global warming biggest scam ever

[RandomGuy]

Does the definition eliminate the idea there was no bias?

Words have meaning. If there was no bias, the word "unduly" wouldn't have been added.

Warmers love their weasel words!

Bias or no, the imputus is on you to show how this bias affects the conclusions.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

You denialists loves your ad hominems.

[RandomGuy]

How can any of you warmers keep believing the dogma when there is factual data out there like this:

Raw data:



Data after corrections applied:



Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph

Why were the corrections applied to the data?

You have not supplied enough data for a good critical thinker to reach any conclusion. Original source data is modified for all sorts of valid reasons.

Since you are not a good critical thinker, it is not surprising that you present this data as is, without context, but please try to do better.

If you don't know, just say so.

[DarrinS]

You denialists loves your ad hominems.

[Th'Pusher]

Are you suggesting that referring to some who denies AGW is an ad hominem?

[DarrinS]

Are you suggesting that referring to some who denies AGW is an ad hominem?

There aren't many true skeptics that refute AGW. It's the magnitude of the consequences that are debatable (and rightfully so). Using the term "denier", as in Holocaust denier, in this context is ad hominem.

[Wild Cobra]

Bias or no, the imputus is on you to show how this bias affects the conclusions.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

You denialists loves your ad hominems.

I'm not attempting to quantify it. I'm only saying their statement of conclusion does not state there was no bias.

[Wild Cobra]

Why were the corrections applied to the data?

You have not supplied enough data for a good critical thinker to reach any conclusion. Original source data is modified for all sorts of valid reasons.

Since you are not a good critical thinker, it is not surprising that you present this data as is, without context, but please try to do better.

If you don't know, just say so.

I know why that site's data was corrected. I read up on it. Any time there is cause to correct it, there is probability of added error and bias.

Why are you being so ignorant and stupid with your ASSumption?

Care to tell us, or do you not know why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There aren't many true skeptics that refute AGW. It's the magnitude of the consequences that are debatable (and rightfully so). Using the term "denier", as in Holocaust denier, in this context is ad hominem.

Well, many skeptics arguments were considered by the BEST project, experimented and evaluated, then finally rejected. Those included the concerns over error in the temperature record and the statistics involved which stupid here is determined to go back to 2005 for, which models yielded accurate results and which ones didn't, the spectrum analysis of the cycles involved with various celestial motions and ecological cycles. They are still churning out work and checking the science.

'True' in the context you are thinking is only a skeptic you envision yourself and nothing more. Put him with the Scotsman.

[Nero5]

Let's imagine you are lying in hospital sick for a month, 99 doctors come in one after the other and say I did this test, which was slightly different to the others and I'm certain that you have bowel cancer and it's growing. The treatment options are limited but some of them we know have a good chance of success. 1 doctor comes in and say's I don't trust those tests I read but I didn't do my own testing, but I think you're fine go home.
This is the climate 'debate' in a nuts , but for reference the science for climate change is stronger than suggested above.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's imagine you are lying in hospital sick for a month, 99 doctors come in one after the other and say I did this test, which was slightly different to the others and I'm certain that you have bowel cancer and it's growing. The treatment options are limited but some of them we know have a good chance of success. 1 doctor comes in and say's I don't trust those tests I read but I didn't do my own testing, but I think you're fine go home.
This is the climate 'debate' in a nuts , but for reference the science for climate change is stronger than suggested above.

You are dead wrong.

As long as you are incapable of understanding a persons viewpoint, you will fail in debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are dead wrong.

As long as you are incapable of understanding a persons viewpoint, you will fail in debate.

Tell Nero about your CO2 drives warming with the solubility chart pretty please.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell Nero about your CO2 drives warming with the solubility chart pretty please.

That isn't what I said.

Please link my post of what you mean. Warming affects CO2 equalization.

[DarrinS]

Let's imagine you are lying in hospital sick for a month, 99 doctors come in one after the other and say I did this test, which was slightly different to the others and I'm certain that you have bowel cancer and it's growing. The treatment options are limited but some of them we know have a good chance of success. 1 doctor comes in and say's I don't trust those tests I read but I didn't do my own testing, but I think you're fine go home.
This is the climate 'debate' in a nuts , but for reference the science for climate change is stronger than suggested above.

Thanks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That isn't what I said.

Please link my post of what you mean. Warming affects CO2 equalization.

Whatever you say, flywheel.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One piece of strong evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature is the last 11,000 years of ice data:



Please note that once CO2 was up to about 264 ppm 11,000 years ago, there was normal climatic changes ranging +/- 2 C ever since. The increase to past 280 ppm in the last few thousand years had no change on centering of the +/- 2 C temperature range.

Extrapolating that CO2 drives temperature from that article is as accurate as saying the sun revolves around the Earth.

Perception does not always equal scientific fact.

Yes.

