• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It

Catawba said:
"Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193;"

Indeed! :cool:
Click to expand...


Again you miss the point. The Marcott study did not have high resolution reconstructions of the rest of the 11,300 years so the only reason that uptic was supposedly meaningful is that it appears in a uniform resolution graph against the rest of the climate data of the same resolution. By arguing that the high resolution reconstructions look like his screwed up graph is meaningless because there is still a resolution discrepancy that makes magnitude comparisons utterly useless.
 
Threegoofs said:
Fascinating. I've seen this come up on three boards so far. It must have been some sort of email blast to deniers or something.

Each one of them has seemed to miss the main point,too.
Click to expand...


Actually, it was posted on that noted denier site RealClimate.org. :roll:

Also funny since the true believers have been blasting this article from The Atlantic all over the internet. I think what you are experiencing, Threegoofs, is what psychologists call projection.
 
Yes, it was. But the posters I have seen advancing the argument have taken that exact question out of the long interview.

I won't cast aspersions upon you, but I know for a fact the others aren't the brightest bulbs on the net.

So what denier website did you crib this from? I'm just curious how this info seems to spread.
 
jmotivator said:
Again you miss the point. The Marcott study did not have high resolution reconstructions of the rest of the 11,300 years so the only reason that uptic was supposedly meaningful is that it appears in a uniform resolution graph against the rest of the climate data of the same resolution. By arguing that the high resolution reconstructions look like his screwed up graph is meaningless because there is still a resolution discrepancy that makes magnitude comparisons utterly useless.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion! :cool:
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, it was. But the posters I have seen advancing the argument have taken that exact question out of the long interview.

I won't cast aspersions upon you, but I know for a fact the others aren't the brightest bulbs on the net.

So what denier website did you crib this from? I'm just curious how this info seems to spread.
Click to expand...


Realclimate.org. Sorry to disappoint you.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion! :cool:
Click to expand...


I do appreciate that you are at least considerate enough to not pad your mindless responses with superfluous wordiness.
 
Catawba said:
Dear Desperately seeking Flogger,

When anyone of the world's science academies comes out with the position that AGW is not happening, you be sure to let us know.

Until then, you have as much credibility as those that maintained the earth was flat after the scientific consensus for years was that it was round.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

As ever you didnt even open the links to check the names cited here preferring the opinions of hacks and political activists instead. If these people listed (many of them Nobel Laureats) dont represent 'credible scientists' for you then I dont know who will. Please provide (for the umpteenth time) a single poll from just one of these 'science academies' of its respective membership on this issue.
 
flogger said:
As ever you didnt even open the links to check the names cited here preferring the opinions of hacks and political activists instead. If these people listed (many of them Nobel Laureats) dont represent 'credible scientists' for you then I dont know who will. Please provide (for the umpteenth time) a single poll from just one of these 'science academies' of its respective membership on this issue.
Click to expand...


In reply, I offer a quote from some guy named Arthur C. Clarke
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Found it. Cribbed off of Alex Jones site.

Prison Planet.com » New Climate Scandal Exposed

Kudos for reading stuff. Too bad you don't read what actual scientists think instead of talk show hosts.
Click to expand...


It's funny that on the one hand you argue that the passage is spread all over the internet, but somehow you have decided that you know where the cut and paste came from.

In a funny way you have just displayed the kind of uncritical thinking that lead you to worship AGW in the first place.

By the way, if you had actually used your brain when you went all Jupiter Jones you'd have realize that your link for the Prison Planet article doesn't actually contain the full text of that Q&A with citation so obviously it didn't come from there.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
As ever you didnt even open the links to check the names cited here preferring the opinions of hacks and political activists instead. If these people listed (many of them Nobel Laureats) dont represent 'credible scientists' for you then I dont know who will. Please provide (for the umpteenth time) a single poll from just one of these 'science academies' of its respective membership on this issue.
Click to expand...

