• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Departures from Reality

Who said 2012 was the warmest year by far? Were they speaking globally or for the US?

I vaguely recall at various parts in the year that it was on the warm side, but don't recall it being record-breaking. edit: globally, anyway.
 
That's crazy...generally my knowledge of academia has been that if you write a highly partisan paper not supported by facts you get laughed out of the building.
Strange choice of words "partisan".
If a person's lean is the same as all of their peers, how can anyone tell who is leaning?
Most University research types try to get grants close to their interest,
but apply for all that they think they can win.
Even if the subject may not be of interest, it is still funded, and buys equipment
and course release time. The equipment can also be used on research they are interested in.
 
Strange choice of words "partisan".
If a person's lean is the same as all of their peers, how can anyone tell who is leaning?
Most University research types try to get grants close to their interest,
but apply for all that they think they can win.
Even if the subject may not be of interest, it is still funded, and buys equipment
and course release time. The equipment can also be used on research they are interested in.

I use partisan because my response was labeled at the idea that Academics were dominated by Liberals therefore their research was slanted to support Liberal views.

You don't need to tell someone's leaning. If methodology is wrong or data is purposely misconstrued then your peers would point it out to you.
 
I use partisan because my response was labeled at the idea that Academics were dominated by Liberals therefore their research was slanted to support Liberal views.

You don't need to tell someone's leaning. If methodology is wrong or data is purposely misconstrued then your peers would point it out to you.

This the naivete that has sunk your team.
It's an echo chamber.
This is why, for example, Mann's work had to be discredited by a blogger- the incomparable Steve McIntyre.
 
This the naivete that has sunk your team.
It's an echo chamber.
This is why, for example, Mann's work had to be discredited by a blogger- the incomparable Steve McIntyre.

I wouldn't say it was discredited....in fact it worked as intended. Issues raised by McIntyre caused additional scrutiny and the finding generally supported Mann's research.
 
NOAA determined that 2012 was the hottest year on record for the continental United States. (e.g. 2012: Hottest Year on Record for Continental U.S.)

Globally, 2012 was the 10th hottest year on record.

Another thing that would help things from you non-science warmist folks is to stop with the 'record high temperatures"crap . There is no 'record' . On the geological time scale we have about . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second's worth of data.
 
As I'm sure you know, Mann, Marcott and multiple others have shown temperatures are the highest in several thousand years.

Unless you dismiss the science and believe WUWT.
 
It's this smarmy 'We're so smart and you are all so dumb" attitude that is the main reason you warmists are getting CLOBBERED in the climate change debate.
63% of Americans believe the climate is warming; only 16% do not believe that any global warming is happening. The numbers haven't changed much over the years.

49% believe that human activities have contributed to global warming.

I wouldn't call that a "clobbering."

I'd also say that the anti-AGW folks can be every bit as condescending as anyone who believes in AGW.


Unfortunately for you folks, the problem is not that " we' do not understand science. It's that we do.
I'm sorry, but yeah. Climate deniers do not understand the science.

It's not always because of a lack of intellect, though. It's because "climate change" has become a partisan issue for many people, and that alone is enough for a die-hard partisan to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts their pre-determined views.

It wasn't always this way. In the late 60s, a large number of scientists voted for Nixon. It wasn't until the 80s that conservatives started drumming science out of the "Big Tent." (The Conservative Turn Against Science - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education)


........Except there's that Cook survey. Which should have been laughed out of the building. But wasn't . Explain THAT?
Why would it get "laughed out of the building?"

It's a meta-study, which is a common practice. All it's doing is summarizing the positions discussed in scientific papers on the topic.
 
Another thing that would help things from you non-science warmist folks is to stop with the 'record high temperatures"crap . There is no 'record'.
The phrase refers to the years 1850 to the present, since that's basically when we first really started using instruments to record global temperatures.

By the way, I think it's quite amusing that many climate deniers will happily look at a 10-year period as definitive, but reject data extending back 130 years as "too short." ;)
 
As I'm sure you know, Mann, Marcott and multiple others have shown temperatures are the highest in several thousand years.

Unless you dismiss the science and believe WUWT.
Mann's been thoroughly discredited( thank you Climategate hacker!)

Marcott's been birdcaged. Get in the game.

We previously posted an article entitled “New analysis suggests the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented for 11,300 years” covering the paper by Marcott et al in Nature. The title of our article drew on the original press release for the paper. However, we note that authors of the paper have since issued an extensive response to media coverage [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/] which includes the following statement:

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average
, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.In the light of this statement from the authors, we no longer consider our headline to be appropriate.

http://www.myclimateandme.com/2013/...-rate-unprecedented-for-11300-years/#comments

That's the UK MET office's blog.
 
Last edited:
63%It's not always because of a lack of intellect, though. It's because "climate change" has become a partisan issue for many people, .
.
Exactly. Including most of the warmists who dominate the climate science field. That's the problem.
 
63% of Americans believe the climate is warming; only 16% do not believe that any global warming is happening. The numbers haven't changed much over the years.

49% believe that human activities have contributed to global warming.
.

That's a yawner. Most skeptics like me even believe that.
What the Warmists haven't convinced people of is that tyhe warming is spectacular, that it is unprecedented , that man contributes to the majority of warming, and most importantly- that if we don't act NOW, the consequences will be dire. These 4 things are what defines someone as a true warmist.
 
And the retraction or criticism of Marcotts (or the 'thoroughly discredited' Mann ) in the peer teviewed literature is noticeably absent.

