Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
andypro7 said:
Sorry, they don't count, by YOUR OWN RULES you can't count them. Allow me to remind you: IPCC - Funded by BP and Shell NASA - Obama appointed chief Charlie Bolden was on the board of directors at Marathon Oil Berkeley - Their 'Energy Biosciences Institute' funded by BP Didn't even bother looking at the other two, the point is made Sorry, unless you're willing to admit that you are a HUGE HYPOCRITE, I can't accept any information from you from anything that is funded in any way by oil companies

So wait, you're going to throw out everything. You just lost all evidence for or against you. Congratulations. There is now no evidence for anyone to make a statement and you can now be quiet. Let the real scientists take over. No more politicians voting about whether or not it's real.
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So wait, you're going to throw out everything. You just lost all evidence for or against you. Congratulations. There is now no evidence for anyone to make a statement and you can now be quiet. Let the real scientists take over. No more politicians voting about whether or not it's real.


So typical of the lying, fraudulent hockey stick crowd.

I'm going to throw out everything?????

Allow me to remind YOU again what YOU said:


Go get a non-blog, critically accepted scholarly source that isn't funded in any way by oil companies or republicans

You do understand how this has gone, right? Basically, it's like this

ME: Here's you evidence
YOU: It's funded by big oil, so it doesn't count

YOU: Here's your evidence
ME: By your logic, it's funded by big oil so it doesn't count.

YOU: How dare you, that's so stupid, what terrible logic, your stupid logic means you have to be quiet.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, that's EXACTLY what you did. It's right here in this post, you, me, and everyone else can see it.

Here's your choices:
1. Stand up for YOUR 'it's from big oil so it doesn't count' logic
2. Admit that your statement was dumb, illogical, non-scientific, and promise not to make it again.

C'mon you know that you said it first, and when I repeated your logic, you're blaming me. It's what I'd expect, you have to have that lack of integrity to believe in global warming.

So, go ahead, tell me which way we're going to go with this. Your integrity is on the line.
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
the only reason you call it bogus is because you don't accept them

Do you even read? You believe there is a 97% consensus, that comes from Cook et al.

The scientist that Cook cited as believing in global warming say that Cook lied about them, thus that means that his 97% claim is bogus. Here are the scientists, in their own words:

When [FONT=&quot]Popular Technology[/FONT] asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When [FONT=&quot]Popular Technology[/FONT] asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told [FONT=&quot]Popular Technology[/FONT] that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”


Now, none of your off-topic rants, just answer one simple question:

Who do you believe, Cook and his 97% fake, hockey stick study, or do you believe the scientists listed above?
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
...
You do understand how this has gone, right? Basically, it's like this

ME: Here's you evidence
YOU: It's funded by big oil, so it doesn't count

YOU: Here's your evidence
ME: By your logic, it's funded by big oil so it doesn't count.

YOU: How dare you, that's so stupid, what terrible logic, your stupid logic means you have to be quiet.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, that's EXACTLY what you did. It's right here in this post, you, me, and everyone else can see it.

Here's your choices:
1. Stand up for YOUR 'it's from big oil so it doesn't count' logic
2. Admit that your statement was dumb, illogical, non-scientific, and promise not to make it again.

C'mon you know that you said it first, and when I repeated your logic, you're blaming me. It's what I'd expect, you have to have that lack of integrity to believe in global warming.

So, go ahead, tell me which way we're going to go with this. Your integrity is on the line.
It has to do with bias. Specifically funding bias:
Funding bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you see how it's a one way 'street'?
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.

Uh Oh, latest research shows the oceans are cooling, not warming.

Not good news?

Not interested in natural variability and the many parameters still controlling the Earth's temperature?

Sold on CAGW and yearning for MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A sad bunch of errant "believers".

Read and weep, the oceans show long term cooling, set in motion centuries past.


Vertical Redistribution of Oceanic Heat Content

Xinfeng Liang*, Carl Wunsch, Patrick Heimbach and Gael Forget
* Corresponding author address: Xinfeng Liang, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139. E-mail: xliang@mit.edu

Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02139Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.

Journal of Climate

Vol. preprint: Issue. 2015:

DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00550.1



Estimated values of recent oceanic heat uptake are of order of a few tenths of a W/m2, and are a very small residual of air-sea exchanges with annual average regional magnitudes of hundreds of W/m2. Using a dynamically consistent state estimate, the redistribution of heat within the ocean is calculated over a 20-year period. The 20-year mean vertical heat flux shows strong variations in both the lateral and vertical directions, consistent with the ocean being a dynamically active and spatially complex heat exchanger. Between mixing and advection, the two processes determining the vertical heat transport in the deep ocean, advection plays a more important role in setting the spatial patterns of vertical heat exchange and its temporal variations. The global integral of vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean. These results support an inference that the near-surface thermal properties of the ocean are a consequence, at least in part, of internal redistributions of heat, some of which must reflect water that has undergone long trajectories since last exposure to the atmosphere. The small residual heat exchange with the atmosphere today is unlikely to represent the interaction with an ocean that was in thermal equilibrium at the start of global warming. An analogy is drawn with carbon-14 “reservoir ages” which range over hundreds to a thousand years.


Source:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00550.1?af=R&

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.

Why has Reality-Check promoted Alarmism about the oceans are heating?

The problem with the heat (not cold) reservoir in the oceans is that it is pumped up and down by natural variations on top of the pumping of heat into oceans from the CO2 caused global warming. The signs are that the pumping of heat into the ocean is about to reverse. That means that global warming of the surface will increase faster. This is bad for us !

But this is almost excusable because the latest work on this was just published last week as described in
The oceans may be lulling us into a false sense of climate security Posted on 5 March 2015 by John Abraham

The oceans may be lulling us into a false sense of climate security
__________________

__________________
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! (includes Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection y W.D. Clinger - in vacuum.)
Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence


Why push "the sky is falling", "this is bad for us" at a whim of information?


.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,291.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why do a good number of Christian believers think global warming has nothing to do with them and is not something to be concerned about? This must be from church leaders that lead them in thinking this way. It isn't with taking responsibility when scientists have information that there is some effect toward global warming from humanity, and the demands from our civilization, with potential disasters coming from it ahead. There is delayed effects from it in huge bodies of water as the oceans, I have heard of that being explained. So little rise would be detected right away. But rising ocean levels will not ever amount to water level going up like in a bathtub. There will be great storms and hurricanes. Aren't there some already that could be that? There isn't any assurance from revelation that this is not something to concern us. It is shown as something to come in the Bible, it should have been seen. There are all the other things that are from us affecting this world along with it that are certain.
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Why do a good number of Christian believers think global warming has nothing to do with them and is not something to be concerned about?

Because:
1. It has nothing to do with them
2. It's not something to be concerned about
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It has to do with bias. Specifically funding bias:
Funding bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you see how it's a one way 'street'?

Totally agree. When the vast majority of the big money flows to one side, then the conclusions are going to come out the way those who fund it want them to.

That's why I can't believe anything that comes from the EPA, IPCC, etc, who get VAST amounts of government money to make sure people continue to believe the lie of CO2 based warming.

That's what you were trying to say, right?
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Totally agree. When the vast majority of the big money flows to one side, then the conclusions are going to come out the way those who fund it want them to.

That's why I can't believe anything that comes from the EPA, IPCC, etc, who get VAST amounts of government money to make sure people continue to believe the lie of CO2 based warming.

That's what you were trying to say, right?
No. To reiterate the progression.

sculleywr mention a few sources:
...
Cornell, NASA, IPCC, GCSN, Berkeley
...
You say that they don't count, referencing
Sorry, they don't count, by YOUR OWN RULES you can't count them. Allow me to remind you:
{Quote}
IPCC - Funded by BP and Shell
NASA - Obama appointed chief Charlie Bolden was on the board of directors at Marathon Oil
Berkeley - Their 'Energy Biosciences Institute' funded by BP
...
Where you quoted (albeit linking the wrong post):
...
Go get a non-blog, critically accepted scholarly source that isn't funded in any way by oil companies or republicans.

