How much proof do the global warming deniers need?

[Deuce]

Actually old chap it was part of WIKIMEDIA or WIKI commons - which means someone has submitted it because they think it MIGHT be useful but it is not necessarily linked to any reference or discussion.

Which puts it firmly back into the "drew it meself with an etch-a-sketch" category

The hard part is getting people to understand that there are multiple interdependent variables at work, so even this "sudden flattening" (which only exists if you have never taken a statistics class) doesn't mean there's not a correlation between CO2 and temperature. You can't just look at temperature + one variable and expect to find anything meaningful.

 

[Bodi]

You obviously THINK this is a valid source or you would not have posted it but would it surprise you to find it is a fraud? Look again - no links to research and no links with any scientific body what so ever.

Here are some of the founders and some current members...

Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer Jr, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (now deceased).

Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

Atmospheric science...
Meteorology...
paleoclimatologist...
climate change...

...Besides, it still has links to various other sources. Really now, to throw out a whole source because of one aspect is very silly...

Which makes this worthless - There are a lot of claims but absolutely no evidence any of them are worth using as toilet paper

Just more and more people and opinions, much of it with data, that counter the global warming scam... that's all.


Courier mail:doh DRUDGE is more worthwhile - and THAT is saying something

I will let Barry Jones rebut Bob Carter ABC The Drum Unleashed - Bob Carter's attack on reason

I could go through these one by one but truth is I have a raging temperature myself and am just not up to it

You could go through one by one, but if you are looking for the incorrect information you will arrive at the same incorrect conclusions....

a) it is opinion not science - please learn the difference

Please show me were I said something that indicated that I thought that an opinion was science... good luck. Your arrogance is blinding you from some simple facts, it seems.

b) it is unsupported - facts need referencing

It is just evidence... and there is referencing if you took the time to look

c) the political agenda underpinning all of these is clear - deny deny deny

Incorrect. They are seeking answers. If global warming is happening and it is conclusively proven that man is the cause, I would/will accept that. The fact is that the scaremongers out there are trying to make money and or are acting out of ignorance, or what they believe is the truth too quickly. With the first and seemingly obvious point of view rather than looking for alternative ideas/causes. In turn, they (you) turn around and call anybody still seeking answers and not on the CO2 bandwagon as deniers.. that is reeks of ignorance.

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, citing Claude Allegre’s editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. In his editorial, Allegre accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

According to Christopher Horner, author of many books on environmentalism, "Global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago.”

Global Warming - The American Policy Roundtable

Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Dur ing the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has in creased by
22%. Much of that CO2 in crease is at tributable to the 6-fold increase
in hu man use of hy drocarbon en ergy. Fig ures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13
show, how ever, that hu man use of hy drocarbons has not caused the
observed increases in tem perature.

The increase in at mospheric carbon di oxide has, how ever, had a
substantial environmental effect. Atmo spheric CO2 fer tilizes plants.
Higher CO2 en ables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in
drier climates. Plants pro vide food for an imals, which are thereby
also en hanced. The extent and di versity of plant and an imal life have
both increased sub stantially dur ing the past half-century. Increased
temperature has also mildly stim ulated plant growth.

Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging
clima tological consequences lie ahead? There are no exper imental
data that sug gest this. There is also no ex perimentally val idated the oretical
evidence of such an am plification.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

 

[Demon of Light]

It's not conflicting. It's different data. 12 month averages =/= annual averages =/= 5-year averages.

Looking at the graph it wouldn't make much difference. Also, just so you know, there are 12 months in a year so while one might not only go by year it should line up with the other graph at some point if it was not conflicting data.

It's not obfuscating. If you look at a chart from 2007, it just isn't going to have 2008's data on it. By the way, you just left out 2009 on your own chart. NASA's data is up to date. Why is the rest important? You, like every other skeptic, seem to not understand that blogs, youtube videos, news articles, and wikipedia are not scientific data. The charts on them are not scientific data. They are not created by scientists, they are created by random people on the internet or journalists who sometimes have very little understanding of what they're writing about.

Wikipedia is a very reliable source on certain matters and this is one of those matters. Indeed, sourcing is required by Wikipedia's rules. From my own experience editing Wikipedia I can tell you that "skeptics" in the general sense dominate. If Wikipedia is biased on a major issue it is usually towards the dominant position of the establishment. So as it concerns global warming anything that skews towards the side of climate change skeptics will be quickly edited or removed.

Looking around it seems the data for the graph comes from the Climate Research Unit. In one of those climate denial crock videos, it showed a similar graph and cited the Met Office.

