.
There has been 0 warming since 1998.
I'm not ridiculing you. I just want to see your evidence to support this claim. Period.
Dr. Pachauri said it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming but surface temperature remained level. He said it would have to continue for 30 years. Could you imagine just for 1 second what it would be like if the head of the IPCC said "There is ABSOLUTELY NO anthropogenic global warming"? Just imagine it....funding pulled, lawsuits, jobs destroyed (only this time in the science sector).... think scientists would allow that? Think the people involved in carbon offsets would take that lying down?
I'm pragmatic, so when IPCC's Kevin Trenberth says that he can't account for surface temperature remaining the same despite an increase in CO2 emissions for circa 17 years and then laments it as a "travesty" (his word) I don't believe it matters if he meant "Scientifically its a shame we can't account for where the extra energy/ heat is going" or "it's a shame there's no connection between CO2 emissions and warming" the take away is THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE DID NOT RISE for reasons anthropogenic or not....but whatever you are 100000000% right I'll wait for global warming apocalypse as predicted by your buddy Al Gore....we have 1 and 1/2 years to go.
Again dancing like a grease drop on a hot skillet. The claim is straightforward, the data already compiled - all that remains is your evidence to support your claim.
You are doing an awful lot of squirming around to avoid backing up your statement.
Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.
Argument in support of claim: :tumbleweed:
People are so busy bickering about the origin of cause that they are ignoring the effects. That is actually the story of our species. Extinction just cant come soon enough. The ultimate measure of our successes.
I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't waste time arguing about the cause when we should be discussing ways to reverse the trend. But there's clearly a lot of money influencing opinions,
and unfortunately, a lot of people care more about their precious wealth than the well-being of the species and the planet. All it takes is some big words, a few pretty graphs, and the uneducated among us feel like there's nothing to worry about. Halting the spread of scientific misinformation and the manipulation it engenders requires basic scientific education. People need to learn how to recognize good science from bad science - and that isn't easy.
I guess 2 IPCC chairmen admitting to 0 warming for 15-17 years is tumbleweed to you.... not my problem you tell me "Believe in global warming" and IPCC scientists guys on your side say "No warming in 15-17 years" ....don't get angry at me, your boys said it.
But I guess I need to shoot up a satellite and get my own data so I'll get back with you once I do that....think it'll be "warming" or "cooling" y'all are worried about by that time?
Reverse the effects??? See this is where the little issue of 96% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere is NOT man made comes into play...but I digress, obviously you guys are saving the world 1 CO2 molecule at a time
Can you be any more obtuse? Posting a quote from a dubious website that may or may not be true is in no way, shape, or form evidence that supports your claim. I'm not asking you to play keyboard warrior and find some article posted on some website that claims that one of these guys said something - any idiot can post something on the web. This is not evidence that holds for the challenge I've given you. Nor am I asking you to launch your own satellite. I'm asking you to use data already gathered and compiled - the exact same data used by both those who support and deny your claim - and show me a logical argument that supports your claim.
This is a very specific request. You have only danced around it and dodged addressing my very specific request. Show me your evidence that supports your claim. You stated it as if it were true, so now I ask you to argue why this is the case using not opinion, not second or third hand opinion, but good old solid data. Since you want to make a scientific claim, you have to support it using the scientific method.
There is no gray area here. Stop waffling and fidgeting. You made a very strong claim and I want you to make a very simple argument using well respected data to back it up. Simple as.
Use the data found at the links I've already posted, or choose your own from any reputable site. Very straightforward claim. Very straightforward challenge. No more sidestepping.
I won't be back on until tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully you will have a response with some substance by then.
So have real scientists proven without doubt that it is co2 thats the problem what about other gases?
You just said we shouldnt waist time arguing the cause, we have real problems and we need to reverse the trend.
I agree. But we have Jets and people to move, thousands of them running 24 hours a day all year, it isnt going to stop. We have shaved lands, filled with beef that emit pure methane and we have no trees there to reproduce oxygen.
