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

[Poptech]

You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.
It is a strawman argument.


You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.
My list is a defined set.


Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.
Not when it is a strawman argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is a strawman argument.


My list is a defined set.


Not when it is a strawman argument.

Why is you set the standard by which all other lists are to be judged by? He never stated that he was pulling from your list so you can not argue that he is cherry picking from your list.

Its not a strawman. You are apparently just too dense to understand the argument or the logical extension of what you claim.

You also dropped this, monkey:


Originally Posted by MiG

Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?

[Poptech]

Poptech, as an impartial, but interested viewer of this debate, I must say that you are not bringing much to the table other than offering paradoxical reasoning while focusing on inconsequential minutiae like defending your use of the soviet flag and RG's supposed use of argumentum ad populum, which I do not think you effectively defended.

You have open and unanswered questions to MiG (and RG) relating to the actual science. this particular sequence went unanswered by you:
You seemed confused about why I am here. My only reason for being here is to correct misinformation stated about the list or other articles. When those criticizing the list failed they went into tangential arguments about climate change.

Once I stated, "Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined." his whole line of argumentation following was irrelevant because he was attempting to show that if the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of temperature change and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising with the anthropogenic CO2 fraction of this being Y then it will cause a temperature increase of Z and the anthropogenic fraction would be appreciable.

I will state my position simply,

There is empirical evidence for a very mild global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man. I completely reject AGW Alarm on all grounds.

[Poptech]

Yay more questions inserted for arguments! So without further ado:
I already responded to this,


Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.
Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?

The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".


You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif
My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,

The Truth about SourceWatch (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html)

It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.


No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.
Then you are arguing a strawman.


So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.
Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.

Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?

Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?


Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.

I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.
Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.


That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.
You have dodged this question again,

Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?


As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.
I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?


As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.
You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?


Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.
Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.


...they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism.

Was this the reason their papers were listed?

Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?


I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.
Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.

Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?

Can an industry and a scientist hold the same position independently?

Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.

Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us
You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.

Do you have any evidence of corruption?

Linking liberals to Soviets and using large red effigies is not red scare tactics because the USSR was socialist! WOOHOO!
Yes my usage of the flag of the U.S.S.R. has nothing to do with the "Red Scare". Images of that flag can be used for other purposes besides the anti-communist movement from the first half of the 20th century in the United States.


Supporting socialist programs makes you a socialist but supporting capitalist programs does not make you a capitalist! WOOHOO!
If you are a Capitalist you do not believe in publicly owned or nationalized industries. Thus those who believe in a mixed economy (which includes publicly owned or nationalized industries) are socialists.


Ask more questions and pretend like its an adequate argument, monkey.
The questions I asked were relevant and you have conceded those points.

[Poptech]

Its only his truth that is relevant after all.
This is incorrect.


He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.
I have conceded valid points many times.

[Th'Pusher]

You seemed confused about why I am here. My only reason for being here is to correct misinformation stated about the list or other articles. When those criticizing the list failed they went into tangential arguments about climate change.

Once I stated, "Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined." his whole line of argumentation following was irrelevant because he was attempting to show that if the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of temperature change and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising with the anthropogenic CO2 fraction of this being Y then it will cause a temperature increase of Z and the anthropogenic fraction would be appreciable.

I will state my position simply,

There is empirical evidence for a very mild global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man. I completely reject AGW Alarm on all grounds.

That's progress. Glad we have your position on record. Since you're not interested in debating your position, you can rest assured that your blog will continue to provide "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" unfettered. :lol

By the way, make sure and keep us posted on how your self-ruling floating libertarian city is flourishing. I know I am interested in how that untenable misadventure turns out!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So I just want to get this straight.

If you believe in socialist policies then you are a socialist.

If you believe in capitalist policies then you are a capitalist.

If you believe in a mix of both capitalist and socialist policies then you are a socialist but not a capitalist?

Not only that but if you believe in any socialist policy whatsoever then you feel its merited to use this picture

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif

for a header in an article describing them?

[Poptech]

That's progress. Glad we have your position on record. Since you're not interested in debating your position, you can rest assured that your blog will continue to provide "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" unfettered. :lol
My position has been stated online many times.


By the way, make sure and keep us posted on how your self-ruling floating libertarian city is flourishing. I know I am interested in how that untenable misadventure turns out!
I do not subscribe to caricatures of mainstream libertarian positions.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSumJxQ5oy4) (Video) (25min)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The questions I asked were relevant and you have conceded those points.

Lets explore this a bit.

You will ask a question such as:


Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list?

Now while you may think your clever, what is obvious is that this is just a leading question into your canned answers that you created however long ago. You have them linked at your site and as you have claimed time and again with your arguments; they are irrefutable. We both know the distinction you want to make; you just want me to do it for you.

Thats the thing though is that you have not presented the argument. I am very familiar with the technique you are attempting. I am familiar with the notion that if i play along then it seems that I am agreeing with your premise.

Its similar to what happens in the legal system where people are prohibited from asking leading questions to a witness that they use to build their argument. Its the same here you don't get to pretend that I am your witness and ask me leading questions.

If you want to make an argument then make it but me not participating in your dog and pony show is not an admission of a supposed point and that holds doubly true when you have yet to make that point.

Its weaker than your asshurt thread where you make claims as to what things are but fail to give any basis for said claims. You aren't even making claims. You are asking me questions.

[Poptech]

So I just want to get this straight.

If you believe in socialist policies then you are a socialist.

If you believe in capitalist policies then you are a capitalist.

If you believe in a mix of both capitalist and socialist policies then you are a socialist but not a capitalist?
If you are a Capitalist you cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. Supporting a mixed economy and claiming to be a Capitalist would be a case of cognitive dissonance. I understand that emotionally those who support a mixed economy want to believe they support Capitalism but this is illogical since they support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. They are in denial they are socialists. I have little respect for those who refuse to admit their beliefs.


Not only that but if you believe in any socialist policy whatsoever then you feel its merited to use this picture

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif

for a header in an article describing them?
I simply chose this picture in this case to clearly visualize that Sourcewatch and the Center for Media & Democracy endorse anti-capitalist (socialist) positions. If you are attempting to demonstrate using a picture that something is socialist then yes you can use this picture.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If its cognitive dissonance then why does it go one way or another?

i mean if they are mutually exclusive then why does one win out. Its obvious in a marketplace the two principles coexist. The state can own the water company yet the fish store owner can own his property as an individual and enjoy a free market.

why is it that this is not possible in the brain?

You're just being puritanical about your ideals, monkey.

Oh and monkey, i think that its a nice touch that you compare all people that believe in antitrust laws with communist Russia.

[Poptech]

If its cognitive dissonance then why does it go one way or another?

i mean if they are mutually exclusive then why does one win out. Its obvious in a marketplace the two principles coexist. The state can own the water company yet the fish store owner can own his property as an individual and enjoy a free market.

why is it that this is not possible in the brain?

You're just being puritanical about your ideals, monkey.
Because a Capitalist cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. This has nothing to do with acknowledging they exist they just do not support their existence.


Oh and monkey, i think that its a nice touch that you compare all people that believe in antitrust laws with communist Russia.
I did no such thing. I equated those who believe in anti-trust laws with socialists.

[Poptech]

Now while you may think your clever, what is obvious is that this is just a leading question into your canned answers that you created however long ago. You have them linked at your site and as you have claimed time and again with your arguments; they are irrefutable.
No, you are distorting what I stated earlier. Yes I have certain responses in my head because I have heard them many times before but I have typed all the responses here except for the links and quotes. They are not "canned" as in I have this master list where I cut and paste from.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because a Capitalist cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. This has nothing to do with acknowledging they exist they just do not support their existence.


I did no such thing. I equated those who believe in anti-trust laws with socialists.

Oh you claim they are mutually exclusive. I don't see why you cannot make the same argument about socialists not supporting any privately owned companies. Its puritanical nonsense.

And you equated socialists with Soviet Russia. this is what i am talking about when it comes to the logical conclusions. Here is a logical construct

anti-trust = socialist
socialist = Soviet Russia
ergo anti-trust = Soviet Russia

What do equate mean?

In America, you watch TV. In Soviet Russia, TV watch YOU!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you are distorting what I stated earlier. Yes I have certain responses in my head because I have heard them many times before but I have typed all the responses here except for the links and quotes. They are not "canned" as in I have this master list where I cut and paste from.

Sure just ignore the rest of the argument and fixate on the semantics of the word 'canned.' Your tactics are pretty cloy at this point, monkey.

[Poptech]

How to use RandomGuy's "Logic",

RG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gl%C3%BCcks) was a Nazi.

[Poptech]

Sure just ignore the rest of the argument and fixate on the semantics of the word 'canned.'
I actually agreed with most of what you said there, too bad it took you to be on the receiving end before you spoke out.

[Th'Pusher]

Because a Capitalist cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. This has nothing to do with acknowledging they exist they just do not support their existence.

Can you provide an example of a capitalist nation or society? I'd like to look into how this philosophy has fared under real-world economic conditions.

[Poptech]

Oh you claim they are mutually exclusive. I don't see why you cannot make the same argument about socialists not supporting any privately owned companies. Its puritanical nonsense.
Because socialists are not all or nothing. Socialism was intended to be a transition phase between capitalism and communism.


And you equated socialists with Soviet Russia. this is what i am talking about when it comes to the logical conclusions. Here is a logical construct

anti-trust = socialist
socialist = Soviet Russia
ergo anti-trust = Soviet Russia
Again, I was using a very recognized socialist image to drive the anti-capitalist point home. No fear was intended but I do apologize if it frightened you.

A relevant logical construct;

anti-trust = socialist position
socialist position = socialism
ergo anti-trust = socialism

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

This shit is gold.

[Poptech]

Can you provide an example of a capitalist nation or society? I'd like to look into how this philosophy has fared under real-world economic conditions.
The closest example would be, Hong Kong 1950-1997 (Under British Rule).

Milton Friedman Describes Hong Kong as an Example of the Free Market System (1980) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqh0zXSd4vc) (Video) (8min)
The Hong Kong Experiment (http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7696) (Milton Freidman, Jul 30, 1998)

Even today both Hong Kong and Singapore (http://www.heritage.org/index/default) have the most free economies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because socialists are not all or nothing. Socialism was intended to be a transition phase between capitalism and communism.


Again, I was using a very recognized socialist image to drive the anti-capitalist point home. No fear was intended but I do apologize if it frightened you.

A relevant logical construct;

anti-trust = socialist position
socialist position = socialism
ergo anti-trust = socialism

Socialisms intent is to TURN US INTO SOVIET RUSSIA!!

In America, you update blog. In Soviet Russia, blog updates YOU!

And yeah i was really frightened. :rolleyes

this is boring, buh-bye.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

This shit is gold.

All I have been trying to do is point out how much of a puritanical extremist this guy is. I feel like I have done that. He still hasn't answered the last question you asked him btw. we tried, but he so far has dissembled. Have fun.

[Poptech]

Socialisms intent is to TURN US INTO SOVIET RUSSIA!!
That is one strawman argument you could make out of that.

[Th'Pusher]

The closest example would be, Hong Kong 1950-1997 (Under British Rule).

Milton Friedman Describes Hong Kong as an Example of the Free Market System (1980) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqh0zXSd4vc) (Video) (8min)
The Hong Kong Experiment (http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7696) (Milton Freidman, Jul 30, 1998)

Even today both Hong Kong and Singapore (http://www.heritage.org/index/default) have the most free economies.

Haven't watched the video, but didn't the colonial government maintain control of land? seems important. So, they were socialist as well. USSR flag appropriate for them as well?

[Poptech]

All I have been trying to do is point out how much of a puritanical extremist this guy is. I feel like I have done that. He still hasn't answered the last question you asked him btw. we tried, but he so far has dissembled. Have fun.
Hypocrite.

[Poptech]

Haven't watched the video, but didn't the colonial government maintain control of land? seems important. So, they were socialist as well. USSR flag appropriate for them as well?
No, private property existed extensively and private property rights were protected. You asked for the best example and that is about as close as you will get but it is far from a perfect example. You are correct that when discussing anyone supporting socialist policies that were implemented in Hong Kong the image could be used.

[Poptech]

:lol

This shit is gold.
What is gold is completely refuting all your poor arguments in relation to the list.

[Th'Pusher]

No, private property existed extensively and private property rights were protected. You asked for the best example and that is about as close as you will get but it is far from a perfect example. You are correct that when discussing anyone supporting socialist policies that were implemented in Hong Kong the image could be used.

So we've established that there is not a single capitalist society in all the world and never has been. As a libertarian, are you advocating a truly capitalist society and if so, why?

[Poptech]

i think that its a nice touch that you compare all people that believe in antitrust laws with communist Russia.
The MiG (http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/mig15.htm) is communist.

[Poptech]

So we've established that there is not a single capitalist society in all the world and never has been. As a libertarian, are you advocating a truly capitalist society and if so, why?
I believe it will lead to the most prosperity and freedom for all.

[MannyIsGod]

What is gold is completely refuting all your poor arguments in relation to the list.

mmmk.

[Th'Pusher]

I believe it will lead to the most prosperity and freedom for all.

So you believe that something that has never actually been tried or come close to be executed successfully will lead to the most prosperity and freedom for all? Why do you think that a capitalist society has never been tried and what makes you think that it is remotely possible...short of building the libertarian island that you referred to as "mainstream"?

[Poptech]

So you believe that something that has never actually been tried or come close to be executed successfully will lead to the most prosperity and freedom for all?
In it's pure sense this is correct but it has been demonstrated that the more economically free a country is the higher the standard of living, quality of life and economic prosperity.

Economic Freedom & Quality of Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk) (Video) (3min)


Why do you think that a capitalist society has never been tried and what makes you think that it is remotely possible...short of building the libertarian island that you referred to as "mainstream"?
Emotional beliefs in economic fallacies.

No, I was referring to the Libertarian island idea as not mainstream.

[Th'Pusher]

In it's pure sense this is correct but it has been demonstrated that the more economically free a country is the higher the standard of living, quality of life and economic prosperity.

Economic Freedom & Quality of Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk) (Video) (3min)

We'll get to this later, but I think there is substantial evidence that that a purely capitalist society does not lead to a higher the standard of living, quality of life and economic prosperity.



Emotional beliefs in economic fallacies.

Let's focus on this. Why do emotional beliefs in economic fallacies prevent a purely capitalistic society? Where do these emotional beliefs stem from. And how do we realistically go about eradicating them?


No, I was referring to the Libertarian island idea as not mainstream.

Sorry, I misunderstood you original post. Are you looking forward to moving there? Are you not concerned about the long arm of American law which reaches it's citizens all over the world?

[Poptech]

Let's focus on this. Why do emotional beliefs in economic fallacies prevent a purely capitalistic society? Where do these emotional beliefs stem from. And how do we realistically go about eradicating them?
If bureaucrats believe in economic fallacies they will enact anti-capitalist laws based on these beliefs. These beliefs come from emotional not logical reasoning. All you can do is try to convince them.


Sorry, I misunderstood you original post. Are you looking forward to moving there? Are you not concerned about the long arm of American law which reaches it's citizens all over the world?
Let me try this again so you can understand it.

Your use of floating cities to represent "Libertarians" was a caricature (exaggerated or distorted view) of mainstream (common) Libertarian views. I never stated anything supporting them anywhere nor do I want to live there.

[Wild Cobra]

This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.
I wonder if he realizes that it just adds to his annoyance factor without adding any actual emphasis.

This is fun to watch.

:corn:

[RandomGuy]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.

So let's examine your claim.

Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.

Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.


Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:


900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%

For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.

To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.

This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.

The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.

Here is the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true.

Next, we have to add in a little extra:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true +, and therefore evidence skeptical of this is false.
Now, we are getting somewhere.

We have to start messing with things a bit further:

1. Most [scientific papers support] Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore [scientific papers that do not support this are false]

Another step

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.

Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:

Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?

There are two statements there.

1. "900/200000= 0.45%"

and

2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"


Kind of hard to get to:

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.


from:

"I don't really know how big the body of all scientific papers on the subject is, how big is it?"


If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.

Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838657&postcount=3188).

(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )

[RandomGuy]

I wonder if he realizes that it just adds to his annoyance factor without adding any actual emphasis.

This is fun to watch.

:corn:

So what do you think? Was that simple and straightforward enough for you to see?

I noticed you or PT have rather deliberately not commented on it.

[RandomGuy]

I have seen the list used in many ways but have no way to determine how a person arrives at believing papers on the list to be the only valid science. It is quite possible they have read papers on both sides and found these more convincing. Regardless, I do not recall seeing this argument being made. What I do see is it used as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed papers that supports skeptic arguments. Usually as a reply to an alarmist challenging or demanding they produce such papers.

All I can do is clarify the purpose of the list or correct any misinformation stated about the list. I cannot control other people's behavior.

Various changes have been made to the list to make it's purpose more clear as well as a copious amount of notes added that has helped clear up misrepresentations. In relation to misrepresentations those criticizing the list have consistently stated misinformation about it more than those promoting it. In my experiences those promoting it are more likely to properly represent it than those criticizing it. I have noticed the clarifications have practically eliminated the few problems with those promoting it while it has had little to no effect on those criticizing it.

Some examples: one of the biggest problems was claiming the list was a list of skeptical scientists so this statement was added to the list, "The list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."

Another was that the list only included papers arguing against AGW and not also AGW Alarm, which requires not reading the word "Alarm" in the title. So there is not much I can do about that.

PopTart. Heh, that's funny too.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

Interesting read:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/
Looks like Andrew gets around.

[RandomGuy]

I think wasting a little of my time on that bloke actually knocked my IQ down a few points – not unlike slamming your head into a brick wall!

[RandomGuy]

Yikes.

The more one reads the more insane Poopdeck sounds. Well and truly insane, ala a slightly more sophisticated Cosmored of AGW Denial...

I am now slightly worried my butthurt man troll may escalate things beyond mere cyberstalking.

[Poptech]

Wow...

Interesting read:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/
Looks like Andrew gets around.
Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4040)

Greenfyre continues his dishonest and desperate attempt to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list with the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that have all been refuted ad nauseam. He is so dishonest he refuses to even make corrections to things that have been shown irrefutably not be true. [...]

His absolute lack of integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he has never updated his original posts to correct any of the lies that were pointed out to him. In comparison the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list has had many corrections to it to fix various legitimate criticisms. As an example of his dishonesty; his original posts still contain the same lies that, Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are included in the peer-reviewed paper count. Anyone with an elementary ability to count knows this is irrefutably not true.

The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.

[RandomGuy]

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

[Poptech]

I am now slightly worried my butthurt man troll may escalate things beyond mere cyberstalking.
Libel, I never cyberstalked anyone.

[RandomGuy]

Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4040)


The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

I wouldn't trust you to tell the "truth" about your own ass crack, you nutjob.

Although I am changing my siggy.

[Poptech]

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/
Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4328)

An alarmist spammer who comments at Jo Nova's site by the screen name "Blimey" and around the Internet as "itsnotnova" continues doubling down on his insanity. After having his original blog post completely refuted he decided to add new lies, misinformation and strawman arguments to it.

A quick example of his lies,

Are "Letters" peer-reviewed in the scholarly journal "Nature". Yes or No?

[Poptech]

I wouldn't trust you to tell the "truth" about your own ass crack, you nutjob.
You don't have to trust me, you just have to trust his own words (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html),

"My experience is that many people are impressed and supportive of the radical militant actions that we do. ...I make no secret of my militant activism, arrests etc; [...]

...we do break the law. [...]

In a few weeks I, and 50 others are off to jail. ...I do what I do because of a "pure, true love for the Earth."

- Mike Kaulbars, 1990

Your desperation is setting in as you have nothing left.

[RandomGuy]

Libel, I never cyberstalked anyone.

I don't know that. Honestly after falling through the rabbit hole of your obsession, it gets creepy real fast once one starts scrolling through the links you post, and others post about you.

[RandomGuy]

You don't have to trust me, you just have to trust his own words (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html),

Your desperation is setting in as you have nothing left.

It isn't desperation that is running through my mind, but thoughts of you getting more than creepy on me or my family. I'm not kidding.

Add that to your list of logical fallacies.

[Poptech]

I don't know that. Honestly after falling through the rabbit hole of your obsession, it gets creepy real fast once one starts scrolling through the links you post, and others post about you.
I don't know you did not rape anyone, maybe I should post this about you? I have never followed anyone around the Internet to harass them, while this has been done to me. The only thing creepy is when you believe lies stated about me where I was censored from replying.

[Poptech]

It isn't desperation that is running through my mind, but thoughts of you getting more than creepy on me or my family. I'm not kidding.
More libel, you really have lost it.

Things that have really happened to me,

1. Contacting my ISP in attempts to have my website shut down.
2. Threatening emails sent to me. (forwarded to the FBI)
3. Harassing phone calls made to me. (referred to the police)
4. Cyberstalking me on the Internet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He says greenfyre is run by an associate of ecoterrorists. Sourcewatch is run by communist sympathizers.

I'm somewhat taken aback.

[Poptech]

He says greenfyre is run by an associate of ecoterrorists.

Greenfyre = Founder of Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada
Earth First! = Members commit eco-terrorism in the name of Earth First!
Greenfyre = Associated with eco-terrorists

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Willi fucked the edit up on this one.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't have to trust me, you just have to trust his own words (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html),


Your desperation is setting in as you have nothing left.

The link that you cited doesn't say that anywhere.

You are one fucked up weirdo, monkey.

[Poptech]

The link that you cited doesn't say that anywhere.

You are one fucked up weirdo, monkey.
Yes it does (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/dffb808e34e02bf8?pli=1), FuzzyDumbkins.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What evidence do you have that the greenfyre blogger is who you say he is?

[Poptech]

Oh I get that that Earth First breaks into animal testing labs and vandalizes golf courses and other properties. [...]

But sure they are the stereotypical 'chain yourself to the redwood so they cannot chop down the tree' organization.
All harmless fun right?

Militant Environmentalists Planning Summer Protests to Save Redwoods (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/19/us/militant-environmentalists-planning-summer-protests-to-save-redwoods.html) (The New York Times, June 19, 1990)

Their group is Earth First and their cause is the environment, but not in the way of the Sierra Club or the Audubon Society. Members of Earth First are militant environmentalists. Some sit on platforms to block the cutting of trees; others advocate sabotage against developers and loggers. [...]

Earth First members have little use for tactics of the Sierra Club and other mainstream groups - they call them ''couch potato environmentalists'' -who concentrate on letter-writing campaigns, lobbying and lawsuits.

''I believe in confrontational demonstrations,'' said Lisa Bregger ...She said every political movement needs a vanguard willing to engage in zealous and even illegal action. ''There is a need for an extreme element.'' [...]

Mr. Cherney, 33, was born in New York City and moved here in the mid-1980's ''to learn to live off the land and to save the world.'' He became the movement's troubadour, ...He has advocated sabotage activites against developers and loggers, a practice he calls ''ecotage.'' [...]

Earth First in the past has endorsed tree spiking, the placement of long metal spikes in trees to discourage their being cut down. Loggers and mill workers have been injured when their saws hit these spikes. [...]

Mr. Cherney has expressed sympathy for the sabotage of developers' bulldozers and for an anonymous group that recently downed power lines near Santa Cruz, causing an extensive loss of power. ''The sabotage of equipment is no different than the French sabotage of the equipment of Hitler,'' he said. ''It was self-defense.''


Vandals Force Closing of New Golf Course (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/11/us/vandals-force-closing-of-new-golf-course.html) (The New York Times, August 11, 1991)

Vandals identifying themselves with the militant environmental group Earth First have forced the closing of a new golf course by writing messages on the greens.

Using a chemical that the authorities have yet to identify, the vandals wrote, "Earth First!," "Hayduke lives" and "Ron you pig" on 11 greens and several tees at the course sometime last week, Undersheriff Sky Walters said Friday.

Hayduke was one of a group of eco-terrorists in Edward Abbey's book "The Monkey Wrench Gang." The name Ron apparently referred to Ron Allred, president of Telluride Ski Resort Inc., which owns the course. [...]

Three weeks ago The Telluride Times Journal received a letter signed "Earth First" saying the development's high-speed ski lift had been sabotaged. The letter writer said a welding gas that weakens metal had been applied to the lift cable.


Man Gets 6 Years in Plot to Damage A-Plants (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/08/us/man-gets-6-years-in-plot-to-damage-a-plants.html) (The New York Times, September 8, 1991)

A member of the militant environmental group Earth First has been sentenced by a Federal judge to six years in prison for his role in a conspiracy to damage nuclear power and weapons plants in three states. [...]

Mr. Davis acknowledged his actions and told the judge that he took responsibility for them. But he also said he had been trying to protect himself and others against what he saw as the potentially deadly danger of nuclear plants.
:nope


What I want to know, where is the proof that he is who you say he is?
Try clicking on "About",

"My name is Mike Kaulbars FCD and most of my net activity is under my own name or as ‘greenfyre’, so a search engine will tell you far more than you ever wanted to know. (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/about/)"

Yes it will,

The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All harmless fun right?

Militant Environmentalists Planning Summer Protests to Save Redwoods (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/19/us/militant-environmentalists-planning-summer-protests-to-save-redwoods.html) (The New York Times, June 19, 1990)



Vandals Force Closing of New Golf Course (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/11/us/vandals-force-closing-of-new-golf-course.html) (The New York Times, August 11, 1991)



Man Gets 6 Years in Plot to Damage A-Plants (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/08/us/man-gets-6-years-in-plot-to-damage-a-plants.html) (The New York Times, September 8, 1991)

:nope


Try clicking on "About",

"My name is Mike Kaulbars FCD and most of my net activity is under my own name or as ‘greenfyre’, so a search engine will tell you far more than you ever wanted to know. (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/about/)"

Yes it will,

The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

KK, now for the connection between Mr. Kaulbers and and Earth First.

[Poptech]

KK, now for the connection between Mr. Kaulbers and and Earth First.
This is all on the page,

Earth First! takes protests to new level Public arrests, office invasions all part of group's quick-hit tactics (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/514460971.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+01%2C+1990&author=Tom+Spears&pub=Waterloo+Region+Record&desc=Earth+First%21+takes+protests+to+new+level+Pu blic+arrests%2C+office+invasions+all+part+of+group %27s+quick-hit+tactics&pqatl=google) (Waterloo Region Record, December 1, 1990)

Mike Kaulbars, a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, says his group has about 20 "hard-core" members, and perhaps 80 who are drawn in for special events such as protests.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The premise to your ad hominem is valid. He indeed is an associate of Earth First. I have to say your obsession is disconcerting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and lol editing the part about the girl getting blown up being exonerated out of my post.

[Poptech]

and lol editing the part about the girl getting blown up being exonerated out of my post.
Did I bring her up? I did not include that incident because the damage was self-inflicted. Though I suppose it is normal behavior for environmentalists to ride around with pipe bombs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did I bring her up? I did not include that incident because the damage was self-inflicted. Though I suppose it is normal behavior for environmentalists to ride around with pipe bombs.

Its in your smear article about the greenfyre guy that you keep linking.

You know she won a $4.4m settlement over the arrest and all that right?

They made a movie about her. I bet you hated it. What did you think of it?

[Poptech]

Its in your smear article about the greenfyre guy that you keep linking.
Oh really? Quote it. The information in my article is factually accurate, fully sourced and not a smear.


You know she won a $4.4m settlement over the arrest and all that right?
Strawman. Please focus on arguments I actually make not ones you make using your imagination.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh really? Quote it. The information in my acticle is factually accurate, fully sourced and not a smear.


Strawman. Please focus on arguments I actually make not ones you make using your imagination.

Calling people eco-terrorists and communists is a smear.


A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by conflation with a stigmatized group.

Its the definition of a smear, monkey.

And thats not a strawman. If you want to call it something call it a false premise. I make no argument over the premise.


Cherney was in the car with Bari, a fellow environmental activist from Earth First, when a pipe bomb wrapped with nails exploded, maiming Bari and leaving Cherney with serious injuries.

It was 1990, and the two were in Oakland on their way to speak about the upcoming Redwood Summer, three months of picketing, tree-sitting, and otherwise blocking the clear-cutting of the California redwoods.

The Redwood Summer went on, but not before Bari and Cherney were arrested: The Oakland Police Department said they had constructed the bomb themselves and were transporting it in the back seat.

Before Bari and Cherney went to trial, it became clear that the bomb had been under the front seat (Exhibit A: Bari's shattered pelvis and the unscathed backseat), and that there was absolutely no evidence Bari or Cherney had known it was there, and the charges were dropped. But the true culprit was never found.

In 2002, Cherney sued the FBI for attempting to frame him and Bari (who died of breast cancer in 1997), and won. But he's still set on testing the remaining evidence for DNA.

http://www.sfbg.com/2012/04/05/who-bombed-judi-bari?page=0,0

[Poptech]

and lol editing the part about the girl getting blown up being exonerated out of my post.
lol about editing your strawman argument out of your post (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849128&postcount=3562).

[Poptech]

What happened to "Its in your smear article about the greenfyre guy that you keep linking."? Still can't defend your lies? This is getting embarrassing for you.


Calling people eco-terrorists and communists is a smear.
Calling someone an eco-terrorist is not a smear if they fit the definition:

ecoterrorist (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ecoterrorist) (defined) "a person who uses violence in order to achieve environmentalist aims"

Quote where I called someone a communist in my articles.



A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by conflation with a stigmatized group.
Its the definition of a smear, monkey.
Dumbkins, there was no smear as everything I stated was factually correct. I did not call him an eco-terrorist. I called him a "radical environmental activist".


And thats not a strawman. If you want to call it something call it a false premise. I make no argument over the premise.
It was a strawman argument but you edited your post (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849128&postcount=3562) and removed the evidence. I never brought her up and you failed to quote where I did here or in my article. Your failures are adding up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is the thing that gets me.

You sit there and post this shit from random site describing someone associated with sourcewatch as:


She currently serves as Vice President of Communications at the Ms. Foundation for Women, and was formerly a Senior Vice President at Fenton Communications and a Communications Director for the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). Part of the Soviet-controlled World Peace Council, CISPES was established in America in 1980 by high-ranking members of the Salvadoran Communist Party and Cuban intelligence to support El Salvador's murderous guerrilla bands and to influence American public opinion through protests and one-sided disinformation.

you head the article with

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s400/USSR_Flag_500.gif

then you scrounge up a newspaper article from over 20 years ago that says that another one of your blogging rivals was a member of this Earth First group and then proceed to scrounge up list a whole slew of articles describing how Earth First was a bunch of eco-terrorists that have done all of these horrible things the most of egregious of which resulted in a dropped charge that you don't mention.

and then you do not even have the stones to admit that you are calling them a communist or eco-terrorists. You are a cowardly shitbag, monkey.