See, that's your problem right there. Along with every other skeptic on the planet. Scientists don't write articles when they want to prove something. You want something definitive? Read peer-reviewed science journals.

You know, I really don't like being talked down to, especially since when I bother to look at the very things you suggest I look at I find they still in no way prove their point. Rather it is what I have been saying: a very long roundabout correlation = causation argument. In fact, the most revealing scientific study I read rather clearly states that natural forces contributed to almost all of the warming until the 1970's. That is where supposedly anthropogenic effects take hold.

The hard part is getting people to understand that there are multiple interdependent variables at work, so even this "sudden flattening" (which only exists if you have never taken a statistics class) doesn't mean there's not a correlation between CO2 and temperature. You can't just look at temperature + one variable and expect to find anything meaningful.

Please do not use strawman arguments. I only noted that an inconvenient part of the graphs she provided were also left off.

Actually old chap it was part of WIKIMEDIA or WIKI commons - which means someone has submitted it because they think it MIGHT be useful but it is not necessarily linked to any reference or discussion.

Which puts it firmly back into the "drew it meself with an etch-a-sketch" category

Naturally people who fancy themselves rational skeptics dismiss anything from Wikipedia without thought or consideration because it clashes with their notion that the elites are always smarter and as such no one should question them.

 

[Barbbtx]

Hannitys The Green Swindle just came on Fox. Looks like it might run again in 3 hrs

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by bowerbird
Actually old chap it was part of WIKIMEDIA or WIKI commons - which means someone has submitted it because they think it MIGHT be useful but it is not necessarily linked to any reference or discussion.

Which puts it firmly back into the "drew it meself with an etch-a-sketch" category

They have tons of feedback concerning the accuracy of Wikipedia being around 95-98% correct and getting better...

 

[bowerbird]

They have tons of feedback concerning the accuracy of Wikipedia being around 95-98% correct and getting better...

WikiPEDIA I agree is quite accurate (and remember you said that when I quote it in a minute) but WikiMEDIA where the graph was sourced from is something else entirely. From what I gather it is a repository of pictures and graphs that MIGHT be useful. I have hit wikimedia stuff before and if it is used there is always associated text - this was NOT used and for whatever reason (inaccurate, someone made it up, not worth the bytes it is made of.......) it was NOT used we can only speculate. Without an accompanying text and explanation about source of information (someone's backyard barometer), the methodology used to determine the data (e.g. mode is different from mean) and the context of the graph (i.e. was this used to show what not to do)

 

[Bodi]

WikiPEDIA I agree is quite accurate (and remember you said that when I quote it in a minute) but WikiMEDIA where the graph was sourced from is something else entirely. From what I gather it is a repository of pictures and graphs that MIGHT be useful. I have hit wikimedia stuff before and if it is used there is always associated text - this was NOT used and for whatever reason (inaccurate, someone made it up, not worth the bytes it is made of.......) it was NOT used we can only speculate. Without an accompanying text and explanation about source of information (someone's backyard barometer), the methodology used to determine the data (e.g. mode is different from mean) and the context of the graph (i.e. was this used to show what not to do)

I missed that bit.... my bad.

 

[bowerbird]

Hannitys The Green Swindle just came on Fox. Looks like it might run again in 3 hrs

Can't WAIT till they try and show it over here - I mean we had such a good time with the "Great Gobal Warming Swindle" Our Journo's did not just have a meal off of that one they had a five course banquet for four hundred people and STILL had lots of evidence of fraud, misrepresentation and out and out lying to go around a further five hundred.

Bet Hannity is not brave enough to let that show outside of America

 

[Barbbtx]

Can't WAIT till they try and show it over here - I mean we had such a good time with the "Great Gobal Warming Swindle" Our Journo's did not just have a meal off of that one they had a five course banquet for four hundred people and STILL had lots of evidence of fraud, misrepresentation and out and out lying to go around a further five hundred.

Bet Hannity is not brave enough to let that show outside of America

It was good. It wasn't so much about the scientific proof or disproof of GW but more about following the money trail. When so much money and power is involved if you can prove something to be true, makes you kinda go Hmmm...

Your Journo's huh? They the same as our Journolisters? I believe they have 400 members.

 

[bowerbird]

Looking at the graph it wouldn't make much difference. Also, just so you know, there are 12 months in a year so while one might not only go by year it should line up with the other graph at some point if it was not conflicting data.



Wikipedia is a very reliable source on certain matters and this is one of those matters. Indeed, sourcing is required by Wikipedia's rules. From my own experience editing Wikipedia I can tell you that "skeptics" in the general sense dominate. If Wikipedia is biased on a major issue it is usually towards the dominant position of the establishment. So as it concerns global warming anything that skews towards the side of climate change skeptics will be quickly edited or removed.

Looking around it seems the data for the graph comes from the Climate Research Unit. In one of those climate denial crock videos, it showed a similar graph and cited the Met Office.



You know, I really don't like being talked down to, especially since when I bother to look at the very things you suggest I look at I find they still in no way prove their point. Rather it is what I have been saying: a very long roundabout correlation = causation argument. In fact, the most revealing scientific study I read rather clearly states that natural forces contributed to almost all of the warming until the 1970's. That is where supposedly anthropogenic effects take hold.



Please do not use strawman arguments. I only noted that an inconvenient part of the graphs she provided were also left off.



Naturally people who fancy themselves rational skeptics dismiss anything from Wikipedia without thought or consideration because it clashes with their notion that the elites are always smarter and as such no one should question them.

Rolls eyes and stamps foot - LISTEN!!

The graph was from wiki MEDIA not wiki PEDIA Please look them up they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS


Just like a graph showing correlation of Solar output and global temperature and a graph showing carbon dioxide levels and global temperature are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

You are not just trying to compare apples and oranges you are trying to compare Balloons and Lead Balls. They both might be round but only one can be tied to a stick and used to hit someone over the head with. (mutters to self though at the moment, given the obtuseness of the replies I am tempted to...............)

 

[bowerbird]

It was good. It wasn't so much about the scientific proof or disproof of GW but more about following the money trail. When so much money and power is involved if you can prove something to be true, makes you kinda go Hmmm...

Your Journo's huh? They the same as our Journolisters? I believe they have 400 members.

"Journo" is an Australianism like bikkie for biscuit. But if you think there is money to be made off of AGW - and an awful lot of what I have seen so far is not fact but conjecture with a plethora of "maybes" and could bes and perhapses - but you have to ask yourself "Is there a vested interest in keeping the CO2 pumping out into the atmosphere?

 

[bowerbird]

Here are some of the founders and some current members...

Dr Merritt J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer Jr, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (now deceased).

Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

Atmospheric science...
Meteorology...
paleoclimatologist...
climate change...

...Besides, it still has links to various other sources. Really now, to throw out a whole source because of one aspect is very silly...



Just more and more people and opinions, much of it with data, that counter the global warming scam... that's all.


Courier mail:doh DRUDGE is more worthwhile - and THAT is saying something

I will let Barry Jones rebut Bob Carter ABC The Drum Unleashed - Bob Carter's attack on reason




You could go through one by one, but if you are looking for the incorrect information you will arrive at the same incorrect conclusions....




Please show me were I said something that indicated that I thought that an opinion was science... good luck. Your arrogance is blinding you from some simple facts, it seems.

I am just going to address this part of your post first because addressing the fraud known as the "Oregon Petition" is a project worthy of more time and effort

Okay -from that website you got two very well known sceptics and a corpse. Let us look closer at the first one - sounds impressive doesn't he? Only the thing is scientists are easy to google because they make a living doing research, which means they actually have to publish it - hence easy to check credentials if they are legit - and what do we find of your first name?

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Van der Lingen has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Google scholar shows two articles published in the 1970s. Van der Lingen describes himself as a geologist/paleoclimatologist and climate change consultant.

Gerrit van der Lingen

You will forgive me if I ignore the dead guy

Now the other "scientist" is indeed employed by an Australian University but has been caught "fudging the facts"
The Australian's War on Science 33 : Deltoid

When I talk of discriminating between opinion and science I am talking about differentiating between a $2 website with a couple of people's names on it and say. The Stanford University Solar Centre.

Now if you had to choose between the two which one would you consider more valid and less likely to contain error?

Let us suppose you had a choice between two medicines for a raging infection- one is a well established anti-biotic with a long history of evidenced based research to identify when to use it, when not to use it and it's possible side and toxic effects - the other is a sprig of leaves your neighbour has brought in telling you she "looked it up on the internet" and it is known to "cure miasma's". Which one would you choose?

 

[bowerbird]

Incorrect. They are seeking answers. If global warming is happening and it is conclusively proven that man is the cause, I would/will accept that. The fact is that the scaremongers out there are trying to make money and or are acting out of ignorance, or what they believe is the truth too quickly. With the first and seemingly obvious point of view rather than looking for alternative ideas/causes. In turn, they (you) turn around and call anybody still seeking answers and not on the CO2 bandwagon as deniers.. that is reeks of ignorance.

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, citing Claude Allegre’s editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. In his editorial, Allegre accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

According to Christopher Horner, author of many books on environmentalism, "Global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago.”