Taxing carbon emissions from industry isnt going to fix any of that stuff in reality; because industry and transport will plough on regardless and pay their cash in fines and buy credits from companies who have access ones who havent reached their quota.
Then we have a fair few continual volcanoes per year that produce all sorts of other gasses into the air and others lately that just go off, we cant do zip about them.
Do they count in the figures and do they outweigh industry?
Being theres a number of problems and anyone with half a brain can see that nature is dieing off and in the least,forms of it are changing all around us.
So as 'real scientists' (not paid off ones from within industry).
Aside from figures, have you guys got any real working answers yet?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7gzkXFmc3Q...kton+Graph.jpg
That's the RSS providing that information the IPCC uses RSS data to provide them data to compare and contrast their computer models with
Professor Myles Allen has said "The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future."
http://newsguardians.com/wp-content/...ing-quotes.jpg
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.co...6/figure-3.png
So it SEEMS to me from graphs, and what the scientists themselves are saying is that there has been a PAUSE in warming....since around 1997-1998, but I suppose I'm STILL wrong according to you
Its a double edged sword. Science and technology has replaced God in matters of faith. Our arrogance that somehow it will prevail is off the charts. One could almost argue that that line of thought has imprinted and will soon be genetic.
I just cant understand why we have to be so reactive as a species to the point that we start dusting the atmosphere with sulpher or iron into the oceans. Why the fuck don't we do something so we don't have to? The end of fossil fuels means the end of empires. We are no more enlightened then the cave man. We just dress better and have nicer tools.
Still missing the point. Instead of thinking for yourself, you continue to cite websites that are not reputable sources of scientific information.
The first graphic is posted here:
Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996 | Climate Depot
Hmm. Scientific credibility? Do the people hosting this site have credible academic credentials? Hmmm...
Climate Depot - SourceWatch
Maybe not.
The second is a meme that may or may not depict accurate quotes from these three people. Also not what I challenged you to do. This is second hand information, at best. You would fail any course on research methods at any university in the world. Do you simply not know what a reputable source is? Memes, Wikipedia, and random websites do not constitute reputable sources. In order for these to count, you need to first establish the credibility of these people and then post audio or video links of them making these statements. These are hearsay. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but the way you have presented them is very weak.
The third graphic is the most puzzling. Here is your claim again, to refresh your memory:
There has been 0 warming since 1998.
And you then post a graph with a line of best fit that clearly shows a positive increase, albeit small. I hate to break it to you, but by no measure on the planet is a positive number equal to zero (that's due to the trichotomy property of real numbers). Essentially you posted a graph that rebuts your claim as evidence of your claim. Wow.
All this is still beside the point. I want YOU to analyze any of the data sets published at any of the numerous links I provided for you. All of those are reputable sources; i.e., the data is made public with complete transparency so that anyone who wishes to contest the validity may do so. This is essential for "good" science.
I didn't ask you to post graphs from a website to go along with the quotes you've posted from yet other websites. I've seen these graphs before and here's the thing. I can explain why these are misrepresentations and - as you so eloquently put it - "bad science." Hell, one of em still has the link at the top! This is the whole point. You seem to have ZERO expertise to tell if these are "good" graphs or "bad" graphs.
You cannot tell me if these graphs are accurate or not. What was the methodology used to create the "line" that fits the data depicted in these graphs? This is where you provide an explanation: what methods were used to fit the data here (and you must be able to verify the authenticity of your answer)?
You cannot tell me if the data depicted in these graphs is accurate. I provided you with numerous links to verify the data for yourself, yet you persist in showing me things posted on a website. You should provide justification that this data is correct, or at least that it corresponds with publicly published data that is out there for the whole world to see, transparently. This is where you provide an answer: Does this data agree with that published by any reputable scientific source? (Again, you must provide some type of justification - "I got it from a website I trust" doesn't cut it. Compare this data with that published and verify its authenticity.)
You say you don't trust scientists, yet you trust the scientists that created these graphs - enough so that you present them as evidence. See the double standard?
