Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

Oooh goodie!

I see Darrin AND Yoni both probably contributed more fodder for the OP.

I can't wait to catalogue one of the new logical mistakes or dishonest statements that are sure to be given.

Darrin had, by my last count 12 logical fallacies in this thread alone.

[DarrinS]

Oooh goodie!

I see Darrin AND Yoni both probably contributed more fodder for the OP.

I can't wait to catalogue one of the new logical mistakes or dishonest statements that are sure to be given.

Darrin had, by my last count 12 logical fallacies in this thread alone.

Want to see something that will scare the crap out of you?

This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.


Graph for 1930-1934
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation

Graph for 2006-2010
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation


Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.


OOOOOOOOOH. Scary.

[Yonivore]

Oooh goodie!

I see Darrin AND Yoni both probably contributed more fodder for the OP.

I can't wait to catalogue one of the new logical mistakes or dishonest statements that are sure to be given.

Darrin had, by my last count 12 logical fallacies in this thread alone.

Catalogue? Do you have a ing life? I barely pay attention to the post to which I'm responding.

Hey, whatever floats your boat...now, get to work.

[Yonivore]

Global Warming Explained

Okay...I'm on board.

[Wild Cobra]

Want to see something that will scare the crap out of you?

This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.


Graph for 1930-1934
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation

Graph for 2006-2010
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation


Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.


OOOOOOOOOH. Scary.

Your second link should be this:

2006-2010

Can anyone explain where the global warming is please?

[DarrinS]

Your second link should be this:

2006-2010

Oops. Copied the same link twice. Thanks for the correction.

[RandomGuy]

Catalogue? Do you have a ing life? I barely pay attention to the post to which I'm responding.

Hey, whatever floats your boat...now, get to work.

I am out to make a case, as outlined in the OP.

How better to make it than to use your own words?

If I take the position that you believe in pseudoscience, and think about the world illogically, then engaging you in conversation, and letting you do the exact things that I am talking about is the best way to do it.

You, Darrin, and WC can't help yourselves. Pseudoscience and bad logic is at the heart of many of your emotion-based beliefs.

[RandomGuy]

Want to see something that will scare the crap out of you?

This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.


Graph for 1930-1934
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation

Graph for 2006-2010
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation


Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.


OOOOOOOOOH. Scary.

That cherry-picking data points seems to be sufficient for you to form opinions simply supports the premise of the OP, yet again.

You have done more to prove the point that your beliefs are based on irrationality and/or dishonesty than anyone else. Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Your second link should be this:

2006-2010

Can anyone explain where the global warming is please?

Most scientists have abandoned the "global warming" in favor of "climate change", and did so years ago.

Your implication here is, essentially yet another "strawman" wherein you distort the theory you are attempting to discredit, then discredit the distortion.

Why do you keep doing things like that? Is your case really that weak?

Can you even define exactly what it is these scientists are theorizing?

Mouse can't adequately or honestly explain the theory of evolution. Just saying.

[DarrinS]

That cherry-picking data points seems to be sufficient for you to form opinions simply supports the premise of the OP, yet again.

You have done more to prove the point that your beliefs are based on irrationality and/or dishonesty than anyone else. Thank you.

1920-1924
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation

1940-1944
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation


1950-1954
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation



If I had time, I'd download the data and overlay all of them together.

Regardless, the temperature anomaly of the past century is basically flat, unless you use a whopping 2 degree range on the y-axis.

[RandomGuy]

1920-1924
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation

1940-1944
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation


1950-1954
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodiv...reqtype=nation



If I had time, I'd download the data and overlay all of them together.

Regardless, the temperature anomaly of the past century is basically flat, unless you use a whopping 2 degree range on the y-axis.

I can't really comment on the links, as they don't work on this computer. I may check them out at some point, though.

Here is a question for you.

Do computer models get better with more data?

[DarrinS]

I can't really comment on the links, as they don't work on this computer. I may check them out at some point, though.

Here is a question for you.

Do computer models get better with more data?

More data would, in general, improve a very simplistic model, e.g. a simple regression model, etc.

But, if the underlying assumptions of a computer model aren't very good, then more data can't remedy that problem.

Regardless, the total warming of the past century is on the order of measurement noise.

[ChumpDumper]

How does the US = the globe?

[DarrinS]

How does the US = the globe?

It's not. Never claimed it was.


Here's a question: How does our current measurement of temperature equal the global temperature? What is the resolution of our measurements? I'm guessing we have more measurement stations where there are more people.

[RandomGuy]

More data would, in general, improve a very simplistic model, e.g. a simple regression model, etc.

But, if the underlying assumptions of a computer model aren't very good, then more data can't remedy that problem.

Regardless, the total warming of the past century is on the order of measurement noise.

Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?

[MannyIsGod]

It's not. Never claimed it was.


Here's a question: How does our current measurement of temperature equal the global temperature? What is the resolution of our measurements? I'm guessing we have more measurement stations where there are more people.

Hey, what are those things orbiting in space again?

Also, what range in temperature change makes a difference. You continuously mock the change in temp sayings its "only" so much but tell me how much energy does it take to heat the entire globe by 1 degree Celsius over the course of a year? Put your "only" remarks in context. How many degrees of change become significant?

[DarrinS]

Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?

No. It takes humans to do that.

[DarrinS]

Hey, what are those things orbiting in space again?

Duh. Satellites. How many are there?

Also, what range in temperature change makes a difference. You continuously mock the change in temp sayings its "only" so much but tell me how much energy does it take to heat the entire globe by 1 degree Celsius over the course of a year? Put your "only" remarks in context. How many degrees of change become significant?

I would think it should be more than what a person might experience driving from one part of town to another. (or around the block for that matter).

[MannyIsGod]

You think that based on your extensive background in climate sciences right? You basically have no understanding or context to place the temperature increases in and that leads you to the simple minded understanding that it takes a rise in temperature much greater to actually change the global dynamics.

Instead of asking how much you make stupid assumptions.

[DarrinS]

You think that based on your extensive background in climate sciences right? You basically have no understanding or context to place the temperature increases in and that leads you to the simple minded understanding that it takes a rise in temperature much greater to actually change the global dynamics.

Instead of asking how much you make stupid assumptions.

Based on my background in mathematics and engineering, I know what signal-to-noise ratio is and what statistical significance means. And based on my knowledge of thermodynamics, I know a lot about gases and temperature.

[Yonivore]

I am out to make a case, as outlined in the OP.

How better to make it than to use your own words?

If I take the position that you believe in pseudoscience, and think about the world illogically, then engaging you in conversation, and letting you do the exact things that I am talking about is the best way to do it.

You, Darrin, and WC can't help yourselves. Pseudoscience and bad logic is at the heart of many of your emotion-based beliefs.

You do have a lot of time on your hands, don't you?

[ChumpDumper]

It's not. Never claimed it was.

Then why are you using US temperature data to make a point about global temperatures?

[RandomGuy]

Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?

No. It takes humans to do that.

So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?

[Wild Cobra]

You, Darrin, and WC can't help yourselves. Pseudoscience and bad logic is at the heart of many of your emotion-based beliefs.

Please explain to us, just how this AGW scare is justified, when the temperatures between the two graphs are so similar?

please...

Do you have an explanation, or are you just going to criticize?

[DarrinS]

Then why are you using US temperature data to make a point about global temperatures?

Why do very prominant climate scientists use bristlecone pines as a proxy for global temperature? Do bristlecone pines grow in the middle of the ocean?