White House: Global Warming Out, 'Global Climate Disruption' In

[OscarB63]

The only support for a global warming threat are climatologist's theories, not physical proof, that's more than enough reason to be skeptical. I doubt if more studies by the same scientists who came up with the theory in the first place can add more light.

ricksfolly

especially when those scientists depend on studying AGW for their livelihood. They aren't going to publish any findings that endanger their careers or paychecks.

Kinda like a comedian once said.

You know if we can make a space shuttle that can travel to space and back, we can make an EL Dorado where the bumper doesn't fall off. But the car makers aren't that ****ing dumb.

job security is the key

 

[Deuce]

especially when those scientists depend on studying AGW for their livelihood. They aren't going to publish any findings that endanger their careers or paychecks.

Kinda like a comedian once said.

You know if we can make a space shuttle that can travel to space and back, we can make an EL Dorado where the bumper doesn't fall off. But the car makers aren't that ****ing dumb.

job security is the key

One can say the same about the oil industry. They have trillions of dollars worth of black gooey stuff they still want to sell us and this whole "green movement" thing might put a hamper on their sales volume. Hiring some hack scientists to obfuscate the issue and some bloggers to start the echo chamber up seems like a smart investment.

Should I not believe the guy at the Honda dealership when he tells me this car has four cylinders? I mean after all, he has a financial stake in selling me this car.

By the way, that Trenberth guy who skeptics love to quote in that email about "not being able to account for the lack of warming?" He published that concern. Still kept his funding, strangely enough.

 

[VanceMack]

Anthony Watts headed up the whole checking temperature stations thing. His team labeled many of the stations "good" or "best." So someone thought, hey, maybe we should run the temperature calculations using only those stations!!

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Virtually no difference in the temperature calculations. This is using the skeptics own ratings. Watts posted all those photos as an accusation of warming bias but didn't bother to check whether there was any actual impact of his allegations.

So the Menne report...which was based off a 6% sampling of incomplete data and CONCLUDES that there is certainly a legitimate problem with improperly placed temp senseing equipment (90% of which is in violation of the NOAA's "100 foot rule" (now why do you suppose such a rule exists?) is your blogsperts counter to the notion that placing a temperature sensing monitor next to an AC heat vent MIGHT skew data somewhat? What was Watts response? What was Pielke's response? Just...you know...for starters. And who is invested in seeing which results? BTW...what have YOUR atmospheric and meteorological studies concluded? Do you have any of YOUR literature that has been peer reviewed? id love to read them.

The jedi mind trick for true believers..."These photos dont indicate shoddy science and data collection" "Gaming computer models to achieve anticipated results is not biased science" "these are not the droids you are looking for"...

 

[ricksfolly]

If we waited until the public had a research-level of knowledge on every scientific issue, we'd still be using horse-drawn carriages and fooling around with steam engines.>>

Both automobiles and steam engines were designed and developed by engineers, not scientists. I can't believe I have to tell you this...

ricksfolly

 

[ricksfolly]

So the Menne report...which was based off a 6% sampling of incomplete data and CONCLUDES that there is certainly a legitimate problem with improperly placed temp senseing equipment (90% of which is in violation of the NOAA's "100 foot rule" (now why do you suppose such a rule exists?) is your blogsperts counter to the notion that placing a temperature sensing monitor next to an AC heat vent MIGHT skew data somewhat? What was Watts response? What was Pielke's response? Just...you know...for starters. And who is invested in seeing which results? BTW...what have YOUR atmospheric and meteorological studies concluded? Do you have any of YOUR literature that has been peer reviewed? id love to read them.

The jedi mind trick for true believers..."These photos dont indicate shoddy science and data collection" "Gaming computer models to achieve anticipated results is not biased science" "these are not the droids you are looking for"...

Far too many variables like that, and other variables not even considered, to make a fact assessment, but more than enough to write a rousing sci fi novel.

ricksfolly

 

[bowerbird]

especially when those scientists depend on studying AGW for their livelihood. They aren't going to publish any findings that endanger their careers or paychecks.

Kinda like a comedian once said.

You know if we can make a space shuttle that can travel to space and back, we can make an EL Dorado where the bumper doesn't fall off. But the car makers aren't that ****ing dumb.

job security is the key

In fact you would get MORE money for disproving AGW - and many already have. But that is not how science works

A great many of the scientists are being paid no matter what the outcome - especially here in Australia at places like the BOM. The BOM is in the business of producing climate predictions for agriculture and business - they would love that to be as accurate as possible - so why would they deliberately fudge results.

Your assumption is also based on the the misconception that the science that supports AGW is confined to only a few scientists in a couple of disciplines whereas the science that supports this is garnered from around 20 - 30 disciplines and involves tens of thousands (at least) of scientists world wide

 

[bowerbird]

So the Menne report...which was based off a 6% sampling of incomplete data and CONCLUDES that there is certainly a legitimate problem with improperly placed temp senseing equipment (90% of which is in violation of the NOAA's "100 foot rule" (now why do you suppose such a rule exists?) is your blogsperts counter to the notion that placing a temperature sensing monitor next to an AC heat vent MIGHT skew data somewhat? What was Watts response? What was Pielke's response? Just...you know...for starters. And who is invested in seeing which results? BTW...what have YOUR atmospheric and meteorological studies concluded? Do you have any of YOUR literature that has been peer reviewed? id love to read them.

The jedi mind trick for true believers..."These photos dont indicate shoddy science and data collection" "Gaming computer models to achieve anticipated results is not biased science" "these are not the droids you are looking for"...

Ahem

We are talking here about GLOBAL temperature changes - you know temperatures taken all over the world. Now America represents what percentage of the globe exactly??

 

[VanceMack]

Ahem

We are talking here about GLOBAL temperature changes - you know temperatures taken all over the world. Now America represents what percentage of the globe exactly??

Ahem...actually WE were specifically adressing those pictures and their validity. Of course..they also have photgraphic evidence of inappropriate monitoring sites in other parts of the world...but thats neither here nor there.

What we were really discussing was not just one but a myriad of flaws in research and then reporting the deal as sealed. I dont know that you have ever heard me or others say there isnt at any given time GLOBAL warming...and global COOLING. I believe you will see that many of us have stated that change is the one 'constant' witrh regard to the climate and has been since...well..since there WAS a climate.

 

[ricksfolly]

especially when those scientists depend on studying AGW for their livelihood. They aren't going to publish any findings that endanger their careers or paychecks.

Kinda like a comedian once said.

You know if we can make a space shuttle that can travel to space and back, we can make an EL Dorado where the bumper doesn't fall off. But the car makers aren't that ****ing dumb.

job security is the key

Definitely, but climatologists will never see it that way. To them GW is a hardwired belief, like religion, that can't be questioned.

ricksfolly

 

[ricksfolly]

Ahem

We are talking here about GLOBAL temperature changes - you know temperatures taken all over the world. Now America represents what percentage of the globe exactly??

The problem I have with GW climatologists is they're so damn sure of their findings, not 80 or 90 but 100 percent certainty, no human errors, no unforeseen variables, no accumulated tolerances, no standard F temperature gauges, just a hard 100 percent accuracy, and when they're talking about just one degree F making the difference, all those accumulated variables can easily make their findings worthless.

ricksfolly

 

[bowerbird]

The problem I have with GW climatologists is they're so damn sure of their findings, not 80 or 90 but 100 percent certainty, no human errors, no unforeseen variables, no accumulated tolerances, no standard F temperature gauges, just a hard 100 percent accuracy, and when they're talking about just one degree F making the difference, all those accumulated variables can easily make their findings worthless.

ricksfolly

And you know this how?

Have you ever read even ONE genuine research article? How about an abstract of a research article?

See this is projection - you are projecting what you THINK is the situation without actual evidence of truth

PS if the scientists were so "sure of themselves" why did they run the adjusted data at all?

 

[Deuce]

The problem I have with GW climatologists is they're so damn sure of their findings, not 80 or 90 but 100 percent certainty, no human errors, no unforeseen variables, no accumulated tolerances, no standard F temperature gauges, just a hard 100 percent accuracy, and when they're talking about just one degree F making the difference, all those accumulated variables can easily make their findings worthless.

ricksfolly

Uhh. Funny, I see all these references to "confidence level" in scientific papers. None of them say 100%

 

[Deuce]

So the Menne report...which was based off a 6% sampling of incomplete data and CONCLUDES that there is certainly a legitimate problem with improperly placed temp senseing equipment (90% of which is in violation of the NOAA's "100 foot rule" (now why do you suppose such a rule exists?) is your blogsperts counter to the notion that placing a temperature sensing monitor next to an AC heat vent MIGHT skew data somewhat? What was Watts response? What was Pielke's response? Just...you know...for starters. And who is invested in seeing which results? BTW...what have YOUR atmospheric and meteorological studies concluded? Do you have any of YOUR literature that has been peer reviewed? id love to read them.

The jedi mind trick for true believers..."These photos dont indicate shoddy science and data collection" "Gaming computer models to achieve anticipated results is not biased science" "these are not the droids you are looking for"...

Did you happen to notice how I claimed none of these things you're talking about?