[Poptech]

This is the thing that gets me.

You sit there and post this shit from random site describing someone associated with sourcewatch as:
Still cannot find any quote where I called ANYONE a communist in my articles? It is really hard to watch you fail like this over and over.


you head the article with

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s400/USSR_Flag_500.gif
Yes, we have went over this in detail. I use a recognized socialist image to emphasize their anti-capitalist views.


then you scrounge up a newspaper article from over 20 years ago that says that another one of your blogging rivals was a member of this Earth First group and then proceed to scrounge up list a whole slew of articles describing how Earth First was a bunch of eco-terrorists that have done all of these horrible things...
"Scrounge up", you mean do accurate research. Sorry if the truth hurts.


...the most egregious of which resulted in a dropped charge that you don't mention.
Again, with your strawman argument. I never claimed this was their most egregious nor do I consider it that. I consider attempting to sabotage Nuclear power plants on a slightly higher level.


and then you do not even have the stones to admit that you are calling them a communist or eco-terrorists. You are a cowardly shitbag, monkey.
Dumbkins, when you can actually produce a quote of me saying this instead of just lying about it let me know. You are now doubling down on your failures. Don't get so angry because you keep failing.

[RandomGuy]

Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4328)


A quick example of his lies,

Are "Letters" peer-reviewed in the scholarly journal "Nature". Yes or No?

You have been proven to make shit up already about people you disagree with to any reasonable measurement.

I remain committed to intellectual honesty, but I am seriously contemplating putting you on ignore.

I will not answer your question, until you admit your strawman.

[Poptech]

"his" = "itsnotnova"

[RandomGuy]

This is the thing that gets me.

You sit there and post this shit from random site describing someone associated with sourcewatch as:



you head the article with

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s400/USSR_Flag_500.gif

then you scrounge up a newspaper article from over 20 years ago that says that another one of your blogging rivals was a member of this Earth First group and then proceed to scrounge up list a whole slew of articles describing how Earth First was a bunch of eco-terrorists that have done all of these horrible things the most of egregious of which resulted in a dropped charge that you don't mention.

and then you do not even have the stones to admit that you are calling them a communist or eco-terrorists. You are a cowardly shitbag, monkey.

This guy has some disturbing parallels with Cosmored. Smarter to be sure, but the same weasely, paranoid, moving from forum to forum, collecting "enemies", inability to admit fault or weakness in his arguments, etc.

If you read through the "Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio" thread, the parallels become a lot clearer.

Cosmored gets booted for spamming, PopTech, seems to get booted for generally being an ass, and perhaps worse.



Ack, I missed your PopTart wars, but reading “Andrew Banned: An Example of Needless Intimidation and Random Hate” it sure sounds all too familiar. Maybe we should pool our collective PopTart Droppings in one huge dungpile (crank.dot.net?) so that other bloggers can ban him right away & just link the heap so anyone who cares to will know what they are missing.

The truth of AGW's potentially catastrophic impacts is not affected by the quality of it's skeptics, but when those skeptics start exihibiting genuinely less than sane behavior, you should subject their claims to a great deal of careful scrutiny before accepting them as valid.

This goes for the people that are unable to provide first hand accounts of people faking moon landings as well as for those who are unable to show how their own skeptics are being unfair.

[RandomGuy]

He says greenfyre is run by an associate of ecoterrorists. Sourcewatch is run by communist sympathizers.

I'm somewhat taken aback.

And I'm sure he weaves all this into a giant conspiracy against him and his ideas in his head.


Because it could not possibly be because of anything he has done, or weaknesses in his ideas, as he is faultless, and his ideas flawless.

[RandomGuy]

I suppose it is normal behavior for environmentalists to ride around with pipe bombs.

Wow.

Ok, that is one sweeping generalization.

Does the fact that some evironmentalists get violently radicalized mean that environmentalists are wrong about anything? Yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

Carbon energy corp, Exxon and Kock Bros, spewing lies and confusion, buying "scientists", about global warming while their scientists try to figure out how they can increase business with global warming

ExxonMobil And Climate Change

Until 2005, ExxonMobil was run by Lee "Iron Ass" Raymond, a close friend of Vice President Dick Cheney and a skeptic of climate change. During Raymond's tenure, Exxon funded campaigns to challenge the validity of emerging science about climate change — specifically the findings that a global warming trend existed.


"This not only borrowed from some of the tactics that the tobacco industry had used to delay public understanding of the dangers of smoking; in some cases there were even overlaps of individuals and groups that were engaged in this communications campaign," Coll tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "A lot of corporate America opposed the Kyoto Accords. But only a small set of companies did what Exxon did, which was to really go after the science as aggressively as they did."

Coll says the campaign helped manufacture confusion and perpetual controversy about climate change.

"It created an impression in the media and the public that there was a raging, deep controversy among scientists, and there wasn't a controversy, at least after 2002, when the doubts fell away in the face of evidence," he says. "It was the evidence and the modeling and the very science that ExxonMobil was calling into doubt that gradually became more and more alarming and attracted more and more support within the scientific community."

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/02/151842205/exxonmobil-a-private-empire-on-the-world-stage?sc=17&f=1007

Do you Kock suckers even know what you're sucking on?

[Poptech]

This guy has some disturbing parallels with Cosmored. Smarter to be sure, but the same weasely, paranoid, moving from forum to forum, collecting "enemies", inability to admit fault or weakness in his arguments, etc.
Oh please, "weasely" is a new one but no. Paranoid, no. Collecting "enemies", no they already existed. Collecting friends, yes. Various corrections have been made to the list based on valid points. I only show up on a new forum if some nonsense is stated about the list there.


Cosmored gets booted for spamming, PopTech, seems to get booted for generally being an ass,
I only get banned or censored from mainly environmentalist and some far-left sites. The reasons are always contrived and hypocritical when applied to other commentators there.

[Poptech]

Do you Kock suckers even know what you're sucking on?
Do the Koch Brothers support increasing military spending?
Do the Koch Brothers support the Patriot Act?
Do the Koch Brothers support Gay Marriage?

[Poptech]

Wow.

Ok, that is one sweeping generalization.
I was being sarcastic and it was not meant to imply all do, rather that FuzzyLumpkins does not have a good defense for why they would be carrying around a pipebomb unless it was for a eco-terrorist plot. The fact that they blew themselves up instead of hurting an innocent person is just dumb luck.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do the Koch Brothers support increasing military spending?
Do the Koch Brothers support the Patriot Act?
Do the Koch Brothers support Gay Marriage?

These all have false premises. Try again monkey.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's amazing how you will take assertions from those two random blogs and pump up even the most tenuous links. Those two united blogs are great. You just have it written through them so you can make the connection but claim you didn't. It's a text book smear campaign as you do it against ask of your"enemies"

[Poptech]

These all have false premises. Try again monkey.
No, those are questions I asked.

[MannyIsGod]

No, those are questions I asked.

:lmao

[Poptech]

:lmao
I am aware you are incapable of answering questions, no need to laugh about it.

[Agloco]

If you read through the "Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio" thread, the parallels become a lot clearer.

This is what I was referring to. Perhaps not one and the same.....in cahoots possibly.

[Poptech]

This is what I was referring to. Perhaps not one and the same.....in cahoots possibly.
Oh we are still on these? I do not believe in any delusional conspiracy theories like JFK or UFOs,

Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4011)

2z2l123FM3Q

[MannyIsGod]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/05/billboards-liken-belief-in-climate-change-to-mass-murder/1#.T6Q_Jes9g0w

Good ole Heartland.

I'm pretty sure Poptech thinks this is OK because they are not misrepresenting Ted's position. :lol

[Poptech]

I'm pretty sure Poptech thinks this is OK because they are not misrepresenting Ted's position. :lol
Ted was found to have read the Earth First! Journal (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm?oid=271).

Theodore "the Unabomber" Kaczynski is the radical environmental movement's biggest black eye. Conventional wisdom dictates that Kaczynski was merely an intellectual serial-killer, but his connection to Earth First! and the broader eco-terror movement is undeniable.
When FBI agents raided Kaczynski's Montana cabin in April 1996, they found copies of the Earth First! Journal, as well as an Earth First! affiliated publication called Live Wild or Die. This broadsheet, funded by Mike Roselle, included a now-famous "Eco-F*cker Hit List."

At the top of the Hit List was the California Forestry Association. In the middle was a prominent cartoon about the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Kaczynski sent dozens of mail bombs; three were fatal. He killed an employee of the California Forestry Association, and a Burson-Marsteller PR executive named Thomas Mosser. Kaczynski (mistakenly) believed that Burson-Marsteller was responsible for rehabilitating Exxon's public image after the 1989 Valdez oil spill.

The source of that mistake? An essay in the Earth First! Journal, which the FBI says was one of Kaczynski's "favorite" periodicals. A letter found in Kaczynski's cabin -- titled "Suggestion for Earth First!ers from FC" ["FC" was the Unabomber's pseudonym] -- read in part: "As for the Mosser bombing, our attention was called to Burston-Marsteller [sic] by an article that appeared in the Earth First! Litha." The reference to "Litha" is in keeping with the Journal's habit of naming its issues after (pagan) lunar-calendar months.

According to ABC News and other media outlets, the FBI also believes that Kaczynski attended an Earth First! gathering just one month before murdering Mosser.

Hey isn't that the organization Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html) founded a chapter of? Small world.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Called it.

[RandomGuy]

Ted was found to have read the Earth First! Journal (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm?oid=271).


Hey isn't that the organization Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html) founded a chapter of? Small world.

Gotcha.

Given:

1) Ted is a mass murderer.

2) Ted reads "Earth first".

3) Greenfyre founded a chapter.



Fallacy: Guilt By Association

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).




1)It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2)Therefore P is false

Person A would be, well just about anyone, but in this case it would be PopTart.

People that A doesn't like would be Ted and Greenfyre

Claim P could either be "AGW" or "Andrew of PopTech is a sophistic sack of shit"


So let's put this together.

1] Ted accepts AGW.
2] Therefore AGW is false.

This is flawed reasoning. We cannot assume AGW is false because Ted thinks it is true.
or

1] Ted accepts newsletters from Greenfyres group. Greenfyre and Ted must agree on a lot of things, and Greenfyre thinks that Andrew of PopTech is a sophist sack of shit.
2] Therefore the fact that Andrew of Poptech is a sophsit sack of shit is false.

This is flawed reasoning. We cannot assume the fact that Andrew of Poptech is a sophist sack of shit is false, because Greenfyre thinks it is true.


Of course, I could be wrong here. I have to try and figure out why PT would try to link a mass murder to a guy who points out the weaknesses in PT's arguments.

I'm just guessing. Maybe PT would care to explain it to me to clear up anything I might have gotten wrong here.

[Wild Cobra]

But there is association, hence the ad. Marketing works that way, right? Are we suppose to disallow free speech marketing practices? Are you equally concerned when your side does the same thing?

[RandomGuy]

But there is association, hence the ad. Marketing works that way, right? Are we suppose to disallow free speech marketing practices? Are you equally concerned when your side does the same thing?

Marketing?

I thought we were talking about science.

If any environmentalist group tried linking climate skeptics to mass murderers, I would most definitely say that was dumb, and shameful.

Why have you not called this dumb and shameful?

Do you believe AGW is wrong because Ted thinks it is right?

:bang

[Wild Cobra]

Marketing?

I thought we were talking about science.

If any environmentalist group tried linking climate skeptics to mass murderers, I would most definitely say that was dumb, and shameful.

Why have you not called this dumb and shameful?

Do you believe AGW is wrong because Ted thinks it is right?

:bang
I'm not claiming right or wrong. I was only pointing out what I think it is. For the record, yes. i find it distasteful. Is it my duty to always point out something I see as distasteful?

Do you?

But there is association, hence the ad.
I say there is an association. Is this factual or not?

Marketing works that way, right?
See the question mark? Am I agreeing it should work that way, or am I making a point?

Are we suppose to disallow free speech marketing practices?
See the question mark? Are you suggesting we clamp down on the first amendment?

Are you equally concerned when your side does the same thing?
See the question mark? You grill me for not immediately reacting negative to this, but I rarely see you do the same when it is effective slander against someone you dislike.

When's the last time you stood against a lie or negative association that would effectively defend president Bush? What about any other politician you don't like? What about when there is clear misinformation about any subject we debate?

How often do you say it isn't right?

Please hold yourself to a standard before asking other to.

[Wild Cobra]

Group pulls plug on billboard linking global warming believers to terrorists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/group-pulls-plug-on-billboard-linking-global-warming-believers-to-terrorists/2012/05/04/gIQAU2q51T_story.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This guy has some disturbing parallels with Cosmored. Smarter to be sure, but the same weasely, paranoid, moving from forum to forum, collecting "enemies", inability to admit fault or weakness in his arguments, etc.

If you read through the "Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio" thread, the parallels become a lot clearer.

Cosmored gets booted for spamming, PopTech, seems to get booted for generally being an ass, and perhaps worse.

No its much more shady. this guy gets a crack at your personal information and starts digging. Any smear he find he blows up. In some cases I think he just straight up makes up shit.

His sourcewatch material he basically got a nice Soviet effigy and copied from some neo-con Borowitz and what is a 'lobbying' group for the beer and tobacco industries, Center for Consumer Freedom. At least thats what the source he is smearing has to say.

He took the greenfyre's real name and went to a research database which popped out that Earth First article. He went from there and posted every single bad thing that he could find about Earth First and uploaded something that looks to be from an old newsgroup on google docs.

DeSmogblog lists its Foundation's contributors. Well he took that information and found out one of their contributors company was investigated and found guilty for gambling so he puts all that shit up there.

He is very butthurt about his banning and the deletion of his posts on on skeptical science. He posted a goofy picture of the admin and whined of being taunted. Why would anyone not want.him around?

He 'revealed' that ClimateScience.org was associated with Al Gore.

I bet if he could find something on one of us, he would feel zero compunction of doing the same. In his own little way thats what he is doing with his mini-smear of the RG.

His forum is not so much for discussion as it is to store all of his 'arguments' and 'facts.' Hes argued the global warming shit from very angle possible angle for most of a decade. He has recently switched the titles to include 'alarmism.' That is now his canned response to anyone who doesn't acknowledge how he has moved the goalposts.

You can read that shit and see how his sophistry evolves. Thats how his list got started: he was doing more rebuttal storage for the argument that there weren't many skeptics he started trolling academic databases and cherrypicking a list. But he does this with most everything, including you if your not careful. If you register on his site, you are a dumbass.

Its all the stereotypical neocon bullshit: climate, unions, alternative energy, how alcohol is good and drugs are bad, muslims are all trying to wipe us off the face of the earth, AIDS is all for drug addicts and queers, pure capitalism or its tainted, and all that type of thing. He even goes into that same mode arguing over the security supremacy of Microsoft products or trying to protect their image over the threat that is Linux.

I have said that Darrin is a deceptive sophist shitbag but quite frankly I had no idea what a deceptive cowardly sophist shitbag was until I met this guy.

Whats missing is the racist shit though. So I just have to ask, monkey: if you were to have a daughter, would you let her marry a black man?

[RandomGuy]

No its much more shady. this guy gets a crack at your personal information and starts digging. Any smear he find he blows up. In some cases I think he just straight up makes up shit.

His sourcewatch material he basically got a nice Soviet effigy and copied from some neo-con Borowitz and what is a 'lobbying' group for the beer and tobacco industries, Center for Consumer Freedom. At least thats what the source he is smearing has to say.