Had you referenced to them being funded by parties having an (alleged) interest in maintaining that consensus, which you did in this post (while trying to smooth it over), you would have had a point.
You did not, however. You tried to dismiss the sources by applying the funding bias the wrong way.

You heavily indicated that you did not understand how funding bias works and now it looks as if you're trying to cover it up.

I don't see any other reason why you would have listed oil companies as funding parts first and then changed it to the ´government´. If I have missed a reason, please do inform me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I don't see any other reason why you would have listed oil companies as funding parts first and then changed it to the ´government´. If I have missed a reason, please do inform me

Yes, you have missed the reason. But you've done so because it's a LONG thread, and no one can be expected to go back and read and comprehend everything before posting.

Here's how I got here:

I assert that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today and was global. As proof, I offer up the Medieval Warming Period Project, which collected the peer reviewed work of over 600 scientists which shows that the MWP was much warmer than today and was global in nature.

In response, the global warming believers cry "BIG OIL" and say that since the MWP Project was funded by "BIG OIL", there results can't be taken seriously.

So, since you can't have any kind of logical or scientific debate when the other person's default position is Funded by Big Oil = illegitimate, I decided to turn it around, TO SHOW THEM how illogical their point about big oil was.

So, when scullywr submitted HIS papers and institutions etc that he claimed proved his point, I THEN showed him that all of his sources were ALSO funded by "BIG OIL", and thus, BY HIS STANDARD, were invalid.

I personally think it's highly illogical to think like that, but I was trying to make a point illustrating how illogical it is. Hopefully, you're with me so far.

Had you referenced to them being funded by parties having an (alleged) interest in maintaining that consensus, which you did in this post (while trying to smooth it over), you would have had a point.

I'm not sure, but I believe what you're saying here is that you should not only show the link to "BIG OIL", but also show how big oil funding could push the findings in a particular direction. Here's some points on that:

The typical trick of the warmists is to say that if someone gets funding by big oil, then big oil HAS to sway their opinion. But, on the other hand, ANY funding that comes to the global warming believers only comes because they believe sincerely in their cause and it doesn't effect their findings at all. That's the way they play that game.

So, the logic would be this: Exxon, when they fund someone who disagrees with CAGW, are a greedy, evil corporation that only cares about it's bottom line and harming the planet. But when the fund people who agree with CAGW, their only care about the best interests of all mankind.

You can see how this kind of logic is a huge roadblock to having an intelligent discussion.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
Sorry, they don't count, by YOUR OWN RULES you can't count them. Allow me to remind you:



IPCC - Funded by BP and Shell
NASA - Obama appointed chief Charlie Bolden was on the board of directors at Marathon Oil
Berkeley - Their 'Energy Biosciences Institute' funded by BP
Didn't even bother looking at the other two, the point is made

Sorry, unless you're willing to admit that you are a HUGE HYPOCRITE, I can't accept any information from you from anything that is funded in any way by oil companies

That's not necessarily correct.

When findings go against interests, I believe the findings are far more believable. For instance, when Israeli archeologists say there is no evidence for the Exodus, I believe them because they had an interest in finding evidence.

Same thing with tobacco companies. Do you tend to put more belief in their research when it states smoking is harmful, ie against their interests, or not harmful, ie for their interests?
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That's not necessarily correct.

When findings go against interests, I believe the findings are far more believable. For instance, when Israeli archeologists say there is no evidence for the Exodus, I believe them because they had an interest in finding evidence.

Same thing with tobacco companies. Do you tend to put more belief in their research when it states smoking is harmful, ie against their interests, or not harmful, ie for their interests?

That's a good point, and probably true in general. But even though it's true as a general rule, it doesn't matter on a strictly scientific level. The ONLY thing that should matter is the data and where it leads, but the pro-warming movement has put forth this fallacy for decades now that it somehow makes a difference which group of people believe in it and which don't.

Also, the analogy of the Israeli archeologists doesn't hold, because there are some of them for which it's true, and some of them for which it's not true, just like there's a bunch of historians in America that would love to find solid evidence for the Bible, and there are a ton of historians in America who would love to find evidence disproving it.

