Quote :

"Why does no ice core data exist through to the actual present rather than just 1855?"

Go back and read the skeptic science article, it explains this. You'll also find the part where they put the actual present temperatures on top of the graph (showing how it blows the MIA out of the water).

I'm not bothering with the rest of your post. It's obvious you don't read the links we post with any kind of seriousness, so I'm done reading and replying to your posts with seriousness.


edit: Here, just click it, and read it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm



double edit: I can't resist this

Quote :

"But you feel in your gut global warming is going to be a problem, because you believe not telling everyone else how to live their lives always results in disaster. "

This is just desperate, now you're making up sinister Captain Planet villain motives for me.

Quote :

"So you choose to believe global warming has so far been dampened by a host of temporary cooling events rather than believe the record so far. No evidence exists to prove otherwise, so right thinking people can believe that. Of course, no evidence exists to justify such a belief either, but according to you those that don't are the only self delusional people here. "

Lol there's ample evidence. It is established fact that sulfur aerosols reduce warming, we saw it happen in the 50's and 60's. It is established fact that China's sulfur aerosol emissions have skyrocketed in the past decade from coal plants.

Just because this evidence is novel and unexpected to you doesn't mean it was made up on the fly. You're just assuming everybody is as ignorant as you.

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2011 12:49:15 PM

Quote :

"so that makes it OK to break the law and to delete data in the realm of SCIENCE? really?"

I think the information provided by science, especially when it pertains to global concerns, is more important than law, yes. That's not really what this is about though. Please point me to a single conviction any of them received, as far as I'm aware they were all found innocent of all charges.

Quote :

"So, fraudulent method + right answer = good science? what? and then there's the little problem that the "confirmations" have their own problems, and ALSO won't release their methods or data. shit."

Their methods weren't found to be fraudulent. They do release the methods, just not the data, because scientists are competitive with data sets, this isnt' news. I'm sure it is to you, though, since you think all scientists are in on one big conspiracy where they only pretend to compete.

Quote :

"Oh look, more quotes from a site that won't call Mann a fraud and thinks there's nothing wrong with doctoring graphs and hiding your data. "

Except he's not a fraud, his results have been confirmed multiple times as we've pointed out. You just keep calling him a fraud without actually providing any fucking proof of it.

Quote :

"not to mention that they now say that UHI isn't real. keep it coming, dude."

Once again, if you actually read the page you'd see it says that UHI is real, and scientists have known about it for decades, and already correct for it in their models. And, on top of that, the temperature trend also exists in completely non-urban areas, so the UHI isn't indicating a trend that isn't already present.

Quote :

"yes, personal correspondence like "hey, break the law and delete your data." yep, nothing to see there."

The point is, and always has been, that their data is confirmed by other independent research groups. So maybe they did break the law and delete the data, but guess what, it doesn't change the results of all those other groups. In other words, they aren't hiding anything like YOU think they're hiding.

Quote :

" that link is hilarious. "trace things can have huge effects!" Yes, that is true. "

Lmao, remember that I was responding to you claiming that CO2 doesn't have an affect by virtue of it being a trace gas. I can't tell if you're just an incredibly disingenuous person or a straight up dumb fuck.

Quote :

"But that is massively different than saying "the entire system is wholly dependent on this trace element of the system," which is what climate computer tinkerers are trying to say"

No, it's not. They incorporate a wide variety of factors, including sun cycles, water vapor and cloud cover, CFC's and aerosols, as well as most of the other trace gases. Again you demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about actual climate science. The funniest part is that all of your assumptions are basically projecting your own pathetic simple-mindedness onto your perceived enemies.

12/8/2011 12:57:17 PM

Watch now as aaronburro responds to maybe 5% of what I posted, then proceeds to resurrect even shittier arguments that already had the life stomped out of them 10 pages ago.


Can we please get some fresh meat in here already?

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2011 1:01:11 PM

Quote :

"Here, just click it, and read it"

Clicked it and read it again. Yep. Looks like he is trying to use surface temperature readings to fill in from present to actual present, making the actual present uncomparable to the MWP as they are measuring completely different things. One is measuring temperature right here, the ohter is measuring snowfall, and the two do not necessarily correlate. So I'll say it again: the data does not justify your position either.

Quote :

"Lol there's ample evidence. It is established fact that sulfur aerosols reduce warming, we saw it happen in the 50's and 60's. It is established fact that China's sulfur aerosol emissions have skyrocketed in the past decade from coal plants. Just because this evidence is novel and unexpected to you doesn't mean it was made up on the fly. You're just assuming everybody is as ignorant as you."

It is also established fact that higher temperatures increase cloud cover and cool the planet. There are quite a few negative feedbacks that are established fact. What is in dispute is what the hell to do with all these facts.