But your blog buddies certainly have tried to discredit him.
 
63% of Americans believe the climate is warming; only 16% do not believe that any global warming is happening. The numbers haven't changed much over the years.

49% believe that human activities have contributed to global warming.

The numbers have been as high as 30% of Americans believing in creationist beliefs.

The point is there has been a significant warming trend going on since before the industrial revolution.

I agree that co2 is correlated with the temperatures, however the hypothesis is one of causation, and I've yet to see indisputable evidence of it.





I wouldn't call that a "clobbering."

I'd also say that the anti-AGW folks can be every bit as condescending as anyone who believes in AGW.

The AGW crowd tend to be more intense from my view, and most of
The time when you really scratch the surface of them you tend to find some pretty outrageous beliefs.


I'm sorry, but yeah. Climate deniers do not understand the science.

It's not always because of a lack of intellect, though. It's because "climate change" has become a partisan issue for many people, and that alone is enough for a die-hard partisan to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts their pre-determined views.

Most of the time this is probably true...

But really, the main hypothesis is WAY TO SIMPLISTIC for the realities of all the factors that will influence the climate.

It wasn't always this way. In the late 60s, a large number of scientists voted for Nixon. It wasn't until the 80s that conservatives started drumming science out of the "Big Tent." (The Conservative Turn Against Science - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education)



Why would it get "laughed out of the building?"

It's a meta-study, which is a common practice. All it's doing is summarizing the positions discussed in scientific papers on the topic.

I also have to agree the world is getting dumber for the most part.

However, global warming as it stands as an issue really only serves as a red herring for the REAL ISSUES impacting the climate, in measurable and negative ways.
 
I wish man made climate change wasn't true.

Be really nice if it wasn't.

But it is, and America seems to have this unique, relatively large section of population that denies science. Now I think this has to do with a republican political strategy that got out of hand when they turned the idea of anything to do with climate change into a tax issue in the 90's suddenly it seems anyone right wing feels they have to deny the science based purely on their political affiliation and not based on understanding the science.

Man made climate change is a fact.

Period.


The denialists will continue their march unabated.

But it doesn't change reality.

OK so that made me laugh.
 
Sometimes I wish I could lead a field trip of warmers to places I have camped in the Utah desert where I have wandered around looking at dino bones and finding fossilized sea shells on the top of a desert mountain. You guys might just gain some perspective.
 
Sometimes I wish I could lead a field trip of warmers to places I have camped in the Utah desert where I have wandered around looking at dino bones and finding fossilized sea shells on the top of a desert mountain. You guys might just gain some perspective.

Are you suggesting that dinosaurs are causing global warming?

Well in a way that's actually true. Your intellect is much more "meta" than I gave you credit for, Sawyer.
 
Sometimes I wish I could lead a field trip of warmers to places I have camped in the Utah desert where I have wandered around looking at dino bones and finding fossilized sea shells on the top of a desert mountain. You guys might just gain some perspective.
Why, what exactly is that supposed to teach us?

Sea levels were higher in the Late Cretaceous, by anywhere from 500 to 850 feet. Since that time, Utah and the Colorado Plateau have been pushed up around 12,500 feet by plate tectonics. There's also erosion, which wears away at some of the layers that were on top of the fossils. Thus, you get fossils on the top of a desert mountain.

How does that contradict any aspect of global warming or AGW?
 
Sometimes I wish I could lead a field trip of warmers to places I have camped in the Utah desert where I have wandered around looking at dino bones and finding fossilized sea shells on the top of a desert mountain. You guys might just gain some perspective.

I've camped in those places too. I've also talked to people who spend their lives analyzing those fossils. They have perspective.

You apparently don't, since you don't get that the concept is not the amount of change that is happening, but the amount of change over an infinitesimally short time period in a geologic sense.

Our civilization was designed for one climate. A slight change is disruptive, at the very least.
 
Why, what exactly is that supposed to teach us?

Sea levels were higher in the Late Cretaceous, by anywhere from 500 to 850 feet. Since that time, Utah and the Colorado Plateau have been pushed up around 12,500 feet by plate tectonics. There's also erosion, which wears away at some of the layers that were on top of the fossils. Thus, you get fossils on the top of a desert mountain.

How does that contradict any aspect of global warming or AGW?

Every time I pop into the environment forum Sawyer is saying "the climate has always changed" (slightly switching up the wording) as if this fact is unknown or even denied. It's the only argument he has.
 
That's a yawner. Most skeptics like me even believe that.
What the Warmists haven't convinced people of is that tyhe warming is spectacular, that it is unprecedented , that man contributes to the majority of warming, and most importantly- that if we don't act NOW, the consequences will be dire. These 4 things are what defines someone as a true warmist.

From watching this unfold for years, I suspect something like this happened:

Scientists noticed disturbing trends. Ut they know how slowly this society makes major changes, especially ones that cost major industries profits.

So they were worried we would do NOTHING until it became brutally clear. At which point it would be too late. Too painful a pill to swallow.

Ao somwone had the bright idea to let the PR folks handle the "rollout". And they cherry picked the most dire predictions in an attempt to hurry us along.

Which provided openings for the aforementioned industries to hire their own PR people to create "skeptics".

And now we aren't doing what we should be doing. Determining exactly what is happening at what rate and deciding what to do aboit it.

Instead, we are caught up in a propaganda war. And NOTHING is getting done at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom