Climate Change!

[thaumaturgy]

Idscience is an ideolog and conspiracy theorist. He is not at all interested in any rational discussion about climate science whatsoever. I tried very hard and patiently to discuss the science with him, but I've given up on trying to have any rational conversation with him. I hope you have better luck.

You did, indeed, produce many pieces of data.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Why is everyone that disagrees with big brother, science, or the medical professionals a conspiracy theorist? Years ago they used to believe that if you were burned severely, the best thing for the burn was to put it under a heat lamp. I would imagine that anyone that believed differently was also called a conspiracy theorist. What ever happened to common sense?

Because they're railing against the very process that allowed them to not die when they get an infection.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your only purpose is to argue with Christians.

My purpose is to argue against poor science. I don't care if you are Christian or not and being Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with calling scientists frauds without evidence. Being a Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with ignoring the solid science in order to follow a small number of skeptics.

Why else would atheists hang around a Christian site emparting their perceived great knowledge to the poor ignorant bible believeing people.

NEWS ALERT: Many scientists are CHRISTIANS!!!!

You may not believe this, but just because someone is a Christian does not mean they automatically don't understand science!

It's sad really. ARe you trying to prove something to us or yourselves?

If you can't defend your "version" of science and can't support you continued accusations of fraud against people you don't have any real evidence of fraud, then someone needs to prove something to YOU.

Your god is science and that is ok. Many tribes around the world worship trees and stars.

So are you saying "worshipping things" is a sign of tribal ignorance?

I "get" that.

Too bad science isn't "worshipped". Science provides evidence for itself that even non-scientists can and do make use of every day. God, not so much.

I can easily ignore "God" every day, but it's hard for non-scientists to ignore science. (You're reading this on a computer, right?)

Some just can't see the forest for the trees. Some minds are more finite than others,

Wow, you sure did get away from climate science pretty fast. Is this an easier topic for you?

I have no doubt your sincerely think you are right and have to crusade around Christian sites to belittle.

Are these belittling?

Your in denile bubba.
this lays the whole farce out clearly.

Rick, you are sounding a little neurotic. You said you read my blog. It is all clearly stated there, so why are you asking me to reblog it all here. You won't understand it any better if I rewrite it all here if you didn't understand any of it on my blog.

It's a farce. I don't believe anything those lyin zipperheads say now.

you are obviously just going along to get along.

If this is the type of "good science" you are talking about my PhD friend, then you are deluding yourself.

Most of the scientists I know, usually follow the money.

findings? your out of you mind.

What are you , 13?

"Perls to swine"

Just curious. They seem a bit "belittling".

So, I take your tantrums for what they are, a need for attention. I don't take it personal, you can't help it.

"Tantrums"?

You mean like this:

It's a farce. I don't believe anything those lyin zipperheads say now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being a Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with ignoring the solid science in order to follow a small number of skeptics.

Please feel free to tell us just how solid science is.

 

[Greatcloud]

When will AGW proponents realize the temperature world wide has leveled off and is no longer rising since 1995 the temperature has stopped climbing. We have a slow decline in temperatures and it has at least remained static. This means the end of the AGW theory as we know it. Since the theory says the temperature will rise along with CO2 and it just has not happened. There what do you say to that AGWers.

CO2

 

[Nabobalis]

Why is everyone that disagrees with big brother, science, or the medical professionals a conspiracy theorist? Years ago they used to believe that if you were burned severely, the best thing for the burn was to put it under a heat lamp. I would imagine that anyone that believed differently was also called a conspiracy theorist. What ever happened to common sense?

Since most are. E.g they are contrails, vaccines don't cause autism and global warming is real and man made.

Poor medical advice is very different from what you are proposing.

 

[Nabobalis]

When will AGW proponents realize the temperature world wide has leveled off and is no longer rising since 1995 the temperature has stopped climbing. We have a slow decline in temperatures and it has at least remained static. This means the end of the AGW theory as we know it. Since the theory says the temperature will rise along with CO2 and it just has not happened. There what do you say to that AGWers.

CO2

*sigh*

 

[farmer joe]

Since most are. E.g they are contrails, vaccines don't cause autism and global warming is real and man made.

