13 Worst `Earth Day` Predictions: 1970

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago in Funny

43 Years ago they held the first Earth Day, here"s a few predictions that didn"t quite turn out.
There are 165 comments:
Male 4,098
"Perhaps you should stick to processing insurance claims. Like they say, if the heat`s too hot, get out of the kitchen."


I`m not the one who has to resort to personal attacks to win a debate, Squirrel Extraordinaire :)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Perhaps the most remarkable part of this whole exchange, though, is how little self-awareness you seem to have. On your way toward the exit, just before quoting Julius Caesar (in Latin!), you give this heartfelt speech describing your scientific purity: "But this has done much to solidify my belief that facts and data are the best rebuttal, not childish name calling, emotional characterizing, or personal attacks." Love it. You come on here parroting the words of a mining industry consultant whom you present as a scientist--and when rebuffed, you play the noble academic.

Bravo, my friend. Bravo!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

But it doesn`t surprise me that you`re struggling with basic science concepts since you`re also having a hard time distinguishing what a scientist is.

"The theories I `spammed`" as you put it, come from certified scientists like McIntyre," you write. And: "So if I post work from scientists like McIntyre...."

Here`s a clue for you: Stephen McIntyre is NOT a scientist. He`s a mining industry consultant.

Clearly, the things this mining industry consultant has to say, however, have enormous appeal to you since you`ve been parroting his sentences from his website, often without attribution, to an extent that verges on plagiarism. Adopting McIntyre`s persona, you get yourself remarkably worked up about Matlab errors--software I seriously doubt you`ve ever used, much less understand.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead:

Regarding your latest:

No, friend, *doing science* and discussing or evaluating it are manifestly NOT the same thing (unless, of course, we`re talking about peer review, which we aren`t). It`s disappointing that you still don`t get this, despite my best attempts. Seriously now: You think that you and I have been *doing science* in this thread? You really believe that people who are *discussing* the merits of scientific claims commit a logical fallacy if they observe that one study was, say, financed by ExxonMobil and published on a partisan blog (like your favorite website "C3 Headlines") while another was published in the peer-reviewed pages of a scientific journal? Here`s a tip: You know you`ve entered the realm of the sophomoric when your claims fall apart under the light of common sense.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
(con`t)
it is possible that Mann and McIntyre are reacting to the same data as Matlab is used to compute RegEM data, and double use of a FOR loop would inflate data. As well both make reference to missing data in Rutherford`s model. But out of the two I felt that Mann would be more accepted by you guys then McIntyre although both are scientists and mathematicians.

Here is the Mann response (you`ll see how similar it is with the mistaken link):

link

and the paper he is reviewing:
link

But kudos to you kain1, I did error there and you found it right away, but I hope this clears things up and gives more of an explanation.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
(con`t)

note 8. C)
"Because the infilling ... Strongly auto correlated series inflate RE and its level of significance, especially a trend over the entire period."

He is talking about Rutherford 2005`s uncertain verification measure in this and the use of it in their study and how the mbh98 graph is not responsible for this.

he goes on "Rutherford et al., 2005 go one step into the right direction by swapping calibration and validation sets (but then it is unclear how the special calibration period 1856-1928 is motivated). To rigorously implement the above condition the selection process must be fully randomized." Reacting to the papers configuration paragraph and how it used data and cited Rutherford "who argue that the GCV regularization estimate is too crude in the presence of too many unknowns."
0
Reply
Male 4,098
(con`t)

The link I sent originally was to highlight some of the flaws of the RegEM data that Mann found. It is a judgement of reprisal of a paper called "On the verification of climate reconstructions" to be added to a science journal called "Climate of the Past" in it they pose multiple statistical hypothesis`s to show how RE scores are inflated. I don`t really care about them. It`s the data that they used from Rutherford, that is criticized, that matters to me.

I messed up and sent you the Interactive discussion of Ref #2, (because they look nearly identical and are under the same name) instead of the interactive discussion for who is most likely Mann but never identifies himself as these must be anonymous, but takes credit for mbh98 and Mann et al (2005).

He notes two problems that he had with Rutherford, I wanted to use this because it would not be seen as bias from my side.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Kain1: ah, kain1 I`ll reply one last time for you. Here is another link that explains it more clearly. Steve McIntyre notices the problem in the Matlab data set. Scroll down to the comments Mark notes that Matlab formed a composite "B(4:13,8:17) = A will replace the 10×10 subset of B with the data in A." Philip B. notes that the error represents itself in the low file along with other errors such as with the FOR loop, "along with a double use of a for loop index i." Meaning that the "from and to" increased inappropriately at the wrong rate.

Here
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@Kain1: I appreciate what you`re saying, I`m not trying to "argue"...
Just remember that it`s MUCH easier to say something than it is to "disprove" it. It takes a lot of words to counter... a lot of words!

@Squrlz4: So @richanddead`s "sources are biased"? Well news flash! So are yours! He even uses some of the SAME sources as you do, but you still don`t believe him?
But HE has a "closed mind"...

Sorry Bro, the AGW Parade is over! They`ll soon move on to the "next scary thing" to try to frighten people into giving them money. Once they`ve milked THIS Cash Cow dry of course...

"Hide The Decline" = falsify data. It`s right there in their own correspondence...

"If the data don`t fit? OMIT!"
0
Reply
Male 1,471
(cont)
This isn`t my job, i can`t afford to spend too much time researching things for an internet debate. To make your debate opponent give up through sheer attrition may technically be a victory in "debate club" or whatever, but if you want to have a somewhat serious discussion, you need to prove that you`re right, not that you have enough stamina and free time to research these things beyond what your opponent can. What`s the point of winning a debate, if you can`t prove that you`re right?


My longwinded way of saying, please be more concise and explain your points more thoroughly.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Wow, Squrlz. You really went all in with this one, didn`t you ? :P

@richanddead: I`m not enough of a climate scientist to be familiar with any of those names, nor am i able to dig into the claims that you make, mostly because of time constraint.
However, i did read this link you posted regarding someone named Rutherford and his flawed matlab modelling. I have no idea if what you claim is true, but the link doesn`t mention it as far as i can tell. He`s praised to high heaven for his great methods (i skimmed it fairly thoroughly, don`t have time for a readthrough.). My point is, you should probably read, and have at least a rough understanding of the links you post. You generally seem to throw a lot of graphs and names out there, without a thorough explanation of why it`s relevant, or what the graphs show specifically. (cont)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
At last, I`ve had enough of this childish squabble, I`ll give you the last words. I`m sure I`m the fool of fools in your eyes. But this has done much to solidify my belief that facts and data are the best rebuttal, not childish name calling, emotional characterizing, or personal attacks. It is my hope, you`ll adopt this line of thought one day, whatever your opinions on AGW may be.

As Caesar said "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"
0
Reply
Male 4,098
6.
I`ve taken Biology 1&2, Induction to stats, Multivariable Stats, PreCalculus, and Calculus with Analytical Geometry 1&2. But I guess that still disqualifies me because I didn`t take organic chemistry, physics, or earth science, eh? But I bet you did, sorry my school had course restrictions and I wanted to graduate on time.
But I fail to see how that matters since neither of us were crunching any numbers, we were both parroting studies who have been done by other real scientists. Well I was, you appeared happy with links to the impartial source skepticalscience.com and a graph, then began ranting about how smart you were and how dumb us plebs are.

In-fact, I took your suggestion, and maybe you`ll take mine. Read what you wrote, in a mirror.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
5.
Ah so anyone who disagrees with you is provoking you, as I said before, very childish. The theories I "spammed" as you put it, come from the citified scientists McIntyre, McKitrick, Singer,and Schneider. I did this because I wanted to post the graphs that their data concluded, while keeping it under 1000 words. You seem to understand that don`t you? Since you had to do the same for your ranting of personal attacks. But between "spamming" compiled data and "ranting" personal attacks, I`ll happily be accused of spamming data as means of rebuttal.

6.
Ah yes more personal attacks now backed by your physic senses. Better get them checked sir, because I attended Lycoming College and currently appling to the University of Maryland.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
3. So if I post work from scientists like McIntyre that`s considered spamming and provoking in your book because it would just take too long to disprove. Yet ranting multiple posts of personal attacks is not spamming nor time consuming. I see, ok.

4.
I `m sorry but your restaurant analogy doesn`t hold. A review of taste is an subjective opinion and therefore logic holds no place. A review of a scientific theory or hypothesis, is subject to logic. One can`t just say something is a scientific theory because that is your belief, there must be a form of reasoning behind it. I refer you again to the Scientific method which I linked in one.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
2. ah yes, back to the NOAA data sets, I used the graph because it plotted the points from the C3 data set (the site that first found and began recording them). I said on Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:09:26 AM- "also from a biased source but the data is genuine and has been verified by NOAA." If you have a problem with this data, by all means point it out, since not even NOAA disputes it.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@5Cats: Thank you but all I did was show the data.
@Squrlz4Sale:

1. & 4.
Lol, maybe you should reread the scientific theory again. "*Doing science* and *evaluating science*" are the same thing, since external review is meant to only give unbiased criticism based solely on if experiments themselves were sound. What you just said in 1. is considered an "appeal to novelty" and is considered a bias of scientific inquiry.
Here is a link, spend some time reading what External review and biases are, you might learn something. link
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@ak4775: THANK YOU!

Someone who appreciated the spirit of the original post!
:-)

@richanddead: You`re quite able to "defend yourself" and don`t need my help! Just know that I agree with you that AGW is crooked...

Is the whole Earth heating up? = possibly
Are Humans 100% responsible for this? = Um, no! 0.01% perhaps, but FAR from 100%...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
6. "you`re also quite the narcissist"
This from someone who clearly has never taken any college- or graduate-level courses in organic chemistry, physics, calculus, statistics, or earth sciences, yet thinks he is qualified to dismiss the work of career scientists with just casual effort.

* * *

Well, that was entertaining. Anything else I can help you with?

Actually, I do have a suggestion. If you haven`t already, scroll back and read my "Seven Distinguishing Traits of AGW `Skeptics.`" I have no doubt that portions of it will sting. Yet if you can get through it, and mentally process it, there`s real hope you could experience some personal growth. You are still in your 20s, so it`s certainly possible. I mean that in all seriousness and with no ill-will.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

5. "just making flat-out rude statements unprovoked"
What you fail to realize is that spamming the internet with garbage that attacks the works of scientists, as you have been doing, IS provoking. You like to pretend that you are simply an unbiased soul in pursuit of knowledge--while at the same time spamming this thread with a veritable smorgasbord of AGW "skeptic" misinformation. I suppose you are accustomed to not being called out on it. Too bad. As I`ve said already, if the heat`s too hot, get out of the kitchen.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

4. "making numerous fallacies of logic"
Still hung up on the "appeal to authority" thing? Let me help you out. You see, there`s a difference between *doing science* and *evaluating science*. Example: If you were writing a review of a restaurant and wrote "The tiramisu at John`s Restaurant doesn`t compare to the tiramisu at Suzanne`s because everyone knows Suzanne`s is a better restaurant"--THAT would be an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. If, on the other hand, you and your friends were trying to decide where to go for lunch, it would be idiotic to insist that no one consider the reputations of the local eateries to make their decision. The same situation applies in this thread: We`re discussing the work of scientists here, not doing science. Get it now?

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

3. "picks and chooses what he`ll reply towards"
You have been employing the technique of throwing large quantities of garbage up against the wall to see what, if anything, sticks. If I took the time to patiently debunk all of your nonsense, it would be a 40-hour a week job and, frankly, I have better things to do. Consequently, I`ve had to triage your trash, so to speak, and focus on the most serious misinformation (such as your assessment that the hockey stick chart is "broken"). That`s why you`re seeing some of your nonsense, such as your earlier-made charge of ageism, addressed here for the first time (see #1).

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

2. "is hypocritical about accepting outside theories or reading sources"
When it comes to discussing a scientific subject, I absolutely prefer peer-reviewed scientific journals and websites that link to papers published in such journals--as opposed to the anonymously published junk-science charts, such as those from the "C3 Headlines" website that you`ve been posting on here. (You`ve spammed us with at least three, by my count, despite your claims to the contrary.) If that`s being "hypocritical," well, you got me.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead. As for your latest accusations:

1. "someone who discounts people because of age"
Let me explain something: Science moves forward. Theories and concepts evolve. Without wanting to get into a treatise on the scientific method (which you would probably benefit from), suffice it to say that, unlike philosophy, science is linear and progresses rapidly. Ergo, the opinions of scientists currently working in a field should be given preference over the opinions of scientists who have retired from that field. It`s not ageism, as you charge: It`s an acknowledgment of how science works. Get it?

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
"Perhaps you should stick to processing insurance claims. Like they say, if the heat`s too hot, get out of the kitchen."


I`m not the one who has to resort to personal attacks to win a debate, Squirrel Extraordinaire :)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale:
" I`ve hurt your feelings? Oh no."
No you didn`t, you just seemed better than that. I`ve always felt that facts make the best rebuttal.

"But if you want to repeat anonymously published attacks on science from your C3 Headlines website"

I mentioned in the only link from C3 that it was a biased site, you can read it again if you want. But you`ve posted from biased sites too so I fail to see a difference.

"you can expect that those who have a decent regard for the work of scientists might respond."

I do as well, scientists like McIntyre, McKitrick, Singer, Happer, and even scientists that disagree with them like Hans von Storch. But I believe in taking a healthy look into all data, and debating any point that may seem biased or unclear to me, whoever may have generated them.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead: I`ve hurt your feelings? Oh no. Sorry about that. But if you want to repeat anonymously published attacks on science from your C3 Headlines website, you can expect that those who have a decent regard for the work of scientists might respond.

Perhaps you should stick to processing insurance claims. Like they say, if the heat`s too hot, get out of the kitchen.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
The only thing your graphs have in common is that the medieval warming period peaked around 950AD. and that we have warmed since the little ice age. The data used isn`t even the same and the graphs change with respect to the new data.


But for someone who discounts people because of age, is hypocritical about accepting outside theories or reading sources, picks and chooses what he`ll reply towards, making numerous fallacies of logic, and just making flat out rude statements unprovoked, your also quite the narcissist. I have in this post and others admitted when I was wrong and explained why. But you feel that you do nothing wrong and if a person disagrees with you to call them dumb, that`s very childish in my book. I was actually really enjoying discussing these issues with you and Kain1, I learned a lot that I didn`t know before... very unfortunate it ended like this.
0
Reply
Male 4,098

As for Oerlemans, Pollack and Smerdonhe, they don`t even look at the medieval warming periods. They begin at around 1600 during the little ice age and just show that it has warmed significantly since then, which no one disputes.

We have obviously warmed since the little ice age, but very few of those that you state actually agree with a hock stick form, and those that do have been found to have flawed and outdated data.
This is what the hockey stick looks like.




not



not





The only thing your graphs have in common does is that the medieval warming period peaked around 950AD. and that we have warmed since the little ice age. The data used isn`t even the same and the g
0
Reply
Male 4,098

Hegerl was more flawed and was shown by Steve McIntyre that his upper and lower confidence intervals actually criss crossed. Tapio Schneider reacted to it in "Nature" observing that the confidence intervals in Hegerl were flat out wrong.
link
0
Reply
Male 4,098

Rutherford liked the idea of a hockey stick though yet his data set was found to be full of flaws. The biggest being incorrectly setting the number of proxies as 93, when it should be 25. They are in columns 1009-1111 with a matrix that’s only 25 columns. Matlab formed a composite at with the prior values that it had. There are other errors such as splicing data and how he used RegEM data. Here is a
link
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Osborn and D’Arrigo both only reconstructed tested Biffa`s dataset and not Esper and therefore used Yamal instead of Polar Ural again, which as I mentioned earlier is why their data is almost copied until during the little ice age.

Others like Moberg use some other forms of data like Sargasso Sea data by Keigwin. Moberg actually thinks it is the warmist on record, but just slightly and he does not agree with the "hockey stick," which you can`t see in your graph but here.


0
Reply
Male 4,098
Yamal and Polar Urals are both nearby treeline sites in northwest Siberia. The Yamal has a huge hockey stick, the largest stick in the IPCC AR4 Box. Here is the data with Polar Urals in black and the Yamal in red.



The Yamals are an outlier and when substituted for the Polar Urals the graphs begin to resemble the data in the Greenland ice cores.

This is the Biffa data with the Polar urals in red and the Yamal in black



Esber who I mentioned earlier used Polar Urals in his construction actually comes to a point below medieval levels yet you can hardly see it because so many graphs are there. this is Esbern (red) vs. Biffa(black).

0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: "Oh, yeah, I knew about that chart all along."

Lol, no I don`t know every single graph, but lets use yours for a second. I did some research and this is based on tree-rig data, ice cores, corals, and historical records from the northern hemisphere. They are not all "independent datasets," take the medieval portion of D’Arrigo for example, he used the same roster as Briffa 2000. They represent different times and updates, if you begin to recalculate the older graphs with the new up dates like using Polar Urals (which Esper used) instead of Yamal Urals the graphs begin to change.

Example:


0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

* * *

So there you have it: my current understanding of the phenonemon that is the AGW "skeptic."

Allow me to thank both you for your participation in this debate. Many of your responses helped me refine my understanding of AGW "skeptic" attitudes, and I appreciate it.

Yours in Fluffiness,
Squrlz
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#7. They exhibit a peculiar blend of both ignorance and arrogance.
Many AGW "skeptics" vastly overestimate their understanding of climate science. Most have never taken any college-level or graduate-level courses in organic chemistry, physics, calculus, statistics, or earth sciences, yet think they are qualified to dismiss the work of career scientists with just casual effort. Most have never interacted with, or had a discussion with, an actual scientist. They are living, breathing embodiments of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where a person knows so little about a topic, he doesn`t even know how much he doesn`t know.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#6. They are unwilling to become better informed.
Having been sold on the storylines of the AGW "skeptic" propaganda machine, AGW "skeptics" are highly resistant to any information that conflicts with it. Most have never seen NASA`s Climate Change website--one of the most comprehensive sources of Earth`s climate data online--or even know that it exists. When directed to it, most refuse to look at it. When told that there is not a single major scientific body, national or international, that contests the science behind AGW, most are surprised to hear it, then dismiss the fact as "propaganda." Most have no understanding of what the IPCC is or how many thousands of scientists are involved in the IPCC`s work; when informed, they dismiss the information as "propaganda."

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#5. They receive only biased information and accept it at face value.
The vast majority of AGW "skeptics" get their information from Fox News and partisan blogs, some of which are published anonymously by fossil fuel corporations and conservative think tanks. AGW "skeptics" are unable to evaluate the credibility of this blog information because they do not read scientific journals or books on the subject. Consequently, they are not exposed to any information that would contradict this steady diet of misinformation.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#4. They attribute their own agendas to the scientists.
Having never acquired a deep understanding for or appreciation of science, AGW "skeptics" can`t understand how most scientists could be motivated by the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Instead, they base their understanding of climatologists on the motivating forces in their own lives: religion, politics, or a hybrid of both: "Those global warming fanatics all worship at the altar of liberal enviro-Nazism. It`s their religion."

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#3. They usually don`t understand science very well, if at all.
Most AGW "skeptics" have not acquired the skills to evaluate the science. Many do not have a firm grasp of the scientific method. Lacking an understanding of academia and how scientific debate and peer-review work, they interpret the situation as, essentially, high school drama: Climatologists, they believe, are a small clique that gets all the attention, thinks it`s better than everyone else, tells lies, and that no one else can join. ("Their reseach is just made-up pseudoscience and passed back and forth between a dozen scientists--and no one DARES to challenge them.")

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#2. Christian Fundamentalism or far-right conservatism and are often the hidden agendas.
Fundamentalist religion or political conservatism is usually the chief motivating force for most AGW "skeptics." The religious ones believe that God could not possibly have created an Earth that could be harmed in any serious way by man. The conservative ones dismiss AGW as a "hoax," part of a "liberal plot" to control the world`s citizens.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead and MeGrendel:

I well know that trying to open your eyes to the subject of AGW is futile. I`ve been down this path many, many times before. At this point, I participate in these discussions more out of the spirit of anthropological research, really, than debate.

Here is what I`ve learned.

"Seven Distinguishing Traits of AGW `Skeptics`"

#1. Most are poorly educated.
From several years of online interactions with them, I`d estimate that 70% never went beyond high school, 20% may have completed some courses in community college or taken vocational training, 5% have received 4-year degrees, and fewer than 5% have done any graduate work.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 354
You people really can suck the fun out of the room.
My favorite-
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
0
Reply
Male 40,269
[quote]First, and most important, you have to include all relevant data, even if it doesn`t fit into your models of predictions![/quote]
@Kain1: This is exactly what the AGW crew did NOT do!

"Hide the decline" means they DROPPED "tree ring data" after a certain date because it showed... cooling! (1956 iirc?) BUT it`s the backbone of the rest of their data...

Their "start date"? If you move it back 20 years it completely changes the "curve". They started at the bottom of a cold spell...

They HID their data for years! IDK why @Squrlz4 says it was "peer reviewed" because it was SECRET! When it finally did get "peer reviewed" it was found to be full of poop.

I mean really, the "Hockey Stick"? Pfft! Fake!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Here (below) is a chart from the IPCC FAR, showing the datasets of the scientists referenced above. I would describe this information as Global Warming 101, but I`m pretty sure it will be news to you. (Yet I`m confident you`ll respond with, "Oh, yeah, I knew about that chart all along.")

The findings of a dozen independent teams of climatologists working with independent datasets? The original hockey stick chart`s conclusion, that the Earth has not been as warm in the past 1200 years as it is now, is accurate.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

For example, this quote of yours: "And that `hockey team` as you put it, is Wahl and Ammann."

No, it`s not. That "hockey team" is:

Jones et al., 1998; calibrated by Jones et al., 2001;
Mann et al., 1999;
Briffa et al., 2001;
Esper et al., 2002; recalibrated by Cook et al., 2004a;
Mann and Jones, 2003;
Rutherford et al., 2005;
Moberg et al., 2005;
D`Arrigo et al., 2006
Hegerl et al., 2006;
Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; reference level adjusted following Moberg et al., 2005; and
Oerlemans, 2005.

If you would take your nose out of your anti-science "C3 Headlines" blog, you might have known that.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead: Without missing a beat, I see you`re right back to happily spamming this thread with your oversized junk-science graphics from the "C3 Headlines" blog.

I like the way you drop in the name of scientists every now and then to give the impression that you know what you`re talking about, when, in fact, a perusal of this thread shows you are instead simply passing along stale misinformation that`s being spoon-fed to you from a website that is stridently anti-science.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Kain1: And as of 2011 70.6% of temperature measuring stations are still considered in poor or worst condition for accumulating accurate temperature data.







0
Reply
Male 4,098
But it is evident that all past temperatures are decreased and all modern temperatures are increased. Sometimes on a daily bases but usually on a monthly bases. So does mercury rise at a different rate today then 133 years ago?

It`s a partisan topic I agree but changing raw scientific data for hundreds of years, doing it unannounced, and especially when they still haven`t fixed the current factors that manipulate and increase their current data, I think you can see the problem even if you are not a conservative.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Kain1: Well if you think that last one is too biased, I would agree, it hard to find unbiased opinion on this topic. But here is recordings of some of the different changes that have been made so far.link
They are the top ones, also from a biased source but the data is genuine and has been verified by NOAA. Also NOAA freely admits to it. NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said "These kinds of improvements get us even closer to the true climate signal, and help our nation even more accurately understand its climate history." link
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: And the data revised in McIntyre and McKitrick was shown in tree ring data and the Greenland ice cores as well, which I sited at April 22, 2013 4:51:48 PM.

0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: And the data revised in McIntyre and McKitrick was shown in the Greenland ice cores as well, which I sited at April 22, 2013 4:51:48 PM.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
(Cont`d)

And that `hockey team` as you put it, is Wahl and Ammann, students serial coauthors of Michael Mann.

They have used some cherry picked work from other scientists like Juckes and Esper, who didn`t even agree with them, and left out any information that didn`t support their theories. But that isn`t surprising since they have no background in math or stats at all! Ammann majored geology and Wahl in divinity! They are admittedly biased and using what they learned from Michael Mann, which The Royal Statistical Society already stated were in their words "inappropriate."

But It`s OK, little guy. I still like you too. Here, have another swig of the fruit punch.


0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: Dude, thanks! I love moon cheese. Yea, i have work at 1 am so I was rushing a little so I could go to bed, didn`t review that page completely just the first and second paragraphs, my bad. Here try this.

The North Report also concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries." Basically since the beginning of the little Ice age.
But "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600" before the little ice age.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@richanddead: seriously? You`re citing "climategate", a Greenpeace spokesperson and an article that is so biased that it doesn`t even attempt to find out if there is justification for editing the data? You have to do better than that..

I`ll give you, the placement of measuring stations is troubling, if true. Just read the intro, don`t have time right now to examine it more closely.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

This major faux pas of yours tells me three things:

(1) That you are colossally misinformed about AGW and laboring under the delusion that the "hockey stick" graph has been proven wrong, when reality is just the opposite: multiple studies have affirmed its conclusions over the past 15 years;

(2) That you do not read scientific journals or books by climatologists and instead are getting your information from partisan "skeptic" blogs, where the bizarre belief that the "hockey stick" graph is "broken" is an article of misguided faith; and

(3) That you are throwing your AGW "skeptic" misinformation into this thread so fast and furiously that you are not even reading your own links and are unaware that some of them say the opposite of what you claim.

It`s OK, big guy. I still like you. Here, have a slice of some of MeGrendel`s Moon cheese. ~extends paw~
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

"(By the fall of 2009), there wasn`t just a lone hockey stick but... a `hockey team` of well over a dozen independent reconstructions, all pointing to the same conclusion" (p. 198).

But I don`t think you need me to tell you this. YOUR VERY OWN LINK takes the reader to an article that provides a robust defense of the hockey stick: "Climate myths: The `hockey stick` graph has been proven wrong" by Maichael LePage,published in *New Scientist* in May of 2007. The abstract: "Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it."

OOPS!

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead: I must say, your latest string of posts actually elicited a "Wow!" from me. Not because I was favorably impressed; quite the opposite.

For this response, I`ll focus on your assertion that the "hockey stick" graph has been "proven wrong." This is one of the more bizarre fantasies of the AGW "skeptic" crowd--and the reason for my exclamation. Honestly, you had me thinking you were better informed.

You see, the "hockey stick" graph has NEVER been proven wrong, despite being a lightning rod for anti-science crackpots since it was first published in 1998. Over the past 15 years, numerous scientific teams have independently verified its accuracy and extended the timescale further back from Michael Mann`s original chart. To quote Mann (whose 2013 book *The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars* is sitting before me on my desk as I type this):

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: "they were protesting NASA`s general position in support of AGW, not the CO2"

Their letter states "The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA`s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements."

" Yes, the article I linked to draws heavily from one paper: a paper published in *Science*, one of the world`s most prestigious and carefully peer-reviewed scientific journals."

You realize what your saying is known as a "appeal to authority" and is considered in both science and logic as fallacious logic. Just saying.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: Yes, the article I linked to draws heavily from one paper: a paper published in *Science*, one of the world`s most prestigious and carefully peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Yea here link

"And that list of scientists and astronauts who sent the letter you linked to? They`re retired; many are over 70 years old

So what? That makes them discredited? And who cares if some are in their 60`2-and 70`s? They all are in good mental health? It the same as saying some are black, or some are women. Ageism is no better than racism or sexism in refuting logic.


0
Reply
Male 4,098
*correct* (for before)

"the year 2005 was the warmest year on record"

which record?
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Or how NOAA is continuing to "corret" the data?


0
Reply
Male 4,098
Or when British climate scientists changed the data to support Global warming?

Or like when the hockey stick was proven wrong?

Or when 58% of NOAA`s temperature stations where found to be unreliable because they were over air conditioners and parking lots?


0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Kain1: "Notice how it cut`s off at the year 2000? I don`t know how old that graph is, but i`m guessing it`s less than 5 years old. In which case, why not include the latest data too?"

The graph is from 2002 by Larry Stock and Josefino Comiso at NASA GSFC, I wanted to use Nasa because that`s what Squrlz and I both appreciated.

"One of my major hang-ups with the global warming deniers is that if they really are right, why do they feel the need to fudge the data? It certainly hurts their credibility in my mind."

You mean like "Emotionalizing" the data?
0
Reply
Male 1,471
(cont.)

I`m not gonna be some P.C. twat that "respects other`s opinion". Especially not on scientific subjects. If you have an opinion, prove you`re right. You might end up convincing me.

[quote]As for AGW specifically?
Data = faked (they admit that)
Models = flawed (they admit that too)
Conclusion = I disagree (and that`s my opinion)[/quote]

Data: I hope you`re not referring to "climategate". That was proven to be a fabricated media circus. If you`re referring to something else, please inform me. i`d like to know.
Models: True. No doubt about that. They`re not reliable. But not quite as unreliable as people think. And they`re still working on it.
Conclusion: Opinions are irrelevant. Prove it.

0
Reply
Male 1,471
(cont.)

[quote]It`s the same "data" with 3 different ways of "reading it". Rapid rise? Slow rise? Falling temperatures? SAME DATA![/quote]

Wrong. If you`re trying to prove or disprove man made CO2 driven climate change, you should start your fit at the point where man made CO2 became a relevant factor. That would be somewhere around 1850, when coal burning got underway. You could conceivably stretch that to maybe 1900 if you want.

To start and end a fit at some random place is incorrect. If you wanted, you could start a fit at january 1., and end it at july 1., and extrapolate to get a temperature rise of 5C per month. That wouldn`t tell you anything relevant though.

5Cats:"Everyone has to decide for themselves"
Neither science, nor reality is decided by popular vote.

(cont.)
0
Reply
Male 1,471
[quote]Except that "data" isn`t really anything at all! It`s HOW we INTERPRITE the data that matters! [/quote]
True to a certain extent. However, there are good ways and bad ways to interpret data. First, and most important, you have to include all relevant data, even if it doesn`t fit into your models of predictions! That graph you referred to is actually a great example. Notice how it cut`s off at the year 2000? I don`t know how old that graph is, but i`m guessing it`s less than 5 years old. In whic case, why not include the latest data too? Could it have something to do with the fact that temperatures continued to rise, and the year 2005 was the warmest year on record?
One of my major hang-ups with the global warming deniers is that if they really are right, why do they feel the need to fudge the data? It certainly hurts their credibility in my mind.

(cont.)
0
Reply
Male 40,269
AS for the Viking Ruins in Labrador (iirc): They`ve been "known" for 100+ years.

-First they were assumed to be post-Columbian.
-When evidence came they were pre-C? Then it was assumed natives (Inuit) built them.
-When it was finally shown that they were indeed made by Vikings AND pre-C? It still took a generation to become "accepted" by the majority.

So for 20-odd years? The "correct" theory was not the "majority" theory even though all the data was there for all to see.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
[quote]Main point: You agree, then, that data should trump all else?[/quote]
@Kain1: Except that "data" isn`t really anything at all! It`s HOW we INTERPRITE the data that matters!
Remember the "Parable of the Elephant" eh? Different people can "observe" the same "data" and come to vastly different conclusions!

Consider: @richanddead`s graphic from 11:45:48 AM.
It`s the same "data" with 3 different ways of "reading it". Rapid rise? Slow rise? Falling temperatures? SAME DATA! Who`s to say on viewpoint is "right" while the other two are "wrong"? I am! And you too! Everyone has to decide for themselves (choosing to believe others is still a decision, eh?).

Hope that "convinces you"...

As for AGW specifically?
Data = faked (they admit that)
Models = flawed (they admit that too)
Conclusion = I disagree (and that`s my opinion)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

So the statement stands: No major national or international scientific body currently disagrees with the science behind AGW. NOT ONE.

Nice try, big guy. Here, have a slice of Moon cheese. ~extends paw~
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

4. Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Contrary to what you state, the CFES does not disagree with the science behind global warming. Like the AIPG, they acknowledge that the Earth is warming and support research into all forces driving that warming. "The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result," the group states.

* * *

Faced with the statement "No major national or international scientific body currently disagrees with the science behind AGW," you came back with four organizations, claiming that they do. In fact, the first two vigorously support AGW science, while the last two are best described as "non-committal."

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

3. American Institute of Professional Geologists
Contrary to what you state, the AIPG does not disagree with the science behind global warming. They acknowlege that the Earth is getting warmer and support "continued research into ALL forces" driving it (my emphasis). In 2010, the executive director, noting that the topic is "contentious" with some of the organization`s members--many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry--stated that the organization would steer clear of the subject of global warming in the pages of its journal, *The Professional Geologist*. The organization`s positions that the Earth is warming and supporting research into all forces causing this warming (including anthropogenic causes) remains unchanged.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel:

Here`s a debunking of your last post.

1. American Association of State Climatologists
Contrary to what you state, this organization vigorously supports AGW. In fact, two of its members who professed "skeptic" views not based on science were asked to leave the organization in 2007. The story was widely covered in the journal *Nature* that year. Also in 2007, three of the organization`s full members were contributing edtors of the IPCC`s Fourth Assessment Report.

2. American Geological Institute
Contrary to what you state, this organization vigorously supports AGW. In fact, the lead article of the current issue of its online magazine, *Earth: The Science Behind the Headlines*, decries the "rising sea of anti-intellectualism" that threatens the work of AGW scientists--as evidenced by, you know, people like yourself who would misrepresent the AGI`s position on the topic.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@5Cats: They were discovered in 1960, so the debate couldn`t have been all that long. But nvm, i`m not gonna pretend to know a lot about that.

Main point: You agree, then, that data should trump all else? Then please show me what convinced you that AGW is wrong. Honestly, i would much rather that AGW WAS wrong. But i haven`t seen any evidence/data/study that convinced me at all, compared to the data indicating AGW. Send me a link to something you consider convincing, and i promise i will read it and give it a fair consideration.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@Kain1: Nope. Those ruins were known. SOME thought they were Viking ruins, but were shouted down and mocked by the "correct" ones.

"Those were built by Europeans AFTER Columbus!"
Logic!

Eventually the weight of evidence was so overwhelming they had to "re-think" it...

@MeGrendel: Nice! Change "Earth is flat" to "50 years ago a new Ice Age was coming"...
0
Reply
Male 8,407
@ 5Cats,

To paraphrase K: "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that Global Warming was caused by man. Imagine what you`ll know tomorrow."
0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-" I`ll mention a scientific body that supports AGW science, and then I`ll provide your response to their position."

Didn`t your mom tell you you`d go blind if you played with yourself?

Squrlz4Sale-"If I get any of these wrong"

Just take it as a given that you`re wrong.

Squrlz4Sale-"The fact is no major national or international scientific body currently disagrees with the science behind AGW"

Except for these:
American Association of State Climatologists
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

(Hint: 4 > 0)

I can also provide the names of at least a couple dozen scientists that disagree with science behind AGW.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@5Cats: Very true. Science has been very wrong about a lot of things. I`m curious though. What was it that changed their minds?

Hint: the discovery of Viking settlements in Newfoundland. In other words, Irrefutable conflicting data.

All science follows the data, where ever it leads. Until then, the only data suggesting that it actually happened was in the old viking saga`s, next to Wyrms and Ice Giants.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
Vikings discovered North America long before Columbus.

EVERY historian knew that was "just a myth" or "simply false". For hundreds of years this was "true science"!

Right?
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@Squrlz4: and I could make a list, one humorous and one serious, about all the True things science has labeled false, or the false things that were "known to be right" by the consensus of science.

And how would that change anything regarding AGW?

You read PRO-AGW sites and others read Opposed sites. You prefer one side? I prefer the other.

Meanwhile the Media continues to this day to HAMMER HOME ONLY ONE side... now THAT is a problem.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel: I like to be a helpful squirrel, when possible, so here`s an idea.

Here`s a list of OTHER CONCEPTS that, like AGW, are also at odds with the positions of the scientific bodies I listed in my last post.

1. The Earth is flat.

2. The Sun is the size of a Roman shield. It only looks a bit larger because it`s so bright.

3. The Moon is made of cheese.

4. Spiders have six legs (per Aristotle).

5. Heavier bodies fall faster (Galileo who?).

Now if you embraced all of the above, in addition to denying AGW, you`d have my respect. I`d be thinking, "MeGrendel is AWESOME. He`s living his life as some kind of performance art."

But to accept that the above assertions are false, while rejecting AGW, simply because it doesn`t fit in with your political biases? Well, that`s a bit ignorant, frankly. Sorry, big guy. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel: Just can`t get enough, can you? Well, this is going to be fun.

Here`s a game. I`ll mention a scientific body that supports AGW science, and then I`ll provide your response to their position. (If I get any of these wrong, feel free to correct me.)

1. Nat`l Academy of Sciences
You: PROPAGANDA!

2. American Assoc`n for the Advancement of Science
You: PROPAGANDA!

3. American Chemical Society
You: PROPAGANDA!

4. Nat`l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
You: PROPAGANDA!

5. NASA
You: PROPAGANDA!

6. Royal Society of the UK
You: PROPAGANDA!

7. Academie des Sciences (France)
You: PROPAGANDA!

I could list 30 more, but I think you get the point. You`ve decided to distrust mainstream science because it conflicts with your right-wing predilections.

The fact is no major national or international scientific body currently disagrees with the science behind AGW. NOT ONE.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@OldOllie: Not at all. I just find it telling, and a bit amusing, that you took the time to read my comment, and formulate a short response which had almost nothing to do with my comment at all.
0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-"Here`s a link to that study supporting the 97% figure given earlier:"

AANNNND right back to the liberal propaganda site.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@Squrlz4: If you`re close to the Char Count? And you put in a link which drives it over? (parts inside the link somehow count into the char count but don`t show up while you type) it will "bug up" your post!

Use TinyURL inside normal links to save some chars :-)
IAB is weird... man...
0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-"I`ve already dealt with you."

Only in your sad little mind.

Squrlz4Sale-"visitors to the Skeptical Science website"

I know that you tend to ignore anything that doesn`t support your bias, but you did see the `moderators` in that sentance? Which include the founder of the site along with those that run it?

Or, as John Cook said, "It`s official, we`re all a bunch of leftists"
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Kain1 You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I owe you a response at all.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Addendum: Here`s a link to that study supporting the 97% figure given earlier: LINK.