Since I also have internet access, I too can visit the skeptic websites and see these graphs in all their glory. The issue is that you have ZERO expertise to ascertain if these graphs are accurate representations of the data or not. This is your challenge.
Use the published data to make a logical, scientific argument to support your case. Don't post someone else's results - that's plagiarism, and usually gets you a failing grade. I want to see your argument that supports your claim. So far all you've done is visited a bunch of websites with the same opinion as you. That's not evidence. That's lame.
I'm prepared to perform my analysis and present my conclusions, complete with logical arguments, empirical data, and statistical analysis. As soon as you make an honest effort to do the same, I'll present mine.
It is simple. Quit dancing around. Playing keyboard warrior doesn't cut it here. You bash my profession, so I'm calling you out.
Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.
Any time now.
Allow me to retort....
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov
Climate.gov ....that a credible site? Hmmm?
And if I read this article correctly it says "Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero"....hmmm well that's just curious that is.
But I suppose I'll be outside with a thermometer for 15 years...I'll let you know when I shoot up my personal satellite as well ;)
Yet another article. When I get a chance later I'll post a handful of links to websites that rebut your claim, since that seems to be the best you can do.
The challenge still stands. It is simple, yet you avoid it. I don't even think you understand what I'm asking you to do. I want to see your analysis of the data. Not anyone else's on the planet. Yours alone. You do realize I'm asking you do do a simple, high school level data analysis, right? Yet you avoid providing a direct response over and over again.
Links to websites simply do not count. You made a claim, but aren't man enough to back it up with any type of argument made by yourself. You're relying on others to do your explaining for you.
Very, very weak.
So you're saying NOAA is NOT a good source?
I never said that. I'm saying that you seem to be incapable of doing your own research. You've spent several posts here dancing around the challenge like a ballerina.
What I'm asking you to do ain't rocket science, but your refusal to even address it speaks volumes.
How's that analysis going? Do you need some help?
So while you're working on that, maybe you can help me understand something. Previously in this thread you stated, and I quote:
"The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT."
And you then proceed to post an article published by the NOAA as "evidence" to support your claim. Moreover, you question if *I* believe the NOAA is a good source - again, I quote:
"So you're saying NOAA is NOT a good source?"
So which is it? Is the NOAA a trusted source of information ONLY when they agree with your beliefs?
It's pretty piss poor when you bash the hell out of them and then use their report to support your claim.
I thought you were better than this.
Oh yeah - still waiting.
Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.
Lyle's analysis of any reputable source of data to support his claim:
:tumbleweed:
I'm not a meteorologist, climatologist or scientist of any type. I do consider myself to be smarter than the average bear, informed, a natural skeptic of most things and fairly analytical. That being said, I depend on reputable scientists for information and since their studies are often not easy to read for the lay man I depend on analysts and publications to put the studies into context for me. I have read the same things stating that NOAA and the IPCC report that global average temps have not risen in the last 15-17 years. When Ronald Bailey, a respected science correspondent, and Dr. James Hansen, a proponent of AGW, who works at Columbia University and NASA report these things and there isn't a immediate castigation of them I take it as fact.
Ronald Bailey -
Ronald Bailey : Staff - Reason.com
Heads Up Climate Change Combatants: Global Warming Likely To Resume This Year - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Dr. Hansen -
Global Warming at a "Standstill" Admits Man-Made Warming Proponent Hansen - Hit & Run : Reason.com
James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville shows that most of the AGW predictive models were incorrect in the climate behavior over the last 10+years I take a serious pause on how well we think we understand the climate. The earth's climate is and has always been fluid. We have had something around 10 ice ages since the planets beginning and each has been followed by a warming period. So the question isn't really is the earth's climate warming but what affect does human behavior have on it. If I and 99 other people took a data sampling and derived a methodology to predict future results but 95 of us were wrong then the correct response would be that there is something wrong with our data (which there very well might be considering the condition of many weather stations), the methodology of the predictive analysis or both. I don't deny climate change, nor do I deny that we are in a warming trend on the planet, nor do I deny that with billions of us alive that human behavior can affect the climate but my analysis of the science provided is that the scientific community does not understand the relationship between human behavior and the climate's change nearly as well as they thought they did.