Poor medical advice is very different from what you are proposing.

sigh

 

[RickG]

When will AGW proponents realize the temperature world wide has leveled off and is no longer rising since 1995 the temperature has stopped climbing. We have a slow decline in temperatures and it has at least remained static. This means the end of the AGW theory as we know it. Since the theory says the temperature will rise along with CO2 and it just has not happened. There what do you say to that AGWers.

CO2

The above graph demonstrates how easy it is to claim warming has stopped by choosing a few short term cherry picked points. But climate doesn't work on the short term, in order to see through the noise climate looks at trend of 30 years and longer.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Please feel free to tell us just how solid science is.

It's been told so many times now that at this point most of the skeptics actively have to ignore the science.

The reliance on critiques like McKitrick and McIntyre and a small handful of other skeptics versus the gigantic mountain of data in support of the hypothesis is not unlike the creationist debate wherein small bits of information around the edges are somehow blown into gigantic questions and if there's a question anywhere in science then Creationists and AGW skeptoids exploit to to call into question everything.

On another board, for instance, there's a young climate science undergrad who has found himself some few bits of data that indicate that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't occur in the Earth's atmosphere or some such silliness.

This is science that hasn't been "controversial" for the past 100 years and suddenly there's a small group that are saying "it simply doesn't happen".

There are revolutions in science. Yes. But not every crackpot idea = scientific revolution.

Sometimes it's just crackpot science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why is everyone that disagrees with big brother, science, or the medical professionals a conspiracy theorist?

It's not just "disagreeing", it's the manner of disagreement. In the case of AGW note the tenor of the skepticism for the rank and file. There's almost no legitimate scientist who finds this concept to be "controversial". Yeah there's a tiny minority. But the rank-and-file on the boards are focused on things like what "idscience" here is focused on: the "corruption" of the system which, by definition, is a massive conspiracy of scientists all over the world working independently to enforce some mysterious "command" to deny legitimate science publication. It's irrational and has not foundation in reality.

It would require coordinating the efforts of thousands and thousands of independent people across the globe.

Are there questions in the science still to be addressed? Oh yeah! No doubt! Does it change the fundamental concept? Well, not really. At this point it would take a lot more than just one skeptic finding a dropped station data to take down this. It would require the near complete dismantling of chemistry and physics.

What ever happened to common sense?

We are not in the realm of "common sense" here. Common sense often fails us when it comes to complex science. "Common sense" doesn't lead you to quantum mechanics. "Common sense" doesn't even always lead you to how basic physics works.

And just relying on "common sense" without any foundation of understanding in this field seems to lead an awful lot of people to attacking the system rather than the science. So they come up with bizarre conspiracy theories like "peer review is corrupt!"

 

[Greatcloud]

The temperature has been static for over a decade now and it is not going up that 30 year graph is deceiving. What are you going to do if the temperatures drop ?





CO2

 

[RickG]

The temperature has been static for over a decade now and it is not going up that 30 year graph is deceiving. What are you going to do if the temperatures drop ?

CO2

From year to year the GAT goes up some years and down some years. The over all trend is still up.

You can't take the 1998 high and claim all years below that are cooling, 1998 was an anomaly. You have to look at the whole trend.

Source: NASA

The overall trend is not going down.

 

[farmer joe]

If we have the capabilities to control the weather, how can we even be arguing about whether there is climate change or not? Laws and treaties with other countries were established about not modifying the weather for war purposes years ago. We did not make laws for cars before there were cars. We did not make laws about controlling the weather before we could control it. The Haarp project and all the patents and evergreen aviation, cloud seeding etc... Why aren't the scientists mentioning any of these? This ain't no conspiracy theory, research it. Maybe us blowing up nuclear and hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere with out knowing the results didn't help either. It makes for flawed science.

 

[Greatcloud]

From year to year the GAT goes up some years and down some years. The over all trend is still up.

You can't take the 1998 high and claim all years below that are cooling, 1998 was an anomaly. You have to look at the whole trend.

Source: NASA

The overall trend is not going down.

You still have to admit that for the last 15 years the temperature world wide has been going down. You can't pick the year 1980 and say the temperature is going up from there by the same token as me looking at one set of temps you are doing the same thing.

All I am saying is that now as of now the temps are going down and have been going down gradually for 15 years. That is the situation we have now.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You still have to admit that for the last 15 years the temperature world wide has been going down.

"going down"????

Really????