But the bigger point is this:
If you're a climate 'scientist' or any other kind of scientist today, is it in your best interest to be for or against the CAGW stance? It's clearly much better to be pro-CAGW than against it.
'Scientists' who say the believe in global warming are given grants, they get published, they go on talk shows, and they don't have to follow FOI requests, On the other hand, scientists who don't believe in global warming are called 'deniers', their credentials are questioned, they don't get published because Mann etc subverted the peer review process, and they have a much harder time finding ways to make money.

So, yea, I guess I pretty much agree with what you said. Since those who disagree with the politically correct belief on global warming go against their own interests, their findings are much more believable.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
andypro7 said:
So typical of the lying, fraudulent hockey stick crowd. I'm going to throw out everything????? Allow me to remind YOU again what YOU said: You do understand how this has gone, right? Basically, it's like this ME: Here's you evidence YOU: It's funded by big oil, so it doesn't count YOU: Here's your evidence ME: By your logic, it's funded by big oil so it doesn't count. YOU: How dare you, that's so stupid, what terrible logic, your stupid logic means you have to be quiet. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, that's EXACTLY what you did. It's right here in this post, you, me, and everyone else can see it. Here's your choices: 1. Stand up for YOUR 'it's from big oil so it doesn't count' logic 2. Admit that your statement was dumb, illogical, non-scientific, and promise not to make it again. C'mon you know that you said it first, and when I repeated your logic, you're blaming me. It's what I'd expect, you have to have that lack of integrity to believe in global warming. So, go ahead, tell me which way we're going to go with this. Your integrity is on the line.
What I did was show the same level of ridiculousness as you have. You want us to accept only the data that disagrees with the hockey stick, despite the fact that the vast majority of the data fits that model. You want us to show evidence that isn't funded by someone who has vested interest contrary to your statements. So I ask for you to provide exactly the same thing as you are asking of me. The problem you're having is hypocritical in nature. You will accept nothing that contradicts your belief, and so it is settled in your mind.

The only difference is that I did what you are doing intentionally, while you do it out of ignorance. Even the sources you get your information from are saying that the hockey stick is true. The GCSN, where your graph claims to come from, says that they have never seen that graph before it was published on a random blog. I've posted their original graph, ripped straight out of the journal article. Both the unadjusted and the adjusted figures give a hockey stick.


The fact is that before the adjustments, the temperatures showed a hockey stick. After the adjustments they also showed a hockey stick. So what's the problem?
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What I did was show the same level of ridiculousness as you have. You want us to accept only the data that disagrees with the hockey stick, despite the fact that the vast majority of the data fits that model. You want us to show evidence that isn't funded by someone who has vested interest contrary to your statements. So I ask for you to provide exactly the same thing as you are asking of me. The problem you're having is hypocritical in nature. You will accept nothing that contradicts your belief, and so it is settled in your mind.

The only difference is that I did what you are doing intentionally, while you do it out of ignorance. Even the sources you get your information from are saying that the hockey stick is true. The GCSN, where your graph claims to come from, says that they have never seen that graph before it was published on a random blog. I've posted their original graph, ripped straight out of the journal article. Both the unadjusted and the adjusted figures give a hockey stick.


The fact is that before the adjustments, the temperatures showed a hockey stick. After the adjustments they also showed a hockey stick. So what's the problem?




Here's your choices:
1. Stand up for YOUR 'it's from big oil so it doesn't count' logic
2. Admit that your statement was dumb, illogical, non-scientific, and promise not to make it again.


Now, none of your off-topic rants, just answer one simple question:

Who do you believe, Cook and his 97% fake, hockey stick study, or do you believe the scientists listed above?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
andypro7 said:
Do you even read? You believe there is a 97% consensus, that comes from Cook et al. The scientist that Cook cited as believing in global warming say that Cook lied about them, thus that means that his 97% claim is bogus. Here are the scientists, in their own words: When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification. “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.” “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added. Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.” Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).” Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.” “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon. “I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized. Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” Now, none of your off-topic rants, just answer one simple question: Who do you believe, Cook and his 97% fake, hockey stick study, or do you believe the scientists listed above?
I never said 97 did I?

I originally said 95%, and that was from Green, et al, in SciShow. I don't believe you when you throw words into my mouth.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
andypro7 said:
Because: 1. It has nothing to do with them 2. It's not something to be concerned about
1. God gave us dominion over the earth. It is our responsibility to care for the earth.
2. It is something to be concerned about when it means the fundamental basis of life itself is in danger. The pika, the polar bear, and many more species stand to die out because of it. There are species of birds in Hawaii with nowhere to run as Mosquitos that prey on them gain higher ground from warmer temperatures. The pika is becoming endangered as higher temperatures cause them to overheat during the summer and their food supplies run out before they can gather for the winter.

This is our responsibility. If we can do something about it, then we ought to.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
andypro7 said:
That's a good point, and probably true in general. But even though it's true as a general rule, it doesn't matter on a strictly scientific level. The ONLY thing that should matter is the data and where it leads, but the pro-warming movement has put forth this fallacy for decades now that it somehow makes a difference which group of people believe in it and which don't. Also, the analogy of the Israeli archeologists doesn't hold, because there are some of them for which it's true, and some of them for which it's not true, just like there's a bunch of historians in America that would love to find solid evidence for the Bible, and there are a ton of historians in America who would love to find evidence disproving it. But the bigger point is this: If you're a climate 'scientist' or any other kind of scientist today, is it in your best interest to be for or against the CAGW stance? It's clearly much better to be pro-CAGW than against it. 'Scientists' who say the believe in global warming are given grants, they get published, they go on talk shows, and they don't have to follow FOI requests, On the other hand, scientists who don't believe in global warming are called 'deniers', their credentials are questioned, they don't get published because Mann etc subverted the peer review process, and they have a much harder time finding ways to make money. So, yea, I guess I pretty much agree with what you said. Since those who disagree with the politically correct belief on global warming go against their own interests, their findings are much more believable.
you haven't shown much interest in any except one data set. One single data set is not all the data. It's less than 1% of the data that you choose to accept.

Using your example, we can say that eating sperm is beneficial for the woman's nutritional diet because a single study found that. Never mind that said study ruled out every woman that had horrible side effects and goes against many other studies that found that sperm has no nutritional value greater than M&M's. We could also say that eating chicken raw is good because a guy did it once without getting sick.
 
Upvote 0

andypro7

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2014
309
12
Visit site
✟7,969.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
1. God gave us dominion over the earth. It is our responsibility to care for the earth.
2. It is something to be concerned about when it means the fundamental basis of life itself is in danger. The pika, the polar bear, and many more species stand to die out because of it. There are species of birds in Hawaii with nowhere to run as Mosquitos that prey on them gain higher ground from warmer temperatures. The pika is becoming endangered as higher temperatures cause them to overheat during the summer and their food supplies run out before they can gather for the winter.

This is our responsibility. If we can do something about it, then we ought to.

Yes, if it was happening and we were causing it, then we should do something about it. And how did the pika survive the much warmer temps during the MWP, the much much warmer temps during the Roman Warming Period, and the much, much, much warmer temps druing the Minoan Warming Period?

Can't find any info on your 95%. Where's that from?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
andypro7 said:
Here's your choices: 1. Stand up for YOUR 'it's from big oil so it doesn't count' logic 2. Admit that your statement was dumb, illogical, non-scientific, and promise not to make it again. Now, none of your off-topic rants, just answer one simple question: Who do you believe, Cook and his 97% fake, hockey stick study, or do you believe the scientists listed above?

I haven't had the opportunity to peruse the document. However, it lines up with the submitted opinions of most other sources.

I wasn't making a stand for that point. I was making a point with that stand. Either accept that saying you won't accept anyone who uses the hockey stick is ridiculous or don't. The point is, it is ridiculous. More ridiculous than a boggart that was hit with a ridikulus charm.

Even evidence gathered by agencies funded by those with a vested interest in disproving climate change is fitting the hockey stick. And certain oil companies are starting to get with the program, developing new fuel sources and researching clean energy with billions of dollars being spent every year in alternate fuel sources like algae fuels in California.

Sure, there are still companies that are going against the program, but those are in the minority.
 
Upvote 0