Dr. Christy
John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climatologist John Christy: "The Science Is Not Settled" - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Dr. Christy's data
Global Temperature Report :: UAHuntsville
Weather Station Issues
Amazing Climate Predictions Revealed—Climate Models Reviled - Reason.com
This is precisely the problem. When you do not have particular scientific expertise, it becomes difficult to determine who to trust - especially when some scientists in a field challenge the opinion of the greater majority of their peers. Who do you trust? How does the laymen determine who is "right"?
This is a very difficult question to answer. In an ideal world, everyone would have at least enough education in basic scientific techniques to be able to spot fallacious logic and poor statistical analysis. I believe these two abilities alone would make it much easier for the scientific community to convince the general public of a consensus opinion.
While I appreciate your respect for these scientists, they are in the vast minority concerning their particular opinions. Since challenging Lyle to perform his own analysis of the data, I have been perusing the academic literature so that I could better understand what the majority of the climatology community believes, as well as what the skeptics believe to be true.
When Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville shows that most of the AGW predictive models were incorrect in the climate behavior over the last 10+years I take a serious pause on how well we think we understand the climate.
The first issue concerns the findings of Dr. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. These climatologists published several papers that claimed discrepancies between the amount of warming measured near the surface and that measured by satellites. Here's a link to one of the papers in this series:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
This series of papers is one of the primary sources of current climate change skepticism. These studies were used to cast doubt on the models and the influence of humans on global warming. These papers are still quoted today as a primary source arguing against human-based global warming.
Unfortunately, the contents of these papers were found to be filled with numerous errors. The first was addressed in a paper by Mears and Wentz:
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs5...ntz%202005.pdf
with follow ups:
Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere [eScholarship]
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cli...Meyer-2005.pdf
The authors of the erroneous papers, Christy and Spencer, were quick to admit their mistakes after pointed out by their peers. Of course, correcting the errors in the originals led to new papers for Christy and Spencer:
http://www.homogenisation.org/files/..._etal_1998.pdf
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...su/uah-msu.pdf
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
In short, one of the fundamental cornerstones of climate skepticism was found to be significantly flawed. Once the corrections were made, it is interesting to note that the UAH-MSU dataset matched much more closely the predictions made by climate models.
...my analysis of the science provided is that the scientific community does not understand the relationship between human behavior and the climate's change nearly as well as they thought they did.
Well - at least a few of the scientists made significant mistakes. Once these mistakes were corrected, the consensus is now much clearer. Christy and Spencer still beat the drum, trying to save face, but in the scientific community, for scientists of their stature, these mistakes were HUGE.
When Ronald Bailey, a respected science correspondent, and Dr. James Hansen, a proponent of AGW, who works at Columbia University and NASA report these things and there isn't a immediate castigation of them I take it as fact.
I didn't see anything about Bailey in the literature, but James Hansen published the following paper in 2006 which seems to contradict the attributed statement:
Global temperature change
Where did you see a reference for Hansen's statement? It's possible he changed his mind.
(NOTE: It seems some of the links look broken, but they still work for me. If you have any trouble, let me know and I will send a URL)
In short, one of the fundamental cornerstones of climate skepticism was found to be significantly flawed. Once the corrections were made, it is interesting to note that the UAH-MSU dataset matched much more closely the predictions made by climate models.
The three preceding links are a bit beyond me technically. That being said, they are dated 1998, 1999 and 2002. His latest data and study suggesting wide spread differences in predicted and real temperatures was well after that. But for arguments sake lets say he isn't remotely close to correct, that doesn't change the fact that predictions of AGW doom and gloom have been completely off.
Regarding Dr. Hansen
In a global temperature update through 2012 [PDF], James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies report:
The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade (emphasis added). It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".Global Warming at a "Standstill" Admits Man-Made Warming Proponent Hansen - Hit & Run : Reason.com