(Remember: there's a difference when talking about graphs between "going up", "going down" and "remaining flat". I'd go into detail on what a statistically significant slope means, but it's been so hashed out on these boards that every single skeptoid on here should know the importance of it).

You can't pick the year 1980 and say the temperature is going up from there by the same token as me looking at one set of temps you are doing the same thing.

When you have a time-series you have to see as much of the data as is possible. It is illegitimate to "window down" an area and say "Ah ha! this confirms my biased suspicions!"

As Rick pointed out, there are blocks of time in which the trend has flattened or dropped but the overall trend is upwards.

Because it's so good, I'll repost the graph that RickG posted earlier...it shows this effect quite clearly:

Do you notice anything there, Greatcloud? Anything at all? Look closely. Watch the animation. You see anything that kind of looks familiar to your argument?


All I am saying is that now as of now the temps are going down and have been going down gradually for 15 years. That is the situation we have now.[/quote]

 

[Greatcloud]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/global-average-sst-update-to-october-14/

The temperature is staying the same and even gradually going down. Yet CO2 is still going up steady. This says to the science that the theory of AGW is wrong.

 

[idscience]

Global Average SST Update to October 14 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The temperature is staying the same and even gradually going down. Yet CO2 is still going up steady. This says to the science that the theory of AGW is wrong.

Agreed. Can't argue with the facts.

 

[idscience]

"going down"????

Really????

(Remember: there's a difference when talking about graphs between "going up", "going down" and "remaining flat". I'd go into detail on what a statistically significant slope means, but it's been so hashed out on these boards that every single skeptoid on here should know the importance of it).



When you have a time-series you have to see as much of the data as is possible. It is illegitimate to "window down" an area and say "Ah ha! this confirms my biased suspicions!"

As Rick pointed out, there are blocks of time in which the trend has flattened or dropped but the overall trend is upwards.

Because it's so good, I'll repost the graph that RickG posted earlier...it shows this effect quite clearly:

Do you notice anything there, Greatcloud? Anything at all? Look closely. Watch the animation. You see anything that kind of looks familiar to your argument?


All I am saying is that now as of now the temps are going down and have been going down gradually for 15 years. That is the situation we have now.

[/quote]

Pretty good, make that yourself? Doesn't look anything like a hockey stick to me. Look real close...

 

[idscience]

"going down"????

Really????

(Remember: there's a difference when talking about graphs between "going up", "going down" and "remaining flat". I'd go into detail on what a statistically significant slope means, but it's been so hashed out on these boards that every single skeptoid on here should know the importance of it).

When you have a time-series you have to see as much of the data as is possible. It is illegitimate to "window down" an area and say "Ah ha! this confirms my biased suspicions!"

As Rick pointed out, there are blocks of time in which the trend has flattened or dropped but the overall trend is upwards.

Because it's so good, I'll repost the graph that RickG posted earlier...it shows this effect quite clearly:

Do you notice anything there, Greatcloud? Anything at all? Look closely. Watch the animation. You see anything that kind of looks familiar to your argument?


All I am saying is that now as of now the temps are going down and have been going down gradually for 15 years. That is the situation we have now.

[/quote]

Before all the oh yeh, it is going down we were all treated to the "sky is falling" ploy of every year being the hotest year in 100 years. If the temp has been going down for 15 years, makes it a little hard to say every years has been the hottest. I don't see any 15 years of cooling in your fancy chart?

• "The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.NASA - 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
• Global Warming Unstoppable for 100 Years, Study Says John Roach National Geographic News March 17, 2005

Here is Mr. Hockey stick.

• "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon...And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
• "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. "Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Now that it is all out in the open. After being called conspriocists, and anti-science, and global warming deniers, your skewing the data now by saying it did go down but it is really up. Nice. ​

Still no shortage of those still crying "deniers, climate terrorists, climate racists" the sky is still falling we just can't prove it. ​

Here is a Co2 ratio chart vs temp over the last 100 years. Ouch!! Spin that!​

​

C3: NOAA's 2011 Global Temperature Dataset Released & Confirms That IPCC's "Global Warming" Is DOA​

National Center for Science Education board member.

​

Brought to you by our good friends at CLIMATE DEPOT​

Hey thaumaturgy, have a look at this site. It has a couple of those tricky switchy charts too. (Warning: This site has language, and images that could be offensive to global warming activists)

James Hansen’s Global Warming Epiphany | Real Science​