(IAB`s software is glitchy and wouldn`t take the link for some reason.)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
To all: I`m off for a late run and I`m unlikely to return to this thread. I think it`s played out. At this point, the parties either agree to disagree (which I`m fine with) or it just becomes unpleasant.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead: For someone who describes NASA`s data as "skewed," you do a good job of skewing the link I provided demonstrating the correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

Yes, the article I linked to draws heavily from one paper: a paper published in *Science*, one of the world`s most prestigious and carefully peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have any links to recent papers published in journals of similar regard showing that CO2 does *not* correlate to global temperature, I would be happy to see them.

And that list of scientists and astronauts who sent the letter you linked to? They`re retired; many are over 70 years old; and they were protesting NASA`s general position in support of AGW, not the CO2 study published in *Science*.

In truth, the consensus is in: 97% of working climatologists (http://tinyurl.com/cjukl54) have concluded that AGW is real.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel: Run along, little troll. I`ve already dealt with you. You`ve made it clear that your mind is shut and you will resist any attempt to expose you to research. (You want another salute?)

Or, as an alternative, you could share with us links to your published studies. You know, because you`re a "researcher" whose been studying this "for years" and "re-evaluating it everytime something new pops up." I`m really eager to see your work.

Also: I`m sorry, but pasting in a political compass chart from a bulletin board discussion among visitors to the Skeptical Science website? Seriously? I guess you think that somehow invalidates DECADES of published scientific work. Those are some *keen* critical thinking skills you`re wielding there, Mr. Researcher. ~steps back dramatically~
0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-"you seem to harbor a lot of contempt for peer-reviewed"

Just because you (and they) claim to be `peer-reviewed`, does not make it so. They post `peers` that they agree with, and censor `peers` that the do not.

More like Pal-Review.

Squrlz4Sale-" Twice now I`ve directed you to..."

...propaganda.

You don`t think they`re biased? In August of 2011, in a Skeptical Science forum thread titled, "Political Compass" frequent Skeptical Science commentators and moderators took a political quiz revealing:
0
Reply
Male 4,098
...an extreme unproven position.

Here is a link to the full letter and those that signed it. link.

"If you are able to review the NASA data and the *Skeptical Science* material and conclude they are "skewed," I think we`ll have to respectfully disagree--and suggest we leave it at that. "

Very well, you seem educated enough (honestly), we`ll agree to disagree, just wanted to make those points.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale:
"others are demonstrably wrong ("CO2 has not been shown to correlate to temperature"; for a summary of the current understanding of that correlation, see..."

Yes, this is based on a single study named "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth`s Temperature." The link Nasa gives is broken but it can be seen here, link. You need to register htough but it`s free. The study was written by four NASA scientists, Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, and Reto A. Ruedy.

When this was posted on the NASA site many other Nasa scientists went up it arms. Nearly 50 of these scientists, including seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA`s Johnson Space Center, banned together and sent a letter of disapproval to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden for advocating and extre
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale:

"yes, and salt is yummy on french fries, but ingesting 200 grams of it will kill you"

True because salt is used to regulate a humans osmotic pressure, but plants use CO2 to produce ATP via ADP-forming succinyl-CoA synthetase in the plants kreb cycle, its a different process and can not suffocate them. There is no such thing as CO2 poisoning for plants. Although if you deprived a plant of all C02 for a period of time and create large amounts of ADP and AMP in the plant, then suddenly shoot high amounts of CO2 you can can strip some plant molecules of a single electron, creating a free radical. This still wouldn`t kill the plant but may be harmful in the long run. Here is a
link to a free pfd its off the point though.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@Squrlz4: The "Climategate" emails clearly detailed various "peer review" frauds:

Mutual peer reviewing.
Peer review "daisy chains".
Peer citation before publication.
Agreements to silence negative reviews.

& etc. You should know all that. It hasn`t even been refuted, it`s an uncontested fact.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel: For someone who claims to be a "researcher," you seem to harbor a lot of contempt for peer-reviewed research. Just saying.

Hey, I`ve tried. Twice now I`ve directed you to refutations of misinformation you`ve been repeating on here, which contain links to peer-reviewed studies. You`ve made it clear you have no intention of reading them. So that`s that: You have successfully avoided the danger of becoming better informed. I salute you! =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-"That`s a pity because it is probably the world`s best aggregate site linking explanations of AGW-related physics"

No, it`s not.

But I see how it works (in your mind): Any site you link is automatically unquestionably accurate, noble and free of bias. Any others `aren`t`.



Squrlz4Sale-"Take a look at the two links below from "Skeptical Science" "

Presenting a propaganda site twice does not make it any less propaganda.

But yes, we should all take scientific knowledge from an idiot who said this: "Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43" "Ding dong, the witch is dead..." - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], March 2, 2012

Yup, no bias there.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead: Excuse me for the observation, but in your multiple posts, you`re a bit all over the place. Some of your statements strike me as naive ("CO2 is actually healthy for plant life"--yes, and salt is yummy on french fries, but ingesting 200 grams of it will kill you); others are demonstrably wrong ("CO2 has not been shown to correlate to temperature"; for a summary of the current understanding of that correlation, see
here).

All that said, I commend you for actually visiting the websites I linked to rather than searching for reasons to avoid them. I appreciate that.

If you are able to review the NASA data and the *Skeptical Science* material and conclude they are "skewed," I think we`ll have to respectfully disagree--and suggest we leave it at that.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@OldOllie: Luckily no. There is a Nobel Committee for each prize. One for the peace prize, one for physics, etc. Btw, i completely agree that Obama`s peace prize was ridiculous.

But i think it`s funny that that is the only thing you chose to reply to. Trying to change the subject, are we?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Kain1 [quote]The surest and easiest way to get a Nobel prize and world wide acclaim is to prove an entire field of research wrong.[/quote]
Would that be the same Nobel Prize committee that gave a prize to Barack Obama before he even took his first piss in the White House? They`re as bad as any journal staff or university department.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]OldOllie, so now NASA`s an untrustworthy source? All corrupted by the Liberal Left takeover of our society, along with all the colleges, universities, and every high school, to boot! [/quote]
Yeah, that pretty much covers it, Davy. Glad to see you`ve come around.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]You can lead a horse to water, but you can`t make it drink.[/quote]
Particularly if the water is full of $#!+.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Again, I can only suggest what I suggested in my earlier comment.

Take a look at the two links below from "Skeptical Science" because they address pieces of misinformation that you have been repeating in this thread. Since you say you used to do scientific research, you may want to proceed on to the Intermediate or Advanced explanations after reading the Basic-level information. Let me know your thoughts.

1. Myth: "Scientists believed we were headed toward another Ice Age in the 1970s."
Link: http://tinyurl.com/clgs5r2

2. Myth: "The Earth hasn`t been warming since 1998."
Link: http://tinyurl.com/5v45lw

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel:

1. "I`ve been researching this for years, and re-evaluating it every time something new pops up."

Awesome. Have you published any peer-reviewed papers? If not, you`ll forgive me for relying more heavily on published studies than on your opinion (nothing personal).

2."`Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term noise.` That reads: `temperatures rise steadily after we fudge the numbers.`"

No, it doesn`t. It reads: "Global warming is not a monotonic function."

3. "I don`t consider Skeptical Science a scientific site."

That`s a pity because it is probably the world`s best aggregate site linking explanations of AGW-related physics, planetary science, and chemistry to original peer-reviewed studies. Unfortunately, you appear to be doing what Ollie was doing: Finding reasons to avoid scientific findings with which you disagree.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Where many these graphs and studies for global climate change begin and end, has a lot to do with the misinterpretations of the data. You can change the rate of increase or decrease by where you start and end. You can turn an increase into a decrease or vise-versa even.


0
Reply
Male 4,098
Plus your graph on skeptical science begins at the medieval warming period 2000 years ago. The one I showed (from geenland`s ice cores) goes back 11,000 years and includes the Roman and Minoan warming periods along with several others, which were far warmer with no impact from man.

But I wouldn`t really site skepticalscience.com, I could have sited junkscience.com or wattsupwiththat.com but I chose to choose impartial sources. Just saying, not trying to argue, i like the NASA one even though i think its skewed for the reasons above.
0
Reply
Male 4,098

And the loss of Icelandic sea ice is not uncommon nor unnatural, it is 110,000 years old and has been through far warmer periods of time (I`ve listed a graph for this below.) Greenland experienced a very warm winter last year and combined with the fact that the study used in this began at 2002, the top of a peak in greenland ice extent it exaggerates the data. Scientists have already found bow-head wale remains in places like Eureaka and Norwegian Bay that show that sea levels were higher and the ice around Greenland was less as little as 4000 years ago. link
0
Reply
Male 4,098

The sea level data comes from CLS/Cnes/Legos with a 90% confidence interval which as the other source CSIRO points out means it has a error of plus or minus 5mm due to marked regional differences that vary between -10 and 10 mm/year.

And the global temperature difference starts at 1880 the end of the little ice age.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Squrlz4Sale: I don`t think any of the Nasa information you provided is wrong but it is skewed. Please note it only shows the arctic sea ice minimum, not the Global sea ice minimum which you can find here,link.

The carbon Dioxide concentration is the total earth value value in ppm. 96.73% comes from biological activity, decaying plant matter, volcanoes, and animal activity and has not been shown to correlate to temperature. Not to mention 95% of the total geenhouse gasses is water vapor, not Co2 which is actually healthy for plant life.

0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-"I think people should evaluate information for themselves and make up their own minds."

Here`s the thing. I`m in research (not as much as I used to be, but still). I`ve been researching this for years, and re-evaluating it everytime something new pops up.

Here`s a key statement in one of your links: "Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term noise."

That reads: `temperatures rise steadily after we fudge the numbers.` Right up there with `Sea levels rose after we enlarged the basin.`

And I don`t consider Skeptical Science a scientific site. It is a misleading name for a propaganda site. Just as an example, they delete any reports that computer climate modes are usually innacurate and is known for re-writing articles to eliminate any criticisms or inconvenient data.

The creator is a cartonist with with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
[quote]Most of those are pretty much the same prediction over and over, just by different people.[/quote]
@RobSwindol: Ah! You noticed that too?

It`s what AGW supporters call "scientific consensus". Proof positive eh? (not)

@wiscesq: As @MacGovern pointed out: The USA and a FEW others may have improved their pollution controls, but MANY other nations did not. In fact, some nations that produced very little pollution (China, for just one example) now EXCEED the USA!

Meanwhile: The USSR was polluting like MADMEN (which, in fact, they were) and it only decreased when they imploded in the 80`s.

And what about the "massive famines" and the DEPOPULATION of the Earth? It has in fact had a 300% population increase... (or whatevers)
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Except that China`s doing exactly that...."

And they are being confronted with the consequences. My friend who lives in Beijing talks about how he has to wear a mask when he`s outside.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel: "Just because the almighty S4S points you towards it, does not automatically make it the truth."

I couldn`t agree with you more. I think people should evaluate information for themselves and make up their own minds.

In your case, I`d suggest starting with the two links below from "Skeptical Science" because they address pieces of misinformation that you have been repeating in this thread. Since you say you used to do scientific research, you may want to proceed on to the Intermediate or Advanced explanations after reading the Basic-level information. Let me know your thoughts.

1. Myth: "Scientists believed we were headed toward another Ice Age in the 1970s."
Link: http://tinyurl.com/clgs5r2

2. Myth: "The Earth hasn`t been warming since 1998."
Link: http://tinyurl
Male 573
FreedomWorks?! Really!?
0
Reply
Male 1,471
[quote]Instead, what they do is try to garner public and political support by presenting misleading graphs and nitpicked data to a scientifically illiterate public.[/quote]

Exactly why they`re trying to get policies based on something other than reality, is a very good question indeed. (By "they" i mean the people funding and spreading this campaign of misinformation.)
0
Reply
Male 8,407
Squrlz4Sale-"You can lead a horse to water, but you can`t make it drink."

Oh, the irony.


Squrlz4Sale-" I can only direct people to the information"

Or, to misinformation. Just because the almighty S4S points you towards it, does not automatically make it the truth.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Had those laws not been passed and had the country stayed on the trajectory it was on in the 50s and early 60s, a lot of those predictions might have come true. [/quote]

Except that China`s doing exactly that....
0
Reply
Male 111
What this author doesn`t acknowledge is that after those predictions were made, the US passed a large number of environmental protection laws. Had those laws not been passed and had the country stayed on the trajectory it was on in the 50s and early 60s, a lot of those predictions might have come true.

You can try to argue that this was failed predictions, but it`s really about the success of governmental action to protect the environment.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Show me some real data, that will stand up to scrutiny, and i will happily change my stance.

Yes, this is a challenge.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
cont.
Instead, what they do is try to garner public and political support by presenting misleading graphs and nitpicked data to a scientifically illiterate public. Add a little bit of conspiracy, and the threat of them having to adjust their world view, and you got a flock of sheep that will swallow just about anything.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
[quote]The so-called "scientific literature" is not scientific in any way, shape or form. It is ENTIRELY controlled by the pro-AGW cabal, and anyone with a contrary opinion cannot get published (or funded or hired or admitted to a graduate program, for that matter). There is no free inquiry in this area; it`s just one big left-handed circle jerk. [/quote]

@OldOllie: That is probably the stupidest comment i`ve seen from you yet. The surest and easiest way to get a Nobel prize and world wide acclaim is to prove an entire field of research wrong. Sure, a lot of people will be pissed at you, but if the facts are on your side, it doesn`t matter.

The problem the Anti-Global warming camp has, is that there is not a lot of data to support their claim, so they don`t get published. (the same problem intelligent design had.
0
Reply
Male 399
Number 10 seems pretty accurate....
0
Reply
Male 2,528
Most of those are pretty much the same prediction over and over, just by different people.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
The animated screen on chr*me depicting earth day sucked up too much memory on my poor old netbox, so it kept locking up. How many thousands of older machines were out there using unnecessary power trying to deal with this frippery? I switched it off, no point in battling futility.
0
Reply
Female 7,981
I agree with Squrlz, ( not just very fluffy but quite sensible) but just to point a few things out- believe what you will, but follow common sense. If we do as the climate change deniers say we will have a really nasty planet with no resources, vast oily wastelands and a very unequal society- but the likes of crakr and Oldollie will be living it up in their enclave. planet might be okay, but just the damage caused by industry will be untidy. If we clean up our act big style, give 3rd world countries the technology they need for free and tidy up we will have a clean and tidy planet for everyone. Certainly, those who want a greedy lifestyle with Strawberries in winter will be unlucky, but it will be nicer and more equal.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
@Ollie, post us another one from Lord Christopher Monckton. That`s always a riot.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
OldOllie, so now NASA`s an untrustworthy source? All corrupted by the Liberal Left takeover of our society, along with all the colleges, universities, and every high school, to boot!

Going all Scooby-Doo here, "I would`ve gottena away with it too, if it weren`t for those pesky Liberals"
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@OldOllie: You can lead a horse to water, but you can`t make it drink.

In other words: I can only direct people to the information, but I can`t make them read it. What your last post tells me is you`ve found a way to avoid actually looking at either website. The first, you say, is associated with "one of the most unscrupulous liars... in the world," a hyperventilated charge that makes me question your judgment; the second, you say, you stopped reading at the first paragraph.

Rather than finding ways to prevent yourself from being exposed to the science, how about picking a myth that the second site addresses, reading the content, and evaluating it in your own mind?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@S4S your links leave much to be desired in the way of credibility. NASA`s climate change department was for many years run by one of the most unscrupulous liars and thoroughly discredited frauds in the world, James Hanson.

I also checked out the other link and stopped at the end of the first paragraph when it said, "What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?" The so-called "scientific literature" is not scientific in any way, shape or form. It is ENTIRELY controlled by the pro-AGW cabal, and anyone with a contrary opinion cannot get published (or funded or hired or admitted to a graduate program, for that matter). There is no free inquiry in this area; it`s just one big left-handed circle jerk.
0
Reply
Male 161
Oh. I thought I clicked on the Pepsi link.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I stopped caring once the guy states that the 70`s was the worse period of time for film and music.[/quote]
I absolutely agree. This Cretin has the soul of a goat. Some of the best music ever made was from the 70s, e.g., progressive rock from Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, and King Crimson, and fusion from Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, The 11th House, Herbie Hancock, Weather Report, Miles Davis, and Passport.

There`s some great music being made today, but I doubt I`ll ever see another golden age like the 70`s again in my lifetime.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
~steps into thread, observes the pile of misinformation already assembled, considers addressing it, but then realizes from long experience what a waste of time it would be~

Naaaah. Not biting.

For those looking for information on the subject, and not right-wing junk science, I can recommend two websites.

1. NASA`s Global Climate Change, which has much of the world`s best data; and

2. Skeptical Science, which addresses the misinformation already presented here.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
So for 250,000,000 years, the CO2 was much higher and the average temperature much warmer...

But in 100 years humans have totally changed all that!!!

By making it cooler than it used to be with lower CO2 = Global Warming!

Obviously!
0
Reply
Male 761
I stopped caring once the guy states that the 70`s was the worse period of time for film and music.

Are you kidding, both were breaking new ground in the 70s.

I agree with him on the clothing, except for girls, the girls looked hot back then.

5cats, I hope just one day that you will stop post hardcore propaganda. I`m not going to argue on the validity of the Green movement; instead I just want to make it clear that this post is just angry, condescending, false, and immature.

0
Reply
Male 2,667
Warming theorists all butt hurt.

Remember folks consensus might be what a lot of people think but it`s not scientific fact.
0
Reply
Male 4,098

0
Reply
Male 2,136
There`s no doubt that industrialization has changed the planet. 100 year floods are happening every five years or so. Once the polar ice melts back during summers we will see some very different weather patterns. Eat while ya can (erp)
0
Reply
Male 4,098

0
Reply
Male 4,098
We just need to "Emotionalize the data" a little more and it will all be clear to you.
0
Reply
Male 165
So... at least 15,000,000 dying a year from hunger is still extraordinarily sad. :( Now I`m depressed.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@OldOllie: no problem and I raise you this graph.
0
Reply
Male 4,098

0
Reply
Male 15,832
@richanddead I hope you don`t mind that I annotated your graph for you.
0
Reply
Male 4,842
"But wait! For some reason I am NOT allowed to post without savage criticism of the SOURCE!"

Nice spin but when your political posts are always some mega-partisan conservative blog or site you kind of lose all credibility 5Cats. That is why your partisan posts get such low ratings. You have your head so far up opinion medias ass it`s not even funny.

You will never see me going to a mega-partisan liberal site let alone posting one. I don`t want to be told what to think and say.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
It`s ok guys just have faith, follow in tune and play your part. Do this and this time we`ll really have the power to change the weather to what ever we want it to be.





0
Reply
Male 8,407
mesovortex-"The talking point that the earth hasn`t been warming since 1998 is a lie:"

Yes, we know, it doesn`t toe the line of the other `consensus` made-up bullcrap, so it`s a `lie`.

The entire AGW fraud is one of those `It`s so important we have to lie to get the truth out.`
0
Reply
Male 15,832
...and yet these same people have it EXACTLY right about global warming.
0
Reply
Male 4,098

0
Reply
Male 2,085
That is because environmentalist are idiots that have been educated beyond their intelligence.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
@HolyGod: I thought you were ignoring me, big boy.

@markust: Ah! That famous "liberal" sense of humour! You prefer Un-Biased sites like the New York Times and Mother Jones eh? Huff Post... *snort*
Whatever floats your boat bro!

But wait! For some reason I am NOT allowed to post without savage criticism of the SOURCE! Nevermind that the content is intended to be humourous... attack attack attack! It`s what you do, Left?

@panzerlenis: Same "wing", same "scientists", same message.

"Humans are bad! Give us tons of money or it`s DOOMSDAY for sure!"

Imagine if we`d painted thousands of square miles of Artic Ice pitch-black as the "Ice Agers" wanted, how great would THAT be to warm the Earth up on purpose? Geniuses!
0
Reply
Male 458
@MeGrendel

The talking point that the earth hasn`t been warming since 1998 is a lie:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Also, there was no scientific consensus about an ice age in the 1970s:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
0
Reply
Male 5,624
I especially like #13...
0
Reply
Male 8,407
@HolyGod

I`ve never said that that the enviroment SHOULDN`T be protected. It should, it`s the only one we have.

This thread is more about the vagaries of the latest Fearmongering.

pazerlenis-"Does that mean the current global warming consensus is wrong too? Hint: the answer is no."

Doesn`t mean the current batch are correct, or honest, either.

Up until recently, research was my life. I never fell for the Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are too many variables (of which man is a very minute part) that make up global climate. It`s a dynamic system, there`s no default setting that is `ideal`.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
@MeGrendel - yes, the global cooling consensus was wrong back in 1970. Does that mean the current global warming consensus is wrong too? Hint: the answer is no.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
1)Post on IAB.
2)Liberals blah blah.
3)Conservatives blah blah.
4)Several people on this website show they`re too stupid or brainwashed to form their own opinions on anything, despite the fact that they`re blessed with enough talents to be experts on everything.
0
Reply
Male 9,495
MeGrendel

This isn`t about global warming in my mind. This is about a time when companies could dump whatever they wanted wherever they wanted without regulation. You`re old enough to remember a time when there were many lakes and rivers that were hazardous to swim in. That isn`t the case in a lot of places anymore.

What do you attribute that to? The free market, or government enforced regulation?
0
Reply
Male 8,407
@HolyGod

1. Liberals: "We need to redistribute your wealth to halt Global Warming!"

2. Conservatives: "Ummm, no."

3. Globe does not warm as the liberals and models suggested, or at all since 1998 (UK Met).

4. Liberals: "We need to redistribute your wealth to halt Global Warming!"

Repeat Ad infinitum .
0
Reply
Male 9,495
Markust123

Koch brothers create PAC.
PAC creates media outlet.
Media shills anti-environmental agenda.
Simpletons accept it and repeat it.
Simpletons outweigh intelligent people.
Simpletons vote in simpleton candidate.
Simpleton candidate relaxes environmental regulation.
Environment suffers.
Koch brothers make a a few extra million dollars.

There is freedom working for ya.
0
Reply
Male 4,842
OK, we get it. 5Cats can`t think for himself so he has to go to these partisan sites all day long to find out what he should be parroting. But do you have to torture the rest of us with his partisan sensational posts from Glenn Beck`s The Blaze and now from The Koch Brother`s Freedom Works? Christ this organization even has a Super Pac. You really could not get more partisan than Freedom Works. If you keep this up IAB is going to need to change their name to I-Am-Brainwashed and the only remaining members will be the neo-cons.
0
Reply
Male 8,407
pazerlenis-"We should dismiss all global warming arguments because some people "

Back in the 70`s, there was a consensus that global cooling was a danger.
0
Reply
Male 9,495
1. Liberals: "We need to make environmental changes or we are going to destroy our environment!"

2. Decades of sweeping environmental regulation.

3. Environment didn`t get totally destroyed.

4. Conservatives: "See we didn`t need any environmental regulation to begin with. Let`s get rid of all of them."

Stupid is as stupid does.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
We should dismiss all global warming arguments because some people made incorrect predictions back in 1970.
0
Reply
Male 40,269
There`s always money to be made by spreading bad news... how little we have changed!
0
Reply
Male 40,269
Link: 13 Worst `Earth Day` Predictions: 1970 [Rate Link] - 43 Years ago they held the first Earth Day, here`s a few predictions that didn`t quite turn out.
0
Reply