Global Warming - The American Policy Roundtable

Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Dur ing the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has in creased by
22%. Much of that CO2 in crease is at tributable to the 6-fold increase
in hu man use of hy drocarbon en ergy. Fig ures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13
show, how ever, that hu man use of hy drocarbons has not caused the
observed increases in tem perature.

The increase in at mospheric carbon di oxide has, how ever, had a
substantial environmental effect. Atmo spheric CO2 fer tilizes plants.
Higher CO2 en ables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in
drier climates. Plants pro vide food for an imals, which are thereby
also en hanced. The extent and di versity of plant and an imal life have
both increased sub stantially dur ing the past half-century. Increased
temperature has also mildly stim ulated plant growth.

Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging
clima tological consequences lie ahead? There are no exper imental
data that sug gest this. There is also no ex perimentally val idated the oretical
evidence of such an am plification.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Look I could very happily show the very well known fraud that the OISM perpetrated to attack their credibility and I have done so here

What is the best way to solve the problem of anthropogenic global warming? - Page 45 - Political Forum

But that just really gets denialists into accusation mode telling me I am unwilling to look at "facts"

So I am going to ask you why I should pay any attention to anything that a $2 company like OISM (which sells survival manuals as income) has to say when the Union of Concerned Scientists have come out with statements like this

Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.

Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Demon of Light]

Rolls eyes and stamps foot - LISTEN!!

The graph was from wiki MEDIA not wiki PEDIA Please look them up they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

*sigh* File:GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just like a graph showing correlation of Solar output and global temperature and a graph showing carbon dioxide levels and global temperature are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

Never said they weren't. Were you not paying attention when I explained why I put up the graph?

 

[Deuce]

*sigh* File:GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Never said they weren't. Were you not paying attention when I explained why I put up the graph?

We're paying attention, but when you don't make any particular point to go along with your charts it leaves us to guess as to what your intention is.

 

[Bodi]

Look I could very happily show the very well known fraud that the OISM perpetrated to attack their credibility and I have done so here

What is the best way to solve the problem of anthropogenic global warming? - Page 45 - Political Forum

But that just really gets denialists into accusation mode telling me I am unwilling to look at "facts"

So I am going to ask you why I should pay any attention to anything that a $2 company like OISM (which sells survival manuals as income) has to say when the Union of Concerned Scientists have come out with statements like this



Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

One can't just pick and choose the some of the evidence that they are going to accept. Regarding publishing, I know one of the top physicists in his field, and he is quite able to look at the science and make an independent conclusion on the matter, which he has. Not publishing on climate change is irrelevant.

Additionally, I have posted sources beyond the OISM... and those sources and perspectives are being ignored. I have also brought forth other ideas that might be contributing to the issue, and those are being either ignored or scoffed at by Duece simply because there is no conclusive proof at the moment. Well, climate change advocates certainly don't have all the answers, and just saying CO2 is rising and wow, it parallels the industrial revolution so that MUST be the reason is ludicrous and certainly naive. If it turns out that that IS the reason, then that is fine, but it is not known yet since the world and it's climate are run by such diverse factors. The ocean currents, solar activity, magnetic fields, CO2, water vapor, ozone levels, etc and these things are ever changing.

Look, they can't even get the days weather correct, I am certainly not going to sit back and believe that they have this much more complex issue down cold. That is ridiculous.

 

[bowerbird]

*sigh* File:GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Never said they weren't. Were you not paying attention when I explained why I put up the graph?

DOL - you are not trying to be disingenuous are you? Although the link now says WIKIPEDIA it is not part of the main Wiki pages but part of the disputed sections.

And it STILL represents a misleading representation of the facts because the time scaling is too short and it does NOT take into account the very thing we were talking about - Solar forcing - which at the time was in a minima

 

[bowerbird]

One can't just pick and choose the some of the evidence that they are going to accept. Regarding publishing, I know one of the top physicists in his field, and he is quite able to look at the science and make an independent conclusion on the matter, which he has. Not publishing on climate change is irrelevant.

Additionally, I have posted sources beyond the OISM... and those sources and perspectives are being ignored. I have also brought forth other ideas that might be contributing to the issue, and those are being either ignored or scoffed at by Duece simply because there is no conclusive proof at the moment. Well, climate change advocates certainly don't have all the answers, and just saying CO2 is rising and wow, it parallels the industrial revolution so that MUST be the reason is ludicrous and certainly naive. If it turns out that that IS the reason, then that is fine, but it is not known yet since the world and it's climate are run by such diverse factors. The ocean currents, solar activity, magnetic fields, CO2, water vapor, ozone levels, etc and these things are ever changing.

Look, they can't even get the days weather correct, I am certainly not going to sit back and believe that they have this much more complex issue down cold. That is ridiculous.

Okay - one of the reasons that Deuce and I have been jumping up and down on your links (and thank-you for at least trying) is that they are mostly sourced from sceptic sites. Over the last ten years of arguing climate science I have not found a sceptic site that was either truthful or made a genuine effort to really be unbiased (i.e. they pick so many cherries they could supply half the world with Jam)

It frustrates me beyond measure that people are more willing to listen to crackpots like OISM than the Stern Review or the Garnaut report or even your own government review sites. Heck! Even the Pentagon has weighed in saying that climate change has a potential to magnify security threats.

It is as it they cannot discriminate between a blog and a commissioned report

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter4.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...6314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

Global Climate Change
"
Just continue to ask yourself - "How much does a guy who anonymously posts about climate change on a $2 website have to lose as opposed to the scientists, economists and project officers involved in something like one of the reviews posted above?"

 

[Bodi]

Okay - one of the reasons that Deuce and I have been jumping up and down on your links (and thank-you for at least trying) is that they are mostly sourced from sceptic sites. Over the last ten years of arguing climate science I have not found a sceptic site that was either truthful or made a genuine effort to really be unbiased (i.e. they pick so many cherries they could supply half the world with Jam)

It frustrates me beyond measure that people are more willing to listen to crackpots like OISM than the Stern Review or the Garnaut report or even your own government review sites. Heck! Even the Pentagon has weighed in saying that climate change has a potential to magnify security threats.

It is as it they cannot discriminate between a blog and a commissioned report

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter4.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...6314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

Global Climate Change
"
Just continue to ask yourself - "How much does a guy who anonymously posts about climate change on a $2 website have to lose as opposed to the scientists, economists and project officers involved in something like one of the reviews posted above?"

Just look at me as playing Devil's Advocate with this issue. I am certainly not a skeptic in the traditional sense...

I agree with that last paragraph, and that is why I have moved away from some of those sites and have begun using the US Government one and scholarly sites.

I am glad that you are being reasonable, I have been doing so as well and also disassociating myself from what you might consider lame-ass "skeptics"... it will make this discussion much better.

 

[Demon of Light]

DOL - you are not trying to be disingenuous are you? Although the link now says WIKIPEDIA it is not part of the main Wiki pages but part of the disputed sections.

It was always from Wikipedia. The image was uploaded using Wikipedia but is not stored on Wikipedia.

And it STILL represents a misleading representation of the facts because the time scaling is too short and it does NOT take into account the very thing we were talking about - Solar forcing - which at the time was in a minima

You can say that all you like, but it shows a different temperature trend during that period. It shows lower temperatures and for a rather long period as well. I am only pointing out that your claim of cherry-picking is hypocritical because you are also cherry-picking. You use data that is most convenient to your point.

 

[bowerbird]

It was always from Wikipedia. The image was uploaded using Wikipedia but is not stored on Wikipedia.



You can say that all you like, but it shows a different temperature trend during that period. It shows lower temperatures and for a rather long period as well. I am only pointing out that your claim of cherry-picking is hypocritical because you are also cherry-picking. You use data that is most convenient to your point.

Just like you have been dodging the whole solar output correlation question.

Now as you will see this is not a smooth curve correlate so taking just a couple of years, as your graph did, can give a false impression. And as I have repeatedly tried to show there are more than one variant at play - here is an example of more than one

suggest you read this The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century

 

[Demon of Light]

Just like you have been dodging the whole solar output correlation question.

I can't dodge something I was never addressing to begin with. The point I was making is that both sides cherry-pick. While the graph I cited is taken from data collected by a major group pushing climate change you rarely see that one cited because it does not show temperatures rising above the level from a decade ago.

 

[GodsWrath]

Denying global warming is like denying taxes...
these should help


/tmp/PreviewPasteboardItems/T2+Hansen_Global_Warming_Sci_Am_2004 (dragged).pdf

i also suggest looking into:
Mass Extinction
Eutrophication
Food Shortages
Ocean exploitation...


all these are a result of human behavior from greed...

 

[bowerbird]

I can't dodge something I was never addressing to begin with. The point I was making is that both sides cherry-pick. While the graph I cited is taken from data collected by a major group pushing climate change you rarely see that one cited because it does not show temperatures rising above the level from a decade ago.

No, you won't see that used, as it was NOT used because it is a cherry pick of data.

 

[Demon of Light]

No, you won't see that used, as it was NOT used because it is a cherry pick of data.

By all means prove it.