It's simply circular logic. Catawba will only trust the opinions of credible scientists on global warming, and catawba has decided that the only credible scientists are those that preach CAGW... so in the end the only REAL expertise hat catawba trusts is catawba's.
 
jmotivator said:
the only credible scientists are those that preach CAGW... .
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!
THere is going to be catastrophic man made global warming and that 's that- facts be damned.
 
"Often self-interest is the motivation behind denialism, hence targets are often politicised or picked because a denialist can profit from it. For example, tobacco companies denied the smoking-lung cancer link as it would have hurt their profits, and it's been known for some time that Andrew Wakefield had a strong conflict of interest in ensuring people didn't take established and effective vaccines. Similarly, global warming denialists tend to lie on the political right and are ideologically against the solutions that are needed to curb (see the logical fallacy of argument from consequences). Denialism can also fill a deep psychological need, as in the case of answering the question as to why one's child has autism - as, in reality, there is no easy answer."

Denialism - RationalWiki
 
By the way, if you had actually used your brain when you went all Jupiter Jones you'd have realize that your link for the Prison Planet article doesn't actually contain the full text of that Q&A with citation so obviously it didn't come from there.
Click to expand...

It extracted the same thing you extracted. It may not have come from there- it may have come from some other denier circle jerk blog.

But look at the company you keep. Anytime one is on the same side as Alex Jones, you need to do a little self reflection.
 
Threegoofs said:
It extracted the same thing you extracted. It may not have come from there- it may have come from some other denier circle jerk blog.

But look at the company you keep. Anytime one is on the same side as Alex Jones, you need to do a little self reflection.
Click to expand...


But, of course, I didn't get the quote from that source as you so wrongly asserted. My Source (RealClimate.org) had the complete Q&A just as I posted, you just missed the key difference in your dumb attempt to show that my source so other website.

Also, your silly dodge of "Well, Alex Jones believes X, so you must be wrong" is simply a logical fallacy not worth countering. Make an intelligent counter argument or don't, but spare me the brainless logical fallacy parade.


Edit: Oh, also, did you edit out my name from your response so that I wouldn't get pinged that you had responded? Because LOL.
 
Catawba said:
"Often self-interest is the motivation behind denialism, hence targets are often politicised or picked because a denialist can profit from it. For example, tobacco companies denied the smoking-lung cancer link as it would have hurt their profits, and it's been known for some time that Andrew Wakefield had a strong conflict of interest in ensuring people didn't take established and effective vaccines. Similarly, global warming denialists tend to lie on the political right and are ideologically against the solutions that are needed to curb (see the logical fallacy of argument from consequences). Denialism can also fill a deep psychological need, as in the case of answering the question as to why one's child has autism - as, in reality, there is no easy answer."

Denialism - RationalWiki
Click to expand...


What a wonderful self diagnosis you have done there.
 
You just happened to copy the same 5% of that interview multiple other denier sites did, when at least a couple other questions said similar things.

Uh huh.

I'm not suggestng you are an AJ follower, just suggesting that when you keep that kind of company, you should engage in some type of self reflection if you are an honest and sane individual.

Presumably, you're OK with it.
 
Threegoofs said:
You just happened to copy the same 5% of that interview multiple other denier sites did, when at least a couple other questions said similar things.

Uh huh.
Click to expand...


No, buy your idiotic argument I went to one site, copied their 95% of the Q&A section and then went to some other site with the full section and copied the remaining 5% and spliced them together.

Uh huh.

Sorry, no, I cut the quote from RealClimate.org. You can't even build a solid logical fallacy...


I'm not suggestng you are an AJ follower, just suggesting that when you keep that kind of company, you should engage in some type of self reflection if you are an honest and sane individual.

Presumably, you're OK with it.
Click to expand...

But I don't keep company with Alex Jones, I don't even know who Alex Jones is. So your silly argument -- that is taking place of any intelligent counterargument -- falls flat.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, I guess you just happened to cut the same splice out of an extensive interview as multiple other deniers.

Coincidence, I'm sure.
Click to expand...


It is the elephant in the room. Marcott is admitting that the only interesting piece of his study, the piece that every left wing nut factory plastered on their front page, is actually in error... so of course everyone but the true believers will gravitate towards that admission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom