Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:36:21 PM
I won't bother going into his lack of geological understanding of volcanogenic feedback systems in "snowball earth" conditions in geological past, or the phenomenal rate of climate change since the industrial revolution which is unprecidented in earth`s geological history. I`ll even brush over his pointing to the AREAL EXTENT of the north polar ice-cap as being relatively constant over the last few years, while completely ignoring the THICKNESS and therefore overall volume of ice at the pole, which is decreasing precipititously.
Anyways, this thread is dead. See you guys in the next debate.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:30:17 PM
I’m not just saying that, either. The Associated Press just finished conducting an interesting test in which they gave global temperature trend data to four different statisticians. In order to remove the possibility of biased judging, the AP didn’t tell the statisticians it was temperature data; they removed temperature unit labels, just leaving the numbers themselves in a trend over time. The results of this “blind” analysis?
"Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880... If you look at the data and cherry pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect", said John Grego, Professor of Statistics at the U of South Carolina. "It is deceptive to say there is Global Cooling".
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:23:47 PM
Monckton states that Global Warming is false as there has been a "global cooling" trend over the last 10 years. That's actually true, if you pick your data carefully enough. From NASA`s Goddard Institute (sorry for repost, but clearly this isn`t getting through)
See the little green line? Global Cooling! How carefully do you have to pick your dots to make “global cooling” appear? Very carefully indeed. This line connects 1998 and 2008. But if you connect 1998 and 2007, you’ll get a flat line. And if you go back to 1997, you get global warming all over again. 1998 is a very important year for global warming denial, since it is an outlier and therefore allows all sorts of line drawing that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. But no matter how many little green lines you draw, you just can’t counter the larger trend of global warming.
"Denying factual evidence without refuting the evidence itself but rather by attempting to discredit the person presenting that evidence doesn't carry any sway with me. If that`s the best you have to offer, this argument is over."
Alright. I`ll pick up on ONE of his claims. Bear in mind that he doesn`t have any different data than the rest of the scientific community, he`s not privy to some secret hidden knowledge, it`s all about how one INTERPRETS those data. Which is where scientific training, as much as you would like to believe otherwise, is entirely relevant.