Sure, if CO2 lead temperature rather than lagging, over the long term.

But it does.

Then be relieved.

Mitigation would be to do all we can to stop black carbon emissions. It is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels like CO2 is. It is scrubbed out easy enough. CO2 is not the problem of combustion. Unburned components of the fuel are.

I think you watch "The day After" one too many times. Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Besides, I'm mul asking, doing two other things also. Just jumping in here from time to time.

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

[Nero5]

You are dead wrong.

As long as you are incapable of understanding a persons viewpoint, you will fail in debate.

LOL!
I must have messed up then in my communication - tell you what, just for you I'll look for the crayon font and I'll use shorter words.
Of course what you think and what I think has no real worth. The science is what is important and science being what it is is not infallible, just like medicine, hence my analogy.
I have a good friend, just finished her Phd on climatic modelling and who works for the Bureau of Meteorology, but she comes from a pure mathematics background, really quite a smart lady. Anyway her current role is plotting the change in seafront inundation based on a rise in average temperature. A 2 degree rise in average temperature will raise the sea levels enough to wipe out around enough low lying land to displace a very large slice of the city. Cost? In property losses alone we could estimate $30,000,000,000.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL!
I must have messed up then in my communication - tell you what, just for you I'll look for the crayon font and I'll use shorter words.
Of course what you think and what I think has no real worth. The science is what is important and science being what it is is not infallible, just like medicine, hence my analogy.
I have a good friend, just finished her Phd on climatic modelling and who works for the Bureau of Meteorology, but she comes from a pure mathematics background, really quite a smart lady. Anyway her current role is plotting the change in seafront inundation based on a rise in average temperature. A 2 degree rise in average temperature will raise the sea levels enough to wipe out around enough low lying land to displace a very large slice of the city. Cost? In property losses alone we could estimate $30,000,000,000.

It's funny. Now that the finance/insurance industry have a vested interest counter to that of the oil lobby, US conservatives are starting to waffle. Oil is still king in the GOP between the Koch SuperPacs and the Bush coalition but the worm is starting to turn particularly on the coast of the south. Houston is a lesson in cognitive dissonance.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow.

What a demented mind.

[Nero5]

Fuzzy you do get a very strong demographic slit via age bracket too. Once you get to 50+ then the rate of science denial increases, which is curious. We of later generations may suspect that the drugs of the flower power generation may be to blame or it's guilt over 'causing' the issue, fear about losing some privilege or sense of authority, a change in world too fast to feel comfortable with who knows?.

[Wild Cobra]

Those of you who are younger, haven't seen past climate extremes. You think things like Katrina are first types of incidents, and fall prey to scare tactics. Those of us who lived longer have seen things that our parents would called 30 year cycles, and recognize the incidents are just hype. When the so-called experts are going to lie to us on several things, why believe anything they say?

I witnessed this, firsthand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962

[Nero5]

meh! So one storm yes?
The city in which I live, state capital and population of 3,000,000 recently had a drought that lasted around 7 years and we were on water restrictions for the last 3. The climate change has clearly been recorded. We now routinely get desert species of birds in suburban areas as there is insufficient food and water in their natural habitat. The good thing about this is that there is a long history of recording bird life and ornithologists being noted for their lack of practical jokes means that the record is sound for over 100 years. The species that were very very uncommon are now in my street each morning. We recently had the worst bushfires in history, fires that claimed 173 peopl^e and 414 injured and destroyed 2029 homes in one event. The forest near where I grew up, which had eucalyptus tree believed to be around 300 years old is now dying - not the usual rainfall pattern.
Oh BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[RandomGuy]

There aren't many true skeptics that refute AGW. It's the magnitude of the consequences that are debatable (and rightfully so). Using the term "denier", as in Holocaust denier, in this context is ad hominem.

after all these years, you still have no ing clue what the difference is between an insult and an actual ad hominem.

You aren't wrong because you are a lazy . You are a lazy because of the way you are wrong.

Does that clear it up?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not attempting to quantify it. I'm only saying their statement of conclusion does not state there was no bias.

So you can't show if they are biased, but their conclusion was valid.

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

I know why that site's data was corrected. I read up on it. Any time there is cause to correct it, there is probability of added error and bias.

You saying that sounds like mouse when he promises to post THE proof that will debunk evolution... next week.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Now off and show the reason why that stations data was modified and how, or STFU, conspiracy boy.

If the reason is valid, then the data, modified and all, is still useful.

Further, the context in which satellite data, using far more advanced and sensitive equipment, might count more than an aging weather station in determining temperature. c'est va?

[Wild Cobra]

My God Random. You are a ing idiot.

I am at a loss how to simplify my intent any farther. Sorry you fail to comprehend my meaning, but as far as I care, that's your failure. Since you just jump to insults rather than asking me to elaborate farther, then I respond in kind you moron.