If you use only the stations that skeptics claim are good, you still get nearly identical average temperatures. Yes, there are some poorly placed stations, but sometimes bad placement can lead to cooling bias also. The great thing about averages is that the more readings you take, the less impact the few outliers will have. You can make claims about the temperatures being wrong, but so far there's evidence that they're very accurate despite the problems.

The earth is getting warmer. Period. You can use this argument to debate whether we're .7C warmer or .69C warmer, but that's about it.

Also, it's hilarious that your whole argument rests on a bloggers work and you talk about blogsperts. This is a NASA report that I linked

 

[drz-400]

Did you happen to notice how I claimed none of these things you're talking about?

If you use only the stations that skeptics claim are good, you still get nearly identical average temperatures. Yes, there are some poorly placed stations, but sometimes bad placement can lead to cooling bias also. The great thing about averages is that the more readings you take, the less impact the few outliers will have. You can make claims about the temperatures being wrong, but so far there's evidence that they're very accurate despite the problems.

The earth is getting warmer. Period. You can use this argument to debate whether we're .7C warmer or .69C warmer, but that's about it.

Also, it's hilarious that your whole argument rests on a bloggers work and you talk about blogsperts. This is a NASA report that I linked

Using there fully adjusted temperature records in that paper you could conclude that the earth is warming to about 3 standard devations for all of them. That would literally leave (accroding to the standard normal distribution) 0% (rounded to the nearest hundreth) probobility the actual temperature is not warming. This is with the smaller sample size they used too.

 

[bowerbird]

Using there fully adjusted temperature records in that paper you could conclude that the earth is warming to about 3 standard devations for all of them. That would literally leave (accroding to the standard normal distribution) 0% (rounded to the nearest hundreth) probobility the actual temperature is not warming. This is with the smaller sample size they used too.

Once again can I point out that America is only a small proportion of the total land mass of the globe??

We are averaging temperatures across the globe and in multiple sites and those nowhere NEAR major human habitation

 

[drz-400]

Once again can I point out that America is only a small proportion of the total land mass of the globe??

We are averaging temperatures across the globe and in multiple sites and those nowhere NEAR major human habitation

Oh, I am not denying that. I am saying just with the temperatures in america from dueces link, with the standard errors they reported we can reject the null hypothesis that the earth is not warming (a strong conclusion) with a p-value of literally 0 (rounded). The chance of type 1 error (that we say the earth is warming when it really is not) rounds to 0%.

 

[VanceMack]

Did you happen to notice how I claimed none of these things you're talking about?

If you use only the stations that skeptics claim are good, you still get nearly identical average temperatures. Yes, there are some poorly placed stations, but sometimes bad placement can lead to cooling bias also. The great thing about averages is that the more readings you take, the less impact the few outliers will have. You can make claims about the temperatures being wrong, but so far there's evidence that they're very accurate despite the problems.

The earth is getting warmer. Period. You can use this argument to debate whether we're .7C warmer or .69C warmer, but that's about it.

Also, it's hilarious that your whole argument rests on a bloggers work and you talk about blogsperts. This is a NASA report that I linked

Im just waiting for you to post your independent research so that I can study it and not just a bunch of regurgitation of other peoples biased research. Oh...i know...you can draw down all the research from your biased perspective...and i can do the same...because its all bias. I work with university professors on a fairly regular basis...believe me...I know the game...have your undergrad assistants dig up as much study material as you can. Run it through SPSS...eliminate outlier data. Present for peer review and publish.

 

[bowerbird]

Im just waiting for you to post your independent research so that I can study it and not just a bunch of regurgitation of other peoples biased research. Oh...i know...you can draw down all the research from your biased perspective...and i can do the same...because its all bias. I work with university professors on a fairly regular basis...believe me...I know the game...have your undergrad assistants dig up as much study material as you can. Run it through SPSS...eliminate outlier data. Present for peer review and publish.

Not all of this research is done by "university professors" in fact a very large amount is NOT done by them

 

[Wiseone]

NEWSFLASH: President changes name of well known term/buzzword to distance himself from previous administrations policies and/or gather support around an old cause. No this is not a repeat of 2001, 1993, 1989, 1981, etc etc, judging by people's reactions.

 

[Deuce]

NEWSFLASH: President changes name of well known term/buzzword to distance himself from previous administrations policies and/or gather support around an old cause. No this is not a repeat of 2001, 1993, 1989, 1981, etc etc, judging by people's reactions.

I didn't see the word "Obama" in the OP...

Im just waiting for you to post your independent research so that I can study it and not just a bunch of regurgitation of other peoples biased research. Oh...i know...you can draw down all the research from your biased perspective...and i can do the same...because its all bias. I work with university professors on a fairly regular basis...believe me...I know the game...have your undergrad assistants dig up as much study material as you can. Run it through SPSS...eliminate outlier data. Present for peer review and publish.

But isn't that just a cop-out? I mean, why are you even here? If your stance on a debate is "any information the opposition shows is assumed to be falsified" then what's the point of even discussing it? The way you talk about it, there's no such thing as independent research therefore we shouldn't trust anything that any scientist ever says. I should probably stop using this laptop because clearly the principles upon which it functions were falsified by scientists who wanted grant money. You tell me: What the hell constitutes a valid source, in your opinion?

 

[VanceMack]

I didn't see the word "Obama" in the OP...



But isn't that just a cop-out? I mean, why are you even here? If your stance on a debate is "any information the opposition shows is assumed to be falsified" then what's the point of even discussing it? The way you talk about it, there's no such thing as independent research therefore we shouldn't trust anything that any scientist ever says. I should probably stop using this laptop because clearly the principles upon which it functions were falsified by scientists who wanted grant money. You tell me: What the hell constitutes a valid source, in your opinion?

Why am I here...good question. Occasional diversion, probably the biggest reason. Some very positive interactions with folks, even folks I disagree with.

Why am I posting on THIS THREAD? Well it probably has something to do with the OP mentioning a name change because the old catch words simply have no traction.

Why do I engage in a 'discussion' with you? Frankly I have no idea. I am interested in personal exchanges...communications..."this is MY opinion and why-whats yours?" You cant have those types of discussions with true believers because all you are going to get is regurgitated bull**** that they have found on sites they go to to 'prove' their point. You are interested in posting 'scientific' articles from sites you agree with that show your side of an argument on a cause you obviously feel committed to-great. I would LOVE to know what YOU think. I would LOVE to know your opinions...your educated well informed opinion. Thats something I can communicate with. But thats not what I get from a lot of folks here. All we get is well This side says this, and this side says that. To be blunt? My experience is MOST research ( would LOVE to find a real honest to goodness 'independent' research source) is flawed. MOST is funded by one side or the other. Most start skewed and set out to prove their points. And to anyone reading and paying attention...it isnt hard to see the skew. Do I trust the research? Nope...not even a little bit.

And you want to know the gospel truth? I am not a climatologist. Wrong field entirely. I work three jobs and just finished the classwork on what I hope is my last degree. SO while SOME people may have the kind of time to spend hours of their life reading and digging for **** that supports their bias, I dont. Im far more into individuals...opinions...and communication. Not what this article said or that article said. Take all the articles you have read (and believe me...I dont know what you do for a living but I hope it is in the field of Global Warming...Global Climate Dirsuption...because if not...its obvious you spend entirely too much time reading this stuff)...formulate your opinions...and...lets talk. (and it MIGHT help if people didnt take themselves so seriously...and yeah...I'll say it...irony much? )

Or not.

 

[Technocratic]

Seems bizarre to fixate, almost like a fetish, on what the name of the phenomenon is called. That's rather petty. The content does not change, and the name really hasn't either. THe same phenomenon just has many names. Doesn't make it any more or less credible.

 

[bowerbird]

Seems bizarre to fixate, almost like a fetish, on what the name of the phenomenon is called. That's rather petty. The content does not change, and the name really hasn't either. THe same phenomenon just has many names. Doesn't make it any more or less credible.

They focus on that because they cannot or will not take time to understand the problem.

But then many denialists do not understand the difference between local and global or weather and climate

 

[Technocratic]

I agree. Just I find threads like this amusing, because they seem to think into it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much. It's like they are really trying hard to craft a sinister conspiracy where none exists.

 

[VanceMack]

They focus on that because they cannot or will not take time to understand the problem.

But then many denialists do not understand the difference between local and global or weather and climate

What is a 'denialist?' Someone who doesnt believe in weather/climate changes? Do you know anyone like that-you know people that deny an ice age, global cooling, global warking, terperature changes from centuries ago were higher or lower? Or could you mean people that believe in climate change as it has happened since the beginning of recorded time and are not convinced of mans actual input to said climate change?

Could be people are 'fixated' on the changing terms because they see a pattern of bull**** and repackaged lies over the last...what...15 years now...and a group of people clamoring for more taxes to dump into their programs and projects...could be a simple distrust of 'scientists' behaving in a very non-scientific manner. And while you and a few others here apparently have completely discounted Al Gore, we have had to put up with his never ending string of fabrications and self aggradnizing that had the intent to drive us ever deeper in debt.