He took the greenfyre's real name and went to a research database which popped out that Earth First article. He went from there and posted every single bad thing that he could find about Earth First and uploaded something that looks to be from an old newsgroup on google docs.

DeSmogblog lists its Foundation's contributors. Well he took that information and found out one of their contributors company was investigated and found guilty for gambling so he puts all that shit up there.

He is very butthurt about his banning and the deletion of his posts on on skeptical science. He posted a goofy picture of the admin and whined of being taunted. Why would anyone not want.him around?

He 'revealed' that ClimateScience.org was associated with Al Gore.

I bet if he could find something on one of us, he would feel zero compunction of doing the same. In his own little way thats what he is doing with his mini-smear of the RG.


His forum is not so much for discussion as it is to store all of his 'arguments' and 'facts.' Hes argued the global warming shit from very angle possible angle for most of a decade. He has recently switched the titles to include 'alarmism.' That is now his canned response to anyone who doesn't acknowledge how he has moved the goalposts.

You can read that shit and see how his sophistry evolves. Thats how his list got started: he was doing more rebuttal storage for the argument that there weren't many skeptics he started trolling academic databases and cherrypicking a list. But he does this with most everything, including you if your not careful. If you register on his site, you are a dumbass.

Its all the stereotypical neocon bullshit: climate, unions, alternative energy, how alcohol is good and drugs are bad, muslims are all trying to wipe us off the face of the earth, AIDS is all for drug addicts and queers, pure capitalism or its tainted, and all that type of thing. He even goes into that same mode arguing over the security supremacy of Microsoft products or trying to protect their image over the threat that is Linux.

I have said that Darrin is a deceptive sophist shitbag but quite frankly I had no idea what a deceptive cowardly sophist shitbag was until I met this guy.

Whats missing is the racist shit though. So I just have to ask, monkey: if you were to have a daughter, would you let her marry a black man?

I have no doubt about any of this.

The guy is a high-functioning sociopath. I hesitated to tell him I was an accountant, and have little doubt he has combed through my profile here.

I am genuinely concerned.

(edit)

were:
Agloco+ CosmicCowboy Facts jack sommerset Leetonidas Poptech Shadowflames TeyshaBlue+ TheSkeptic TimDunkem

Make that "no doubt"

[RandomGuy]

I'm not claiming right or wrong. I was only pointing out what I think it is. For the record, yes. i find it distasteful. Is it my duty to always point out something I see as distasteful?

It is.

It is especially true when it might be by someone that is of a group you self-identify with.

Otherwise, you are condoning it by your silence.

This is why I do not hestitate for a second to admit when I think Democrats have done shitty things.

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;5850701]I say there is an association. Is this factual or not?

QUOTE]

Yes.

So, by the same token, is the association between Nazis and all right-wing politics. That is just as "factual".

Observing it is one thing. When you go out though and do something with it, as your post seemed to imply whether you meant it to or not, that is something else entirely, because you attempt to demonize a group, or an idea by the actions of some.

This is probably an alien concept to you. I don't expect you to fully understand it, no offense.

[Wild Cobra]

It is.

It is especially true when it might be by someone that is of a group you self-identify with.

Otherwise, you are condoning it by your silence.

This is why I do not hestitate for a second to admit when I think Democrats have done shitty things.
LOL...

LOL...

My God man...

I am not about to fill my day with reporting on everything I find wrong in life.

I prefer enjoying life. Not worrying about it.

That just really enlightened me of you. It must be a sad existence you live to worry so much, and why you use your statistics in a way to want to spend endless money on a threat that you think "might" happen. You are worried about an apocalyptic style event, aren't you?

Now... I pity you.

Really man... Get out and stop worrying so much Enjoy life.

[RandomGuy]

you use your statistics in a way to want to spend endless money on a threat that you think "might" happen. .

:bang

Not what I say at all.

I know that is what you genuinely think I say, but whatever.

Like I said, I tried hard to have soem respect for you.

Go enjoy life grasshopper. :)

I know I am.

MMmm beeer.

[RandomGuy]

cj9_yW8tZxs

I like my oatmeal lumpy.

[ElNono]

The last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:

baseline bum
Darth_Hornet
Drachen
DUNCANownsKOBE
lefty
lurker
Poptech
Spursmania
SpursRulez4eVeR
Venti Quattro

[Wild Cobra]

I say there is an association. Is this factual or not?



Yes.

So, by the same token, is the association between Nazis and all right-wing politics. That is just as "factual".

I disagree. There are enough nuance differences. Besides, saying there is association does not mean the association is an accurate representation to extrapolate assumed truth from.

Are there any terrorists found with a lot of skeptic or denier material for example?

A Nazi policy can be more readily applied to the left rather than the right in my opinion. Regardless of my opinion, you can find similarities to both sides, rendering the association rather useless. I of course would argue that Nazi's had far more in common the our political left over our political right. You might argue the opposite.


Observing it is one thing. When you go out though and do something with it, as your post seemed to imply whether you meant it to or not, that is something else entirely, because you attempt to demonize a group, or an idea by the actions of some.
I'm not a proponent of tit for tat, but how many times are skeptics demonized? how many times are you guys relentless at attacking skeptics? Are you saying the practice is unacceptable, or that it crossed a particular line in the sand?


This is probably an alien concept to you. I don't expect you to fully understand it, no offense.
I do understand. Do you understand nuances?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

antarescrane
baseline bum
jestersmash
KaiRMD1
MannyIsGod
monosylab1k
Poptech check
TinTin
Winehole23
Yonivore

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, I have placed PopTech on my ignore list.

His "attention from Randomguy" card has been pulled.

It is out of simple concern for my own well-being. I genuinely think he is a bit insane, and capable of causing me some harm, if only internet stalking, and/or some form of outing.

Not that I have anything to hide, but who knows what an enraged narcisst might do? Creepy.

[Wild Cobra]

FWIW, I have placed PopTech on my ignore list.

His "attention from Randomguy" card has been pulled.

It is out of simple concern for my own well-being. I genuinely think he is a bit insane, and capable of causing me some harm, if only internet stalking, and/or some form of outing.

Not that I have anything to hide, but who knows what an enraged narcisst might do? Creepy.
I see you're being a sore loser.

[RandomGuy]

I see you're being a sore loser.

Keep telling yourself that.

Because it's better to think that, than to think someone you admire might not be worth admiring, but rather should pitied, or even feared.

I don't expect you to understand my concern. It is not in your nature.

That's ok. You are who you are, and I accept that.

[Poptech]

Maybe PT would care to explain it to me to clear up anything I might have gotten wrong here.
You have created a nice strawman argument as you usually do, well done.

[Poptech]

No its much more shady. this guy gets a crack at your personal information and starts digging. Any smear he find he blows up. In some cases I think he just straight up makes up shit.
Still can't prove your lies? I've made nothing up, this is why I source everything.


His sourcewatch material he basically got a nice Soviet effigy and copied from some neo-con Borowitz and what is a 'lobbying' group for the beer and tobacco industries, Center for Consumer Freedom. At least thats what the source he is smearing has to say.
I got a recognized socialist image to represent their anti-capitalist views.


He took the greenfyre's real name and went to a research database which popped out that Earth First article. He went from there and posted every single bad thing that he could find about Earth First and uploaded something that looks to be from an old newsgroup on google docs.
I didn't use any special research database, I just know how to use the Internet better than you. Learning this information must REALLY be bothering you that you have to resort to new lies that I "uploaded" it. Did I do this neat trick in 1990 (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/dffb808e34e02bf8?pli=1) knowing I would use it 21 years later? Now EVERYONE irrefutably knows you are a liar.


DeSmogblog lists its Foundation's contributors. Well he took that information and found out one of their contributors company was investigated and found guilty for gambling so he puts all that shit up there.
Yeah more IRREFUTABLE facts, that their benefactor, John Lefebvre is a convicted money launderer,

The Truth about DeSmogBlog (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html)


He is very butthurt about his banning and the deletion of his posts on on skeptical science. He posted a goofy picture of the admin and whined of being taunted. Why would anyone not want.him around?
You have a very active imagination. I was banned long before I exposed John Cook as the self employed cartoonist he is desperately trying to hide. They deleted all of my hundreds of posts because like you they could not debate me.


He 'revealed' that ClimateScience.org was associated with Al Gore.
RealClimate.org and Fenton Communications.


I bet if he could find something on one of us, he would feel zero compunction of doing the same. In his own little way thats what he is doing with his mini-smear of the RG.
I only do to RG what he does to others. The same with you.


His forum is not so much for discussion as it is to store all of his 'arguments' and 'facts.' Hes argued the global warming shit from very angle possible angle for most of a decade. He has recently switched the titles to include 'alarmism.' That is now his canned response to anyone who doesn't acknowledge how he has moved the goalposts.
Pure lies, you are now digging deep. I only started arguing GW online around 2006-2007 when Al Gore started pushing his propaganda. The word Alarm has been on the list for over two years. It was added as a clarification to the title. I haven't moved any goal posts as the content and inclusion criteria for the list never changed. From day one the list has always included, "The papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of" or an equivalent variation.

You seem aggravated that you cannot use the bullshit links you desperately Google online to discredit my list as my complete refutations to each one exist.


You can read that shit and see how his sophistry evolves. Thats how his list got started: he was doing more rebuttal storage for the argument that there weren't many skeptics he started trolling academic databases and cherrypicking a list.
There is no Sophistry. How come when I use an academic database it is "trolling"? Using your logic a list that supports ACC/AGW Alarm is "cherrypicked".


But he does this with most everything, including you if your not careful. If you register on his site, you are a dumbass.
ROFLMAO! Oh please.


Its all the stereotypical neocon bullshit: climate, unions, alternative energy, how alcohol is good and drugs are bad, muslims are all trying to wipe us off the face of the earth, AIDS is all for drug addicts and queers, pure capitalism or its tainted, and all that type of thing. He even goes into that same mode arguing over the security supremacy of Microsoft products or trying to protect their image over the threat that is Linux.
Oh man you are desperate I must have touched a nerve. I am a Libertarian not a neocon. Now you are lumping independent research I have done into one distorted lie. I did not believe that moderate consumption of alcohol was harmful and found extensive scientific evidence for this, mainly for red wine. Regardless I do not drink. And yes drugs are bad, including marijuana - feel free to ignore the science. My AIDs research was because I was interested in if there was scientific evidence that the "scare" (not the disease) was exaggerated and I found extensive evidence of this. I work in the technology sector so I have the same problems with those who lie about Linux, that does not mean I would not use it, I just do not like liars.

It is clear you are completely incapable of debating me so you resort to going to the gutter and you wind up falling in.

[Wild Cobra]

:bang

Not what I say at all.

You have clearly made that point in the past. Something about risk analysis. You specified you had no problem spending trillions to combat the unproven AGW because the cost, in your mind, was insignificant compared to the possible degree of threat.

[Wild Cobra]

FWIW, I have placed PopTech on my ignore list.

His "attention from Randomguy" card has been pulled.

It is out of simple concern for my own well-being. I genuinely think he is a bit insane, and capable of causing me some harm, if only internet stalking, and/or some form of outing.

Not that I have anything to hide, but who knows what an enraged narcisst might do? Creepy.
Do you really think he will pull a Michael Moore?

[RandomGuy]

Something about risk analysis. You specified you had no problem spending trillions to combat the unproven AGW because the cost, in your mind, was insignificant compared to the possible degree of threat.

"Something about risk analysis"

After years of me repeating the same thing, over and over...

This is the best you can do to restate that.

Incredible. :bang

I am truly a bit flabbergasted.

This still isn't it. Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Do you really think he will pull a Michael Moore?

I don't know what he would do.

The kind of lack of empathy inherent in such a person means that he won't have any of the normal inhibitions to all sorts of things.

Like I said, creepy.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know what he would do.

The kind of lack of empathy inherent in such a person means that he won't have any of the normal inhibitions to all sorts of things.

Like I said, creepy.
In 2003, Moore, when he was speaking here in Portland, he gave out Lars Larsons personal phone number. Lars dealt with it and didn't change his number because he had too many contacts that had that number. Lars would receive harassing calls and even death threats to himself and family. Not long later, Moore gave out Lars' address, and Lars was forced to move.

[Wild Cobra]

"Something about risk analysis"

After years of me repeating the same thing, over and over...

This is the best you can do to restate that.

Incredible. :bang

I am truly a bit flabbergasted.

This still isn't it. Sorry.
It's been some time. You clearly didn't care how much was spent and regulated and how much damage it would do to the economy since in your view, it was far more important to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Please correct me on what I am wrong about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is clear you are completely incapable of debating me so you resort to going to the gutter and you wind up falling in.

I stopped debating you awhile ago. Your train of thought is easy to see because you catalog enough of it publicly.

You are also not the only person that I have had experience that behaves like you do. I did not just pull that disorder out of a hat.

Psychologists do their science in a way that you can appreciate. They catalog all of the various 'behaviors' and define them and then try to categorize them. They take special notice in those that they deem to be antisocial. Now one of these categories of antisocial behavior is NPD.

All of this is a a collection of traits they have found within a number of people that they too have studied. Now you may 'think' that you have such and such disorder but the fact is that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can both have this particular disorder and exhibit antisocial behavior.

Now obviously much like meteorology, it is an inexact and unwieldy science but I know with the way that you catalog everything that you can appreciate their approach.

I can only imagine what those other bloggers thought when you posted their particular entries in your 'Truth' series. Pipe bombs and criminals.

Now look I know that you are once again going to do a line by line response and you are going to deny all of this and you are more than a little scary so rather than continue doing this I am going to put you on ignore. I just want to say 3 things before I go.

First, be careful with WC. He seems to have a thing for you. He has been preening for you all day. He stalks people too.

Second, I am sorry for the way that I have treated you. I have intentionally pushed your buttons and mocked you for it. That was very poor form.

Finally, please go and get some help. Re-read that survey and think about what you wrote. Take that to any shrink; they will concur. If you have people you trust then show it to them. Show it to someone.

[RandomGuy]

It's been some time. You clearly didn't care how much was spent and regulated and how much damage it would do to the economy since in your view, it was far more important to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Please correct me on what I am wrong about.

I do care how much is/was/would be spent.

I do care about damage to the economy.

I hate having to fit everything into your biases. It is very frustating.

[RandomGuy]

second, i am sorry for the way that i have treated you. I have intentionally pushed your buttons and mocked you for it. That was very poor form.

Finally, please go and get some help. Re-read that survey and think about what you wrote. Take that to any shrink; they will concur. If you have people you trust then show it to them. Show it to someone.

+1

[ElNono]

Panetta Labels Climate Change a National Security Threat

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/panetta-climate-change-national-security-threat/518336) [Wednesday] during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C. 'The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,' Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. 'Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.'"

[Wild Cobra]

I do care how much is/was/would be spent.

I do care about damage to the economy.

I hate having to fit everything into your biases. It is very frustating.
I don't remember exactly how you worded everything in that conversation years back, but that is the impression it left with me. I am all ears for clarification.

[Wild Cobra]

Panetta Labels Climate Change a National Security Threat

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/panetta-climate-change-national-security-threat/518336) [Wednesday] during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C. 'The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,' Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. 'Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.'"
I didn't know he was an expert. This is very troublesome because of the influence he has.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone know why the sea level dropped by 5 mm in 2011? Do you guys know it did, or do your alarmist outlets not tell you such things?

[MannyIsGod]

I know it and its been known in the climate community because scientists also know where the water is. Analyzing data from the GRACE satellite has shown exactly where the water is and it does not help your case one bit. This is why sea level change is not analyzed on a year to year basis but as a trend (just like temp and all over climate data).

LOL @ you thinking that people who study this don't know.

[MannyIsGod]

http://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/tag/flooding/

Welcome to 6 months ago.

[Poptech]

I have no doubt about any of this.

The guy is a high-functioning sociopath. I hesitated to tell him I was an accountant, and have little doubt he has combed through my profile here.

I am genuinely concerned.

(edit)


Make that "no doubt"
When you cannot debate my arguments, you now have to attempt to demonize me by lying about me being a sociopath. This behavior is expected by those who lack intellectual honesty and integrity.

[Poptech]

FWIW, I have placed PopTech on my ignore list.

His "attention from Randomguy" card has been pulled.

It is out of simple concern for my own well-being. I genuinely think he is a bit insane, and capable of causing me some harm, if only internet stalking, and/or some form of outing.

Not that I have anything to hide, but who knows what an enraged narcisst might do? Creepy.
Your delusions that I after any remote interest in "attention" from you speaks to your narcissism.

ROFLMAO to your paranoid fantasies for your safety.

Either post evidence of me ever "stalking" anyone on the Internet (following someone around) or retract this libel.

[Poptech]

Keep telling yourself that.

Because it's better to think that, than to think someone you admire might not be worth admiring, but rather should pitied, or even feared.
Your reason for attempting to demonize me is clear from this post. At least you have conceded by this behavior that you cannot debate me.

[Poptech]

I don't know what he would do.

The kind of lack of empathy inherent in such a person means that he won't have any of the normal inhibitions to all sorts of things.

Like I said, creepy.
ROFLMAO! Your delusions continue. Just because I do not care if I hurt your "feelings" online does not translate into wishing anyone physical harm in real life. The only thing disturbing is your sick vendetta to demonize me this way.

[Poptech]

I stopped debating you awhile ago. Your train of thought is easy to see because you catalog enough of it publicly.
You stopped debating me because you cannot. My train of thought it consistently rational.


You are also not the only person that I have had experience that behaves like you do. I did not just pull that disorder out of a hat.
I am sure you tried to demonize others with lies when you have been unable to debate them as well.


Psychologists do their science in a way that you can appreciate. They catalog all of the various 'behaviors' and define them and then try to categorize them. They take special notice in those that they deem to be antisocial. Now one of these categories of antisocial behavior is NPD.
Actually I do not appreciate the way psychologists do their "science" and desperate people then misuse it to smear others.


All of this is a a collection of traits they have found within a number of people that they too have studied. Now you may 'think' that you have such and such disorder but the fact is that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can both have this particular disorder and exhibit antisocial behavior.
Do you have a special badge I should wear that states I am an introvert? Or are you just mad that I do not accept your lies about me and do not wish to be friendly with people who do? This is where you have to go to when you get defeated in an argument, instead of accepting it.


I can only imagine what those other bloggers thought when you posted their particular entries in your 'Truth' series. Pipe bombs and criminals.
So you continue to lie that I mentioned "pipe bombs" anywhere? Are you in denial that Lefebvre was found guilty of money laundering?

NETeller ex-directors on money laundering charges (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/01/16/us-crime-neteller-idUSN1622302920070116) (Reuters, January 16, 2007)


Now look I know that you are once again going to do a line by line response and you are going to deny all of this and you are more than a little scary so rather than continue doing this I am going to put you on ignore. I just want to say 3 things before I go.
The failed attempts at demonization continues.


First, be careful with WC. He seems to have a thing for you. He has been preening for you all day. He stalks people too.
Do these desperate tactics really work? What I have seen is that he simply agrees with me on these issues.


Second, I am sorry for the way that I have treated you. I have intentionally pushed your buttons and mocked you for it. That was very poor form.
The only thing you should be apologizing for is your repeated lies.


Finally, please go and get some help. Re-read that survey and think about what you wrote. Take that to any shrink; they will concur. If you have people you trust then show it to them. Show it to someone.
Thanks for the ultimate confession of having lost the argument.

[MannyIsGod]

Issues.

[Wild Cobra]

I know it and its been known in the climate community because scientists also know where the water is. Analyzing data from the GRACE satellite has shown exactly where the water is and it does not help your case one bit. This is why sea level change is not analyzed on a year to year basis but as a trend (just like temp and all over climate data).
I know that people are studying it. It's a constant project. Where do you think I found the info? I just figured those who are indoctrinating you may not have told you. Hence, the question, meaning "do any of you..."

Yes, I recall seeing this mentioned before. I don't recall the levels being more than 5 mm though. Naturally it's because of more rain.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel2/sl_ns_global.png (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel2-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed)

LOL @ you thinking that people who study this don't know.
LOL at your one again incorrect assumption of what I think. And yes, I saw data from Grace as well.

Should I just wait for you to tell me what I am thinking all the time since you claim to be an expert psychic?

[boutons_deux]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen81ModelvsObs.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479652/lessons-from-past-predictions-hansen-1981/

[DarrinS]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen81ModelvsObs.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479652/lessons-from-past-predictions-hansen-1981/


Thinkprogress and graph from cartoonist climate blog in one post.

Bravo

[RandomGuy]

Thinkprogress and graph from cartoonist climate blog in one post.

Bravo

Is it incorrect because it is on that website and the author is a "cartoonist" with a blog?

[RandomGuy]

Anyone know why the sea level dropped by 5 mm in 2011? Do you guys know it did, or do your alarmist outlets not tell you such things?

I generally don't read websites that talk about how much/little the sea rose/sank in a given year.

I get no data either way.

One would expect variances in long term trends.

If it continues to drop over ten years, then it becomes a bit more meaningful.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of which.

Atmospheric CO2 as measured at the Muana Loa observatory at the start of the thread, in October 2010:

387.18

Current Atmopheric CO2, same station, March 2012:

394.45

This thread has been going on long enough to see changes, as measured.


CO2 when I joined Spurstalk, 2005:
382.14

CO2 concentration when I graduated highschool, circa 1988
354

CO2 when I was born, circa 1970:
324

Dataset can be found in an Excel spreadheet:

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/noaa-mauna-loa-co2-data.html


Nifty.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thinkprogress and graph from cartoonist climate blog in one post.

Bravo

Lack of anything resembling a persuasive argument. Ridicule and ad hominem in one statement.

Bravo.

is there even any evidence that the latter lies like you do?

[Wild Cobra]

I generally don't read websites that talk about how much/little the sea rose/sank in a given year.

I get no data either way.

One would expect variances in long term trends.

If it continues to drop over ten years, then it becomes a bit more meaningful.
Yes, that's all it was. A short term anomaly. It's back to it's normal trend. Still, I have a hard time when people like to claim it's from CO2, when so many other factors play a roll. I say it's impossible for them to have an educated guess of the level changes by CO2 warming when the other levels are not accounted for.

[MannyIsGod]

Thinkprogress and graph from cartoonist climate blog in one post.

Bravo

:lol Tell me again how you care about the science??!?!?!?

[RandomGuy]

5WvasALL-hw

[RandomGuy]

I gotz da youtoobz now.

[RandomGuy]

:lol Tell me again how you care about the science??!?!?!?

If you get the chance, here is a good bit that outlines the diffrences between skepticism, and irrational denial:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

Browsing through these links, it strikes me as having a close parallel to a lot of 9-11 or creationist debunker websites and clearinghouses.

The more time one spends on the merry-go-round, the easier it is to see who is being reasonable and who is not.

[DarrinS]

Browsing through these links, it strikes me as having a close parallel to a lot of 9-11 or creationist debunker websites and clearinghouses.


You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
:rolleyes

Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.

[RandomGuy]

Of course, when you are dealing with ideologic nutjobs, you have to keep in the back of your head, they are fighting, to them, a direct battle between good and evil.

The ends start justifying the means at that point.

Skeptical Science [a website devoted to climate science] hacked, private user details publicly posted online


Sometime over the last few days, the Skeptical Science website has been hacked. The hacker has taken much or all of the Skeptical Science database, zipped various excerpts into a single file, uploaded the file onto a Russian website then linked to the zip file from various blogs. While we are still attempting to verify the authenticity of the file, initial scans seem to indicate the hacker has included the entire database of Skeptical Science users. Access to the full database (which includes private details) is restricted only to myself and I am the only one with access to all of the raw data - this fact alone indicates that this breach of privacy came in the form of an external hack rather than from within Skeptical Science itself.

Of great concern is the fact that the hacker has published personal details such as emails and IP addresses of each user. Many users for various reasons have posted under pseudonyms and the Skeptical Science Comments Policy forbids cyberstalking. Consequently, that the private details of every Skeptical Science user has been stolen and publicly posted is a deeply regretable and unfortunate occurence.

Although user passwords are encrypted in the database, it is unknown whether the hacker has been successful in decrypting passwords. As a safeguard, it is highly recommended that everyone update their user passwords. You can do this via the Update Profile form.

Rest assured, we are working hard to upgrade Skeptical Science's security in order to more robustly protect users' private details. We are also in the process of soliciting legal advice on these matters and contacting the appropriate authorities. We would like to thank those who have come to us with information about this hack and those who have decided against spreading the aforementioned files (e.g. Anthony Watts). We all believe that protecting the privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance and we would hope that all illegally obtained documents and files are removed from uploaded servers and disposed of.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptical-Science-hacked-private-user-details-publicly-posted-online.html

This is not the kind of thing that an honest, ethical skeptic would undertake.

Honestly, it smacks to me of borderline terrorism, wherein really unethical things are done by people who have rationalized all sorts of unethical behavior in order to acheive a political goal.

[RandomGuy]

You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
:rolleyes

Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.

It is out there if you cared to look. I don't think you are not being honest about that, either to me, or to yourself. Sorry.

What does it say to you that the people who deal with moon hoaxers, twoofers, creationists, etc. think that people who are denying AGW tend to seem to them like the same kind of people?

I am not the only one to come to this conclusion, and I came to it completely independently of anyone else, before discovering I wasn't the only one who thinks this way.

[MannyIsGod]

You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
:rolleyes

Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.

Liar. Without strong feedbacks, we wouldn't have glacials and interglacials. But yeah, you're much smarter than most scientists and they just have it wrong.

[DarrinS]

Really compelling arguments. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Liar. Without strong feedbacks, we wouldn't have glacials and interglacials. But yeah, you're much smarter than most scientists and they just have it wrong.

All these feedback's still are positive or negative feedback from the source of the energy.

Our sun...

Any changes in our sun have a similar change at the output of all these feedback processes.

[MannyIsGod]

Wrong. Again.

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong. Again.
Then they are not feedbacks.

[RandomGuy]

Really compelling arguments. :lol

At this point I have concluded that no amount of evidence I could present to you would reach a level you would find "compelling".

You have moved beyond being reasoned with into a level of belief in what amounts to a conspiracy theory, a slave to your own biases.

If you were an honest skeptic, you would seek out this evidence. I have seen enough to be reasonably assured it exists, browsed through some of it, and that the scientists involved aren't making it up.

You will not change your mind, so why should I bother with arguments you will never find compelling?

More to the point, what does it say to you that the people that argue with twoofers, moon hoaxers, etc, find that the people they talk to on those subjects seem to then to be the same types of people that buy into AGW denial?

It should say that they might have a point, given their experience in dealing with people obviously removed from reason. A reasonable person would then ask themselves if they missed something, or question their starting assumptions.

Given that you repeat, over and over, the same debunked, specious, arguments, just like mouse does, long after they have been shown to be either logically, or factually flawed, what should I conclude?

That you are nothing alike?

If you dont' want to be in the corner with them, stop acting like them.

[Wild Cobra]

At this point I have concluded that no amount of evidence I could present to you would reach a level you would find "compelling".

Maybe you should find something that is actually compelling!

[RandomGuy]

Maybe you should find something that is actually compelling!

I can see all of that went right over your head.

There is some very compelling information out there, if you can see past your own biases.

One of the keys to understanding other people is understanding one's self.

Our studies of the way that human brains develop a sense of self/other, is that we use ourselves as a basis for understanding others.

I think that a lot of people who buy into AGW denial know they are biased at some level, consciously or subconsciously, and they process everything though those biases with very strong filters on what they can accept as real.

They therefore subconsiously build on this knowledge of their own selves and project this same kind of limiting bias, and unability to see beyond their biases onto others.

"I know I think this way, so therefore people who don't believe as I do, must think this way too, they just can't see past their own biases to get at the truth that I have established for myself".

It just seems to me that all the claims of evil scientists and politicians looking to make up AGW, and then use it to expand their power base is pure projection.


Again, my 2 cents. The information is there if you bother looking.

[Wild Cobra]

I can see all of that went right over your head.

There is some very compelling information out there, if you can see past your own biases.

Says the random guy on the street who hasn't researched it like I have. Pick any one of the AGW argumnets, lay out their basic argument based with their research method, and I will tell you why people should be skeptical of it.


One of the keys to understanding other people is understanding one's self.

Our studies of the way that human brains develop a sense of self/other, is that we use ourselves as a basis for understanding others.

Are you assuming here? Assuming that you can apply the way people's brains work universally across all people?


I think that a lot of people who buy into AGW denial know they are biased at some level, consciously or subconsciously, and they process everything though those biases with very strong filters on what they can accept as real.

Who's saying anything about denial? Please... where have I ever denied AGW exists? the only thing I deny is the degree to which the AGW community claims CO2 has an effect.


They therefore subconsiously build on this knowledge of their own selves and project this same kind of limiting bias, and unability to see beyond their biases onto others.

Since when does psychology equal fact, especially when you are speaking of a statistical scenario?


"I know I think this way, so therefore people who don't believe as I do, must think this way too, they just can't see past their own biases to get at the truth that I have established for myself".

Yes, it happens. Again, facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.


It just seems to me that all the claims of evil scientists and politicians looking to make up AGW, and then use it to expand their power base is pure projection.

Again, my 2 cents. The information is there if you bother looking.

Make up, no. Exploit and exaggerate, yes.

[DarrinS]

At this point I have concluded that no amount of evidence I could present to you would reach a level you would find "compelling".



In case you forgot, I asked where I can find evidence of strong, positive climate feedback and you replied this:




It is out there if you cared to look. I don't think you are not being honest about that, either to me, or to yourself. Sorry.

What does it say to you that the people who deal with moon hoaxers, twoofers, creationists, etc. think that people who are denying AGW tend to seem to them like the same kind of people?

I am not the only one to come to this conclusion, and I came to it completely independently of anyone else, before discovering I wasn't the only one who thinks this way.




Throw me a link. That's all I ask.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
:rolleyes

Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.

Why? We can just wait for you not to read something but post it anyway that says that warming is not really happening. You are going to argue for what you think is a conclusion rather than logic. You always have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then they are not feedbacks.

Either that or you lack the ability to think critically and see how things interrelate beyond what you have had your hand held throughout the explanation the whole way through.

You lack intuition; that much is obvious.

[RandomGuy]

In case you forgot, I asked where I can find evidence of strong, positive climate feedback and you replied this:

Throw me a link. That's all I ask.

https://www.google.com/



Yuk, yuk, yuk.

Tell me why I should bother first. I am convinced that you will ignore such evidence if I presented it to you, or dismiss it outright.

(edit)

This assumes you were qualified to evaluate it. You aren't.

Hell, I'm not.

Both are sort of beside the point.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+strong%2C+positive+climate+fe edback

Astonishing.

[DarrinS]

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+strong%2C+positive+climate+fe edback

Astonishing.



http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/




State changes have triggers, or "tipping points," that are related to feedback processes. In what's probably the single largest uncertainty in climate science, scientists don't have much confidence that they know what those triggers are.

[DarrinS]

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+strong%2C+positive+climate+fe edback

Astonishing.

lol, just read the first hit from that Google search.

It's all unsettled shit -- sorry to burst your bubble.

[RandomGuy]

lol, just read the first hit from that Google search.

It's all unsettled shit -- sorry to burst your bubble.

Debunked specious argument.

Sorry mouse. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a good argument the 99th time, any more than it was the first time.

If you don't know why that argument is flawed, google is that way.

I am not going to try to convince you. It is a waste of my time, and we both know it.

You have made up your mind, and NOTHING will ever convince you otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

Debunked, specious argument.

Sorry mouse, saying it 99 times doesn't make it a good argument the 99th time any more than it was the 1st time.

[DarrinS]

Debunked specious argument.

Sorry mouse. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a good argument the 99th time, any more than it was the first time.

If you don't know why that argument is flawed, google is that way.

I am not going to try to convince you. It is a waste of my time, and we both know it.

You have made up your mind, and NOTHING will ever convince you otherwise.


Now you are just lying. We need more data before we can say anything about feedbacks with any degree of confidence. Even the IPCC says they don't fully understand how to model clouds and how they change the Earth's albedo.

[DarrinS]

Nice to see that Random has resorted to this

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/11/128839900466329911.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now you are just lying. We need more data before we can say anything about feedbacks with any degree of confidence. Even the IPCC says they don't fully understand how to model clouds and how they change the Earth's albedo.

Again he has discussed handling uncertanties in risk analysis. weighting possible outcomes and all that sort of thing.

thats not lying; thats you being stupid in not keeping up with the same fucking discussion we have had for years now.

[DarrinS]

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You going to make an argument on your own or you just going to throw more shit at the wall?

A few questions.

1) Does that satellite data include the adjustments made by the NSF?
2) What model or models comprise the 'climate models' that he uses in his charts?
3) What makes the determination of the 'BEST' estimate?
4) Is the author capable of demonstrating climate 'trends' for the ocean for periods greater than 5 years?

We have had this discussion before, sophist. And it was nice for you to once again contradict yourself with your regurgitation of the position that the warming is not happening.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507151209.htm


New Research Brings Satellite Measurements and Global Climate Models Closer

ScienceDaily (May 7, 2012) — One popular climate record that shows a slower atmospheric warming trend than other studies contains a data calibration problem, and when the problem is corrected the results fall in line with other records and climate models, according to a new University of Washington study.

The finding is important because it helps confirm that models that simulate global warming agree with observations, said Stephen Po-Chedley, a UW graduate student in atmospheric sciences who wrote the paper with Qiang Fu, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.

They identified a problem with the satellite temperature record put together by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Researchers there were the first to release such a record, in 1989, and it has often been cited by climate change skeptics to cast doubt on models that show the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

In their paper, appearing this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Po-Chedley and Fu examined the record from the researchers in Alabama along with satellite temperature records that were subsequently developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Remote Sensing Systems.

Scientists like Po-Chedley and Fu have been studying the three records because each comes to a different conclusion.

"There's been a debate for many, many years about the different results but we didn't know which had a problem," Fu said. "This discovery reduces uncertainty, which is very important."

When they applied their correction to the Alabama-Huntsville climate record for a UW-derived tropospheric temperature measurement, it effectively eliminated differences with the other studies.

Scientists already had noticed that there were issues with the way the Alabama researchers handled data from NOAA-9, one satellite that collected temperature data for a short time in the mid-1980s. But Po-Chedley and Fu are the first to offer a calculation related to the NOAA-9 data for adjusting the Alabama findings, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"It should therefore make for a better record, as long as UAH accepts it," he said.

To come up with the correction, Po-Chedley and Fu closely examined the way the three teams interpreted readings from NOAA-9 and compared it to data collected from weather balloons about the temperature of the troposphere.

They found that the Alabama research incorrectly factors in the changing temperature of the NOAA-9 satellite itself and devised a method to estimate the impact on the Alabama trend.

Like how a baker might use an oven thermometer to gauge the true temperature of an oven and then adjust the oven dial accordingly, the researchers must adjust the temperature data collected by the satellites.

That's because the calibration of the instruments used to measure Earth's temperature is different after the satellites are launched, and because the satellite readings are calibrated by the temperature of the satellite itself. The groups have each separately made their adjustments in part by comparing the satellite's data to that of other satellites in service at the same time.

Once Po-Chedley and Fu apply the correction, the Alabama-Huntsville record shows 0.21 F warming per decade in the tropics since 1979, instead of its previous finding of 0.13 F warming. Surface measurements show the temperature of Earth in the tropics has increased by about 0.21 F per decade.

The Remote Sensing Systems and NOAA reports continue to reflect warming of the troposphere that's close to the surface measurements, with warming of 0.26 F per decade and 0.33 F respectively.

The discrepancy among the records stems from challenges climate researchers face when using weather satellites to measure the temperature of the atmosphere. The records are a composite of over a dozen satellites launched since late 1978 that use microwaves to determine atmospheric temperature.

However, stitching together data collected by those satellites to discover how the climate has changed over time is a complicated matter. Other factors scientists must take into account include the satellite's drift over time and differences in the instruments used to measure atmospheric temperature on board each satellite.

The temperature reports look largely at the troposphere, which stretches from the surface of Earth to around 10 miles above it, where most weather occurs. Climate models show that this region of the atmosphere will warm considerably due to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, scientists expect that in some areas, such as over the tropics, the troposphere will warm faster than the surface of Earth.

The paper does not resolve all the discrepancies among the records, and researchers will continue to look at ways to reconcile those conflicts.

"It will be interesting to see how these differences are resolved in the coming years," Po-Chedley said.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and NOAA.

[MannyIsGod]

Then they are not feedbacks.

A feedback does not need to respond in a linear fashion for it to be a feedback. For instance, a rather obvious one is the aldedo from sea ice and ice sheets. Warming of the planet will melt the ice, lowering the albedo, raising the temp further, melting more ice and repeating the positive feedback cycle.

However, there is a finite amount of ice and once it is gone the feedback stops. That does not somehow disqualify it from being a feedback.

[MannyIsGod]

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

Um yes, but why do they know they exsist? Can YOU explain the glaciation cycles and past earth climates without large feedback responses?

Just do so, and I'll become a skeptic.

[DarrinS]

Um yes, but why do they know they exsist? Can YOU explain the glaciation cycles and past earth climates without large feedback responses?

Just do so, and I'll become a skeptic.


Milankovitch cycles
Solar output

[MannyIsGod]

Oh really? Milankovitch cycles don't change the net insolation on earth, genius. They change the timing of it on an annual basis but you still recieve the exact same of energy of the sun otherwise.

You should see the seaonal insolation change from the 100k year cycle too. Its virtually non existant yet the largest glaciation cycles are on that timescale. I wonder why? Feedbacks, maybe?

Please though, post some more that shows how much of an ignorant moron you are. Please.

What changes in solar output have can explain climate change of the past? To what extent. I'll give you the maunder min so we can skip that one (although that wasn't just solar either I will digress)?

Please, explain to me that and how Milankovitch cycles don't need feedbacks.

Thanks, I'm eager to jump over the skeptic side and your great science based arguments will do the trick.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+strong%2C+positive+climate+fe edback

Astonishing.
So instead of being able to summarize a study, you ask us to believe what you haven't seen yet?

[Wild Cobra]

A feedback does not need to respond in a linear fashion for it to be a feedback.

No shit Sherlock. How long did it take you to learn that?


For instance, a rather obvious one is the aldedo from sea ice and ice sheets. Warming of the planet will melt the ice, lowering the albedo, raising the temp further, melting more ice and repeating the positive feedback cycle.

True. But what is the source energy for that feedback to occur? If the original source energy changes, are you suggesting the feedback energy does not change?


However, there is a finite amount of ice and once it is gone the feedback stops. That does not somehow disqualify it from being a feedback.

I find it amazing that you think a piddly-ass small change on temperature has more of an effect on ice than soot does. I find it amazing that the insignificant increase of downward radiation from increasing CO2 with black-body temperatures below freezing have as much of an effect as soot.

What do your satellite studies tell of of arctic sea ice from 1850 to present day?

Oh wait... that's right... you have no such studies to rule out soot, solar changes, clearing of skies from the 1970's and forward EPA changes, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

No shit Sherlock. How long did it take you to learn that?


:lmao Apparently before you since you just implied it above, moron.



True. But what is the source energy for that feedback to occur? If the original source energy changes, are you suggesting the feedback energy does not change?


Um, why would they call it a FEEDBACK then? YOU are the one who made the claim that CO2 creates energy. I'm not a complete moron, like you.



I find it amazing that you think a piddly-ass small change on temperature has more of an effect on ice than soot does. I find it amazing that the insignificant increase of downward radiation from increasing CO2 with black-body temperatures below freezing have as much of an effect as soot.

What do your satellite studies tell of of arctic sea ice from 1850 to present day?

Oh wait... that's right... you have no such studies to rule out soot, solar changes, clearing of skies from the 1970's and forward EPA changes, etc.

I find it amazing you still can't figure out that the north pole sits on an ocean. Also, of course there are studies to rule those things out.

I wouldn't trust you to spell your name on a form correctly. That is how often you're wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao Apparently before you since you just implied it above, moron.

The closest I have said in the past is "near linear" or to that effect. That is not the same as linear. In any short movement range, you can use a simplified linear evaluation, but only for small changes. The larger the change, the more accuracy is lost.


Um, why would they call it a FEEDBACK then? YOU are the one who made the claim that CO2 creates energy. I'm not a complete moron, like you.

I have never claimed CO2 creates energy. That is your misinterpretation of my words. Feedback has to have energy to start with. If the source of the energy for a feedback system changes, then so does the power of the feedback. In general, if the sun increases intensity by 0.1%, then the feedback energy will also be increased by approximately 0.1%. I don't think you are understanding that fact.


I find it amazing you still can't figure out that the north pole sits on an ocean. Also, of course there are studies to rule those things out.

I do know that. Out of the several differences, am I suppose to guess what you mean when the topic was limited to sea ice? Why can't you clarify what specifically you mean when asked? Two readily noticeable differences is that the land surrounds most of the norther ice, and the ice surrounds the land in the southern hemisphere. The other is that nearly all the norther ice is within the Arctic Circle and the ice in the sea south is mostly outside the Antarctic circle.

What difference do you want to focus on?

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.

In a feedback system, changes to the property that causes feedback is seldom linear. In the case of greenhouse gasses, it is primarily logarithmic. However, what is not linear is the percentage of positive or negative amplification in the feedback equation. If I change the input to the feedback, like the solar input changing, then the output is a very near linear relationship to the input.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.


:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
Too bad you're incapable of having a rational discussion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.

In a feedback system, changes to the property that causes feedback is seldom linear. In the case of greenhouse gasses, it is primarily logarithmic. However, what is not linear is the percentage of positive or negative amplification in the feedback equation. If I change the input to the feedback, like the solar input changing, then the output is a very near linear relationship to the input.

Who gives a shit? All you are showing is that solar input is easy to quantify.

Its funny that you think that scientists haven't considered the simple shit that you come up with.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know how much simpler I can put it but the output of a feedback is not necessarily linear to the input from the sun.

[RandomGuy]

Now you are just lying. We need more data before we can say anything about feedbacks with any degree of confidence. Even the IPCC says they don't fully understand how to model clouds and how they change the Earth's albedo.

Accusing me of lying isn't going to make me less weary of presenting you with reasoned arguments and having them be completely ignored.

Sorry. Been doing that for years.

(edit)

Again, if you want to see why that argument has been debunked, spend some time on websites you disagree with. Every single point that the pseudoscientist deniers have brought up has been more than adequately addressed to any reasonable reading in multiple places.

[RandomGuy]

Nice to see that Random has resorted to this

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/11/128839900466329911.jpg

Dude, this whole thread is you doing precisely that to everything given to you. Every time a weakness in your arguments is pointed out, you simply ignore that and move on,.

Tell you what, let's try a different tack.

How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?

[MannyIsGod]

This whole soot idea is such bullshit is an example of WC simply grasping at straws in an abject refusal to admit scientists actually know more than him. You would think the ice was black the way he talks about it.

Its not soot thats melting the Artic Sea Ice, its the god damn warm waters underneath it. SSTs in the Arctic ocean are normally higher than those of the Southern Ocean but they've been at record levels in recent years. This is what drove all the melting last season.

Furthermore, the ice volume has dropped off consistently every single year. You may get recovery to a higher level of areal extent, but the new ice is thinner than each previous year which is why the total volume is a much better representation of how much ice there actually is.

And yes, research has been done into quantifying the soot contribution. Its not negligible at all, but to act as if it is a greater player than GHG is ridiculous.

PS My last final was earlier this week and I have a few weeks to do some "fun" reading before I start summer classes. Its probably going to consist of scientific papers. FML.

[RandomGuy]

So instead of being able to summarize a study, you ask us to believe what you haven't seen yet?

There is a vast gulf between not wanting to waste one's time putting together something worthwhile, only to have it ignored or dismissed completely, and being unable to put together something worthhwhile.

I am unwilling, not unable.

I have long ago made the case for the OP, in the way that people who want to deny that we are having any affect on our global climate approach the science.

If I feel I have made my case that the majority of people who call themselves skeptics are not approaching the subject with any objectivity or fairness, why continue to talk about the science with people who won't change their mind no matter what?

[RandomGuy]

This whole soot idea is such bullshit is an example of WC simply grasping at straws in an abject refusal to admit scientists actually know more than him. You would think the ice was black the way he talks about it.

Its not soot thats melting the Artic Sea Ice, its the god damn warm waters underneath it. SSTs in the Arctic ocean are normally higher than those of the Southern Ocean but they've been at record levels in recent years. This is what drove all the melting last season.

Furthermore, the ice volume has dropped off consistently every single year. You may get recovery to a higher level of areal extent, but the new ice is thinner than each previous year which is why the total volume is a much better representation of how much ice there actually is.

And yes, research has been done into quantifying the soot contribution. Its not negligible at all, but to act as if it is a greater player than GHG is ridiculous.

PS My last final was earlier this week and I have a few weeks to do some "fun" reading before I start summer classes. Its probably going to consist of scientific papers. FML.

Cool, congrats on finishing the semester!

[MannyIsGod]

Also,

The sources for soot happen to be the exact same as those for CO2. However, the dirtier Asian emmiters are also pumping out a lot of compounds that form aerosols that are actually blocking out incoming solar radiation.

[RandomGuy]

Too bad CO2 lags temperature by about 1000 years. This throws your theory into the trash.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf

8nrvrkVBt24

This bit addresses WC's ocean/CO2 bits as well.

This series is good because he goes to the science used by deniers, and (gasp) actually reads it, and, in this case, talks directly to the climate scientist involved.

Nifty.

[DarrinS]

8nrvrkVBt24

This bit addresses WC's ocean/CO2 bits as well.

This series is good because he goes to the science used by deniers, and (gasp) actually reads it, and, in this case, talks directly to the climate scientist involved.

Nifty.


You realize that your video contradicts the paper linked by Manny, right?




Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3+-1.0 ka

[RandomGuy]

You realize that your video contradicts the paper linked by Manny, right?

You realize you are wrong about that, right?


(edit)

You didn't watch the whole thing, did you?

[DarrinS]

You realize you are wrong about that, right?

http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf

[RandomGuy]

http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf

https://www.google.com/

[RandomGuy]

Dude, this whole thread is you doing precisely that to everything given to you. Every time a weakness in your arguments is pointed out, you simply ignore that and move on,.

Tell you what, let's try a different tack.

How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?

@Darrin

Again, let's try a diffrent tack.

How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?

Step me through your process.

[DarrinS]

Again, let's try a diffrent tack.

How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?

Step me through your process.


Why are you posting to yourself?

[DarrinS]

And Manny would also think that video is retarded because it talks a lot about Milankovitch cycles causing ice ages.

[RandomGuy]

Why are you posting to yourself?

Both posts were directed at you.

How do you determine what is a reasonable argument and what isn't, generally speaking?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am still waiting to hear his response to UW and NSF's corrections to the satellite temperature readings. He accuses other people of ignoring points but what do you want to bet within the next month or so he posts more of the uncorrected satellite data?

[DarrinS]

I am still waiting to hear his response to UW and NSF's corrections to the satellite temperature readings. He accuses other people of ignoring points but what do you want to bet within the next month or so he posts more of the uncorrected satellite data?


If there's something wrong with it, they should correct it. That applies to satellite data and land data.

[DarrinS]

Oh, by the way

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/christy-and-spencer-our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/





by John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer
University of Alabama in Huntsville

A new paper by Stephen Po-Chedley and Quang Fu (2012) (hereafter PCF) was sent to us at the end of April 2012 in page-proof form as an article to appear soon in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. The topic of the paper is an analysis of a single satellite’s impact on the rarely-used, multi-satellite deep-layer global temperature of the mid-troposphere or TMT. Some of you have been waiting for our response, but this was delayed by the fact that one of us (J. Christy) was out of the country when the UW press release was issued and just returned on Tuesday the 8th.

There are numerous incorrect and misleading assumptions in this paper. Neither one of us was aware of the paper until it was sent to us by Po-Chedley two weeks ago, so the paper was written and reviewed in complete absence of the authors of the dataset itself. In some cases this might be a normal activity, but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved, it is clear that PCF did not have a sufficient understanding of the construction methodology.

By way of summary, here are our main conclusions regarding the new PCF paper:

1) the authors’ methodology is qualitative and irreproducible

2) the author’s are uninformed on the complexity of the UAH satellite merging algorithm



3) the authors use the RSS (Remotes Sensing Systems) satellite dataset as “verification” for their proposed UAH NOAA-9 calibration target adjustment for TMT, but barely mention that their TLT (lower tropospheric) results are insignificant and that trends are essentially identical between UAH and RSS without any adjustment in the NOAA-9 calibration coefficient

4) the authors neglected the main TMT differences among the datasets – and instead try to explain the UAH v. RSS trend difference by only two years of NOAA-9 data, while missing all of the publications which document other issues such as RSS problems with applying the diurnal correction.

The paper specifically claims to show that a calibration target coefficient of one satellite, NOAA-9, should be a value different than that calculated directly from empirical data in UAH’s version of the dataset. With an adjustment to the time series guesstimated by PCF, this increases the UAH overall global trend by +0.042 °C/decade. Their new UAH trend, being +0.042 warmer, then becomes the same as the TMT trend from RSS. This, they conclude, indicates a verification of their exercise.

More importantly, with regard to the most publicized UAH dataset, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), there was no similar analysis done by PCF – an indication that their re-calculations would not support their desired outcome for this dataset, as we shall demonstrate below.

All of this will soon be moot, anyway. Since last year we have been working on v6.0 of the UAH datasets which should be ready with the tropospheric temperature datasets before summer is out. These will include (1) a new, more defensible objective empirical calculation to correct for the drift of the satellites through the diurnal cycle, and (2) a new hot calibration target effective emissivity adjustment which results in better agreement between simultaneously operating satellites at the calibration step, making the post-calibration hot-target adjustment PCF criticizes unnecessary. So, since our new v6.0 dataset is close to completion and submission for publication, we have chosen this venue to document PCF’s misinformation in a rather informal, but reproducible, way rather than bother to submit a journal rebuttal addressing the older dataset. However, to show that version 5.4 of our datasets was credible, we discuss these issues below.

The Lower Tropospheric Temperatures (TLT)

We shall return to TMT below, but most of the research and popular use of the UAH datasets have focused on the lower tropospheric temperature, or TLT (surface to about 300 hPa, i.e. without stratospheric impact). Thus, we shall begin our discussion with TLT because it is rightly seen as a more useful variable because it documents the bulk heat content of the troposphere with very little influence from the stratosphere. And [this is important in the TMT discussion] the same hot-target coefficients for NOAA-9 were used in TLT as in TMT.

PCF focused on the deep layer TMT, i.e. temperature of the surface to about 75 hPa, which includes quite a bit of signal above 300 hPa. As such, TMT includes a good portion of the lower stratosphere – a key weakness when utilizing radiosondes which went through significant changes and adjustments during this time. [This was a period when many stations converted to the Vaisala 80 radiosonde which introduced temperature shifts throughout the atmosphere (Christy and Norris 2004).]

As indicated in their paper, it seems PCF’s goal was to explain the differences in trend between RSS and UAH, but the history of this effort has always been to find error with UAH’s products rather than in other products (as we shall see below). With us shut out of the peer-review cycle it is easy to assume an underlying bias of the authors.

Lord Kelvin told us that “All science is numbers”, so here are some numbers. First, let’s look at the “global” trends of UAH and RSS for TLT (70S to 82.5N) for Jan 1979 to Apr 2012:

+0.137 °C/decade UAH LT (70S-82.5N)
+0.134 °C/decade RSS LT (70S-82.5N)

These trends are, for all practical purposes, identical. This, however, hides the fact that there are indeed differences between the two time series that, for one reason or another, are balanced out when calculating the linear trend over the entire 30+ year period. As several papers have documented (see Christy et al. 2011, or C11, for the list – by the way, C11 was not cited by PCF) the evidence indicates RSS contains a spurious warming in the 1990’s then a spurious cooling from around 2002 onward (note that the RSS temperature anomaly for last month, April, 2012, was 0.08°C cooler than our UAH anomaly).

This behavior arises, we believe, from an over-correction of the drift of the satellites by RSS (in the 1990’s the satellites drifted to cooler times of day, so the correction must add warming, and in the 2000’s the satellites drifted to warmer times of day so a correction is needed to cool things down.) These corrections are needed (except for the Aqua satellite operating since 2002, which has no diurnal drift and which we use as an anchor in the UAH dataset) but if not of the right magnitude they will easily affect the trend.

In a single paragraph, PCF admit that the UAH TLT time series has no significant hot-target relationship with radiosonde comparisons (which for TLT are more robust) over the NOAA-9 period. However, they then utilize circular reasoning to claim that since RSS and UAH have a bit of disagreement in that 2-year period, and RSS must be correct, that then means UAH has a problem. So, this type of logic, as stated by PCF, points to their bias – assume that RSS is correct which then implies UAH is the problem. This requires one to ignore the many publications that show the opposite.

Note too that in their press release, PCF claim that observations and models now are closer together for this key parameter (temperature of the bulk troposphere) if one artificially increases the trend in UAH data. This is a questionable claim as evidence shows TLT for CMIP3 and CMIP5 models averages about +0.26 °C/decade (beginning in 1979) whereas UAH *and* RSS datasets are slightly below +0.14 °C/decade, about a factor of 2 difference between models and observations. We shall let the reader decide if the PCF press-release claim is accurate.

The key point for the discussion here (and below) is that TLT uses the same hot-target coefficients as TMT, yet we see no problem related to it for the many evaluation studies we have published. Indeed this was the specific result found in Christy and Norris 2004 – again, work not cited by PCF.

The Mid-Tropospheric Temperature (TMT)

About 12 years ago we discovered that even though two different satellites were looking at the same globe at the same time, there were differences in their measurements beyond a simple bias (time-invariant offset). We learned that these were related to the variations in the temperature of the instrument itself. If the instrument warmed or cooled (differing solar angles as it orbited or drifted), so did the calculated temperature. We used the thermistors embedded in the hot-target plate to track the instrument temperature, hence the metric is often called the “hot target temperature coefficient.”

To compensate for this error, we devised a method to calculate a coefficient that when multiplied by the hot target temperature would remove this variation for each satellite. Note that the coefficients were calculated from the satellite data, they were not estimated in an ad hoc fashion.

The calculation of this coefficient depends on a number of things, (a) the magnitude of the already-removed satellite drift correction (i.e. diurnal correction), (b) the way the inter-satellite differences are smoothed, and (c) the sequence in which the satellites are merged.

Since UAH and RSS perform these processes differently, the coefficients so calculated will be different. Again recall that the UAH (and RSS) coefficients are calculated from a system of equations, they are not invented. The coefficients are calculated to produce the largest decrease in inter-satellite error characteristics in each dataset.

To make a long story short, PCF focused on the 26-month period of NOAA-9 operation, basically 1985-86. They then used radiosondes over this period to estimate the hot-target coefficient as +0.048 rather than UAH’s calculated value of +0.0986. [Note, the language in PCF is confusing, as we cannot tell if they conclude our coefficient is too high by 0.051 or should actually be 0.051. We shall assume they believe our coefficient is too high by 0.051 to give them the benefit of the doubt.]

Recall, radiosondes were having significant shifts with the levels monitored by TMT primarily with the switch to Vaisala 80 sondes, and so over small, 26-month periods, just about any result might be expected. [We reproduced PCF’s Fig. 2 using only US VIZ sondes (which had no instrument changes in the 26-month period and span the globe from the western tropical Pacific to Alaska to the Caribbean Sea) and found an explained variance of less than 4% - an insignificant value.]

Another problematic aspect of PCF’s methodology is that when looking at the merged time series, one does not see just NOAA-9’s influence, but the impact of all of the other satellites which provided data during 1985-86, i.e. NOAA-6, -7 and -8 as well. So, it is improper to assume one may pick out NOAA-9’s impact individually from the merged satellite series.

That PCF had little understanding of the UAH algorithm is demonstrated by the following simple test. We substituted the PCF value of +0.048 directly into our code. The increase in trend over our v5.4 TMT dataset was only +0.022 °C/decade for 1979-2009 (not 0.042), and +0.019 °C/decade for 1979-2012.

To put it another way, PCF overestimated the impact of the NOAA-9 coefficient by a factor of about 2 when they artificially reconstructed our dataset using 0.048 as the NOAA-9 coefficient. In fact, if we use an implausible target coefficient of zero, we still can’t return a trend difference greater than +0.037 °C/decade. Thus PCF have incorrectly assumed something about the construction methodology of our time series that gave them a result which is demonstrated here to be faulty.

In addition, by changing the coefficient to +0.048 in an ad hoc fashion, they create greater errors in NOAA-9’s comparisons to other satellites. Had they contacted us at any point about this, we would have helped them to understand the techniques. [There were 4 emails from Po-Chedley in Aug and Sep 2011, but this dealt with very basic facts about the dataset, not the construction methodology. Incidently, these emails were exchanged well after C11 was published.]

PCF brought in a third dataset, STAR, but this one uses the same diurnal corrections and sequential merging methodology as RSS, so it is not a truly independent test. As shown in C11, STAR is clearly the outlier for overall trend values due to a different method of debiasing the various satellite data and a differing treatment of the fundamental brightness temperature calibration.

We have additional information regarding UAH’s relatively low error statistics. Using radiosondes to evaluate microwave temperatures requires great care. In our tests, we concentrated on sondes which had documented characteristics and a high degree of consistency such as the US VIZ and Australian sondes. These comparisons have been published a number of times, but most recently updated in C11.

Here are the comparisons for the US VIZ radiosonde network (stretching from the western tropical Pacific to Alaska down across the conterminous US and to the Caribbean.) As you can see, UAH MT provides the lowest error magnitudes and highest reproducibility of the three data sets. Similar results were found for the Australian comparisons.



For data through April 2012 we have the following global TMT trends: UAH +0.045, RSS +0.079 and STAR +0.124 °C/decade. So, RSS, in the middle, is closer to UAH than STAR, yet PCF chose to examine UAH as the “problem” dataset. Had PCF wanted to pick some low-hanging fruit regarding the differences between UAH, RSS and STAR, they would have (a) looked at the diurnal differences between UAH and RSS (see publications) or (b) looked at a simple time series of differences between the three datasets (below). One thing that pops out is a spurious upward shift in STAR TMT relative to UAH and RSS of about +0.06 °C on precisely 1 Jan 2001 – an obvious beginning-of-year glitch. Why not look there?


The Bottom Line

In conclusion, we believe that the result in PCF was a rather uninformed attempt to find fault with the UAH global temperature dataset, using an ad hoc adjustment to a single, short-lived satellite while overlooking the greater problems which have been documented (published or as demonstrated in the figure above) regarding the other datasets.

And think about this. If PCF is correct that we should be using a revised NOAA-9 coefficient, and since we use the same coefficient in both TMT and TLT, then the near perfect agreement currently between RSS and UAH for TLT will disappear; our TLT trend will become warmer, and then RSS will have the lowest warming trend of all the satellite datasets. The authors of the new study cannot have it both ways, claiming their new adjustment brings RSS and UAH closer together for TMT (a seldom used temperature index), but then driving the UAH and RSS trends for TLT farther apart, leaving RSS with essentially the same warming trend that UAH had before.

Since it is now within 3 months of the publication cutoff for research to be included in the IPCC AR5, one is tempted to conclude that PCF will be well-received by the Lead Authors (some of whom are closely associated with the RSS dataset) without critical evaluation such as briefly performed here. However, we cannot predict what the AR5 outcome will be or, for that matter, what waning influence the IPCC might still exert.

That PCF brushed aside the fact that the UAH and RSS trends for the LOWER troposphere are essentially identical (for which the UAH NOAA-9 coefficient is the same) seems to us to be a diversionary tactic we have seen before: create a strawman problem which will allow the next IPCC report to make a dismissive statement about the validity of an uncooperative dataset with a minimum of evidence. We hope that rationality instead prevails.

References

Christy, J.R. and W. B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, No. 6.

Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and W.B Norris (deceased), 2011: The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 671-685, DOI:10.1080/01431161.2010.517803.

Po-Chedley, S. and Q. Fu, 2012: A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You realize that your video contradicts the paper linked by Manny, right?

No it does not you lazy sophist piece of shit. It accounts for M-cycles stating that the contribution due to increased exposure to radiation does not explain the historical temperature increase.

It discusses your lag and distinguishes between internal and external contributors. It also talks about empirical records of feedback mechanisms ie that when it gets hotter the ice melts which releases CO2, an internal factor, versus external anthropogenic sources.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, by the way

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/christy-and-spencer-our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/

So then the record is disputed?


Since UAH and RSS perform these processes differently, the coefficients so calculated will be different. Again recall that the UAH (and RSS) coefficients are calculated from a system of equations, they are not invented. The coefficients are calculated to produce the largest decrease in inter-satellite error characteristics in each dataset.

Thats the salient point and UAH does not really argue superiority he just moves onto other things.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, by the way


That didn't really answer my question.

How do you, Darrin, generally decide what is a reasonable argument or claim, and what is not?

What is your process?

Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just wonder if you have ever given any thought to it.

[RandomGuy]

No it does not you lazy sophist piece of shit. It accounts for M-cycles stating that the contribution due to increased exposure to radiation does not explain the historical temperature increase.

It discusses your lag and distinguishes between internal and external contributors. It also talks about empirical records of feedback mechanisms ie that when it gets hotter the ice melts which releases CO2, an internal factor, versus external anthropogenic sources.

We both seem to understand this. Darrin does not.

Personally I think he looked at the title of the video, and that was it. If that was all he did Darrin's statement makes sense.

[DarrinS]

No it does not you lazy sophist piece of shit.

Nice


It accounts for M-cycles stating that the contribution due to increased exposure to radiation does not explain the historical temperature increase.


ok




It discusses your lag and distinguishes between internal and external contributors. It also talks about empirical records of feedback mechanisms ie that when it gets hotter the ice melts which releases CO2, an internal factor, versus external anthropogenic sources.

My lag?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know how much simpler I can put it but the output of a feedback is not necessarily linear to the input from the sun.
Some are and some aren't.

[MannyIsGod]

And Manny would also think that video is retarded because it talks a lot about Milankovitch cycles causing ice ages.

No, it talks about Milankovitch triggering ice ages that would not otherwise be possible without FEEDBACKS. You know, the thing you discount completely.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah it was nice. After looking at Poptech's climate database, I got a new appreciation for just how much sophistry denial science is. He categorizes the arguments and his broken brain just spews out the header.

You do a lot of the same thing. How many times have we watched you just look at an article or video title and just paste that up. We have watched you go through the exact same headers that he does. You cite Poptech constantly and participate with his characterizations and sophistry along with him.

That's just how you roll.

[DarrinS]

No, it talks about Milankovitch triggering ice ages that would not otherwise be possible without FEEDBACKS. You know, the thing you discount completely.


I don't discount them completely.

[DarrinS]

Yeah it was nice. After looking at Poptech's climate database, I got a new appreciation for just how much sophistry denial science is. He categorizes the arguments and his broken brain just spews out the header.

You do a lot of the same thing. How many times have we watched you just look at an article or video title and just paste that up. We have watched you go through the exact same headers that he does. You cite Poptech constantly and participate with his characterizations and sophistry along with him.

That's just how you roll.


I posted Poptech's list exactly once in response to a question from Manny. Why must you lie?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Darrin focuses on the science. No really.

[DarrinS]

:lol Darrin focuses on the science. No really.


I've was working in science back when you and FuzzyTurd where sitting in your own shite diapers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I posted Poptech's list exactly once in response to a question from Manny. Why must you lie?

How many times have you brought up the picture of the cartoonist or discounted his input with that picture from Poptech's smear article?

That was hardly the first time you cited him. Unfortunately, its often hard to tell where you get stuff from because you omit or lie about the source.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't discount them completely.

You do. You say there is no evidence for strong feedback yet the glaciation cycles are compete evidence for strong feedbacks that are a reaction to nothing more than a reorganization of insolation on a monthly basis. The crazy thing is that we're talking huge swings in temp based on nothing more than a swing of 100 ppm regarding CO2 (from ~190 to ~280). There is huge evidence for strong feedbacks through out the entire paleoclimate record. The Younger Dryas is a more recent example of how feedbacks can cause sudden huge changes in the climate system.

Maybe you do and you don't discount them completely at the same time because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[MannyIsGod]

I've was working in science back when you and FuzzyTurd where sitting in your own shite diapers.

You think you might have learned something in that time. Then again, incorrect practice just makes for incorrect perfection.

The next time you actually are about the science in this thread will be the ffirst time.

[Wild Cobra]

This whole soot idea is such bullshit is an example of WC simply grasping at straws in an abject refusal to admit scientists actually know more than him.
Really?

What about the studies around it that explicitly state that is is causing arctic ice to melt faster?

What about the IPCC revising their number to a forcing of about three times stronger than in the AT4?

You would think the ice was black the way he talks about it.

It doesn't need to be black to melt faster. It only takes a light disting that is invisible to the naked eye to make large changes in the solar energy absorbed rather than reflected. Change the albedo from 90% to 80% and you just doubled the absorbed energy, however, you really don't notice the 11% reduction in reflected light.


Its not soot thats melting the Artic Sea Ice, its the god damn warm waters underneath it. SSTs in the Arctic ocean are normally higher than those of the Southern Ocean but they've been at record levels in recent years. This is what drove all the melting last season.

Yes, it takes time for the energy from increased solar irradiance to build up. It takes time for the ocean currents to move. The last major increase in the sun's output leveled off about 1950.


Furthermore, the ice volume has dropped off consistently every single year. You may get recovery to a higher level of areal extent, but the new ice is thinner than each previous year which is why the total volume is a much better representation of how much ice there actually is.

Yes, and isn't geothermal activity increasing? You have slightly warmer air which when still above freezing doesn't melt the ice. You have a light dusting of soot which is known beyond doubt to increase ice melt. You have geothermal factors


And yes, research has been done into quantifying the soot contribution. Its not negligible at all, but to act as if it is a greater player than GHG is ridiculous.

When I claim it's the 2nd largest contributor, it's because when you account for solar forcing, you either have to have so much more cooling from some factors, or the levels called for by CO2 simply are too high. There is no proper study to make the claim CO2 has the warming capacity claimed, and some studies claim it cools.


PS My last final was earlier this week and I have a few weeks to do some "fun" reading before I start summer classes. Its probably going to consist of scientific papers. FML.

Well, good luck. For your sake I hope I'm wrong, but I'll lay odds that much of what they teach you will be found incorrect over this next decade or two.

[Wild Cobra]

There is a vast gulf between not wanting to waste one's time putting together something worthwhile, only to have it ignored or dismissed completely, and being unable to put together something worthhwhile.

I am unwilling, not unable.

I have long ago made the case for the OP, in the way that people who want to deny that we are having any affect on our global climate approach the science.

If I feel I have made my case that the majority of people who call themselves skeptics are not approaching the subject with any objectivity or fairness, why continue to talk about the science with people who won't change their mind no matter what?
But that's your problem, isn't it.

We are not denying AGW.

We are only denying the level to which the AGW alarmists claim, and want their evidence proven before we believe them.

Any paper that shows they could be wrong should be taken serious, but it isn't. You have two good competing studies that show different things, and the alarmists have zero skepticism when it should be a clear red flag.

No...

The AGW community believes the Dogma of AGW instead of seeking the truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I bet you could find a header for each of WC's arguments in the crazy's database. Geothermal, lag, solar, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

Geofuckingthermal? REALLY? Have you learned nothing about the north pole?


Look at a god damn map.

Jesus Christ talking to you and Darrin is like talking to a couple of retarded kids.

[MannyIsGod]

Geofuckingthermal? REALLY? Have you learned nothing about the north pole?


Look at a god damn map.

Jesus Christ talking to you and Darrin is like talking to a couple of retarded kids.

[MannyIsGod]

I bet you could find a header for each of WC's arguments in the crazy's database. Geothermal, lag, solar, etc.

He's just throwing shit against a wall and trying to see what sticks. He just fucking tried geothermal in a conversation about northern sea ice. I mean what the flying fuck? Really?

[Wild Cobra]

8nrvrkVBt24

This bit addresses WC's ocean/CO2 bits as well.

This series is good because he goes to the science used by deniers, and (gasp) actually reads it, and, in this case, talks directly to the climate scientist involved.

Nifty.

Wow...

Just like all alarmists, they focus on CO2 and completely disregard the major greenhouse has...

Water vapor... To what effect would the minor increase in temperature play in global humidity? My God people... WAKE UP!

Have you noticed the assumption built upon assumptions...

Notice the words they use like "might," "could," "probably," etc...

I see nothing definitive about this video. Just more smooth manipulation of data and words.

[Wild Cobra]

You realize you are wrong about that, right?


(edit)

You didn't watch the whole thing, did you?
I watched the whole thing. Another real good piece of propaganda by a charlatan.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, by the way

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/christy-and-spencer-our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/
Nice find, but of course it will be dismissed for some erroneous reason.

There are no skeptics in AGW science. Skepticism, which all, scientists should be, are tared and feathered in the climate community.

[Wild Cobra]

Geofuckingthermal? REALLY? Have you learned nothing about the north pole?


Look at a god damn map.

Jesus Christ talking to you and Darrin is like talking to a couple of retarded kids.
Will you stop with the changing topic on your replies pleas. When you said volume, that includes the ice over land. I'm referring to Greenland and Antarctica. There have been reports of Greenland's geothermal levels increasing. I don't know about Antarctica.

Geothermal affects ice sheets and glaciers more than atmospheric temperature. Melts them from the bottom. Makes them more pliable to flow faster as well.

Haven't they taught you that fact in you classes?

[MannyIsGod]

You're now saying that sea ice doesn't have volume?

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Shit just gets better and better with each reply.

[Wild Cobra]

You're now saying that sea ice doesn't have volume?

:lmao
I didn't say that either.

I was wondering if I switched topics. With the loss of previous quotes on replies, it's hard to keep up.

Now I did just recently clarify Greenland and Antarctica... didn't I.

[Wild Cobra]

Shit just gets better and better with each reply.
I'll bet you're an expert at Twister.

http://www.toysrus.co.uk/medias/sys_master/8610584163497696.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I watched the whole thing. Another real good piece of propaganda by a charlatan.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, scientists never considered water vapor. :lmao
Sea ice has no volume. :lmao
Geothermal activity is melting sea ice :lmao

PS

The ocean is like a soda. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, scientists never considered water vapor. :lmao

There was no focus on it in the video. Only CO2.


Sea ice has no volume. :lmao

I never said that. that is you lying about what I say.


Geothermal activity is melting sea ice :lmao

I specified land ice. Why are you so stupid?


PS

The ocean is like a soda. :lmao

Do you realize how big of an idiot your are being?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh well shit if there was no mention of it in one youtube video certainly scientists have never considered it.

:lmao

Yeah, I'm being a huge idiot, WC. I realize it.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Oh well shit if there was no mention of it in one youtube video certainly scientists have never considered it.

:lmao

Yeah, I'm being a huge idiot, WC. I realize it.

:lmao
The no mention does matter. H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas. It is a lie by omission, making the viewer think that only increased CO2 can be the cause. Any starting changes in the earths temperature will increase the H2O content in the air also.

CO2 changes by what? Around 50%? H2O changes by more than that. If we go to the alarmist belief that CO2 increases temperature by 3C for doubling, then a 50% increase is about a 1C increase for CO2. However, the forcing of water vapor is at least 3 times that of CO2. Doubling of water vapor is at least 9C then.

Have you ever seen how the Water vapor content in the air changes over the earth during these long term changes?

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad CO2 lags temperature by about 1000 years. This throws your theory into the trash.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf


No it doesn't. It supports what I say.

Just how are you claiming it doesn't?

Did anyone even consider asking why is supported what I said?

Carefully consider the qualifiers and assumptions used in those studies.

[Poptech]

Yeah it was nice. After looking at Poptech's climate database, I got a new appreciation for just how much sophistry denial science is. He categorizes the arguments and his broken brain just spews out the header.

You do a lot of the same thing. How many times have we watched you just look at an article or video title and just paste that up. We have watched you go through the exact same headers that he does. You cite Poptech constantly and participate with his characterizations and sophistry along with him.

That's just how you roll.
Poor Fuzzy cannot handle the volume of science supporting skeptic arguments so he has to lie about and smear those who bested him in debates. People can read your failure to out debate me here, you will have to live with it.

[Poptech]

How many times have you brought up the picture of the cartoonist or discounted his input with that picture from Poptech's smear article?
Which cartoonist is that John Cook from Skeptical Science or Peter Sinclair AKA "Greenman" from YouTube? Unlike you Darrin prefers his science from climatologists like Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, John Christy and Roy Spencer. As has been established here, someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific field relevant to the subject or who has published on the subject is more likely to be knowledgeable about this subject. "Cartoonist" is not a scientific profession.

[Poptech]

Thats the salient point and UAH does not really argue superiority he just moves onto other things.
RSS looks superior in showing the 14-year cooling trend,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/to:2012/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2012/trend
Then again so does HADCRU,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/trend

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Yeah, I'm being a huge idiot, WC. I realize it.

:lmao
I'm not laughing about you being an idiot. I just hope you money being spent on a college education will get you somewhere. Who do you plan to work for anyway? An AGW team who any wants "yes men" who do and say what they want without question?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This message is hidden because Poptech is on your ignore list.

Why you ask?


Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors All Fail

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

[Poptech]

Good, he doesn't know what he is missing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think i am just going to troll Poptech and post that survey he was kind enough to fill out for us.

I really liked the part where he has no delusions but says that he thinks he has aspbergers similar to a billionaire hedge fund manager. I am surprised he didn't go with high functioning autism and Richard Dreyfuss.


Misdiagnosing Personality Disorders as Asperger's Disorder

In contrast, the Asperger's patient, though verbose at times (and taciturn on other occasions) has a far more limited range of tediously repetitive topics. People with Asperger's fail to observe conversational rules and etiquette (for instance, let others speak in turn). The Asperger's patient is unaware and, therefore, unable to decipher body language and external social and nonverbal cues and gestures. He is incapable of monitoring his own misbehavior. Psychopaths, narcissists, borderlines, schizotypals, histrionics, paranoids, and schizoids are similarly inconsiderate - but they control their behavior and are fully cognizant of reactions by others. They simply choose to ignore these data.

James Robert Brasic, MD, MPH (2003) Pervasive Developmental Disorder: Asperger Syndrome Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, Global Politician, PopMatters, eBookWeb , and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He was the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

http://www.defendmy.com/personality_disorder/85355/

[MannyIsGod]

:lol 12 year trend using 14 years of data.

:lol Cherry picking scientists.

:lol "12 year trend"

[Poptech]

I really liked the part where he has no delusions but says that he thinks he has aspbergers similar to a billionaire hedge fund manager. I am surprised he didn't go with high functioning autism and Richard Dreyfuss.
Because Michael Burry is brilliant and Richard Dreyfuss is an idiot.


Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.
It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

[Poptech]

12 year trend using 14 years of data.
Good typo catch, thank you.

[Jacob1983]

Isn't a lot of the data collected by these scientists just estimates? I mean didn't America only start keeping records of temperatures in the 1900s or 1800s? And what about the rest of the world? Are you going to tell me that some barbarian man wrote down the temperature every day so future generations would know? I just laugh at these scientists that tell me 100 percent without any doubt that this year or some year was the warmest year ever. How the fuck do they know that? Are they all knowing or something? Do they know everything? Where did they get the power to be all knowing?

[MannyIsGod]

A scientist has told you that it was the hottest year ever? Really now?

[RandomGuy]

Isn't a lot of the data collected by these scientists just estimates? I mean didn't America only start keeping records of temperatures in the 1900s or 1800s? And what about the rest of the world? Are you going to tell me that some barbarian man wrote down the temperature every day so future generations would know? I just laugh at these scientists that tell me 100 percent without any doubt that this year or some year was the warmest year ever. How the fuck do they know that? Are they all knowing or something? Do they know everything? Where did they get the power to be all knowing?

If you dig down a few feet in an area, and suddenly find the remains of creatures that only live in deserts, but the area you are in has a modern temperate forest climate, you can infer a great deal about what the temperature range was in that area when those creatures lived and died.

That is just an example, but there are ways in which we can construct records that give us a pretty good idea as to what the world looked like in the past using these kinds of things, called a "proxy" for temperature.

This will not be as exact on a year to year basis as recorded measurements, but it can provide some pretty accurate guesses, especially when you get multiple lines of evidence compiled that reinforce each other.