12/9/2011 12:55:28 AM

Quote :

"Clicked it and read it again. Yep. Looks like he is trying to use surface temperature readings to fill in from present to actual present, making the actual present uncomparable to the MWP as they are measuring completely different things. One is measuring temperature right here, the ohter is measuring snowfall, and the two do not necessarily correlate."

No, one is measuring temperature, and the other is measuring ice cores. We know from proxy relationships (there are temperature records prior to 1855 with which we can compare ice cores to determine the relationship).

The reason ice cores aren't useful after 1855 is because it takes a long time for the intermittant snowfall in places like Antarctica and Greenland to accumulate into ice, and the proxy relationship I mentioned above doesn't hold until it does. This is what the original author did, he tried to treat snow and dust from the top of the core exactly as though it were ice. He was either an idiot or a purposeful fraud.

Fun fact: Tree rings have similar properties, in that it takes about 40 years before the rings have "settled" inside the tree and don't suffer much additional compression from constriction of newer rings. Maybe one of the Climategate emails will make a little more sense to you knowing this.

Quote :

" So I'll say it again: the data does not justify your position either."

And I'll say it again: You say that because you don't understand the data, as you've demonstrated a second time with this particular paper.

Quote :

"It is also established fact that higher temperatures increase cloud cover and cool the planet. There are quite a few negative feedbacks that are established fact. What is in dispute is what the hell to do with all these facts."

Maybe we can take what we know about the relationships and proportions between these various positive and negative feedbacks and make computer models...

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2011 9:48:27 AM

Since we're on this subject, it seems appropriate to post some email excerpts from Climategate 2.0 showing the shadiness of some climate scientists.

Quote :

"Paleoclimate and hide the decline #0300 Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period. Ed Cook #3253 the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all). #4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review. what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got. [and later] Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work. Rob Wilson – 1583 The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years and with all the different calibration methods, data processing methods, proxy interpretations – any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think. #3234 Richard Alley – on NAS panel and divergence records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong. #4758 Tim Osborne – Criticizing other people for doing the same thing Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s! #0497 – Phil Jones UEA – Scientists don’t know the magnitude of past warming. Even though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost low frequency because of standardization. We’ve all tried with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is still worth mentioning. #0886 Jan Esper on his own reconstruction – also hidden decline And the curve will also show that the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. Tiim Osborne 4007 Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were Tim Osborne #2347 Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible! #3234 Richard Alley Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered. I think the best way to sum up all of this is a quote from a guest post at tAV and DieKlimazweibel by Bo Christiansen: Where does all this lead us? It is very likely that the NH mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years."

This is right out of the mouths of climate scientists.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/#more-52491

12/9/2011 9:59:40 AM

Quote :

"This is what the original author did, he tried to treat snow and dust from the top of the core exactly as though it were ice. He was either an idiot or a purposeful fraud."

You mean he took two completely different means of measurement and tried to combine them to draw a conclusion? Exactly the same thing your guy has done?

12/11/2011 1:03:46 AM

Quote :

"Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region. The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years. In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed. "Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them." Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change. Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon. In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed. "In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal." Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 11:00 AM. Reason : m]

12/14/2011 10:59:42 AM

Quote :

"You mean he took two completely different means of measurement and tried to combine them to draw a conclusion?"

That's not what he did. What he did was take one thing (dust and snow) and measure it as though it were another thing (ice). In other words, he took a bunch of apples and measured how orange-like they were.

Quote :

"Exactly the same thing your guy has done?"

As I pointed out above, no, completely different.

That would be aggregating proxy measurements. Do you understand what a proxy is? Here's an anology:

Let's say I want to track the height of a child over time. I have a few measurements that were made by having him stand against a wall and make a mark. I have a few other measurements that were made by having him stand in a specific place with specific lighting, then marking the end of his shadow on the floor. I was able to to make both marks on a few days, so I can see the relationship between wall and shadow measurements. Using this relationship, I can put all of the measurements together into one comprehensive height record that is more complete than either data set on its own.

That's how proxy measurement aggregation works. What your guy did was he just took all the shadow measurements and called them wall measurements.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 11:05:40 AM

TKE, just to check your understanding, explain for me what you think these two emails mean:

Quote :

" Tiim Osborne 4007 Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were Tim Osborne #2347 Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible! "

Tell me in your own words, I want to check your basic reading comprehension before I engage.

12/14/2011 11:13:23 AM

I do believe they are equivalent. Both people took two radically different means of measurement and slapped them together to produce one temperature record, which is bull. For your guy the two weren't even from the same location.

Here is the difference between us. You accept such radical reconstructions as proof only if they agree with you. I had no idea my guy had done such a reconstruction. Had I known, I would have rejected it outright.

Using your metaphor, remember what we are trying to measure. We are not trying to decide how tall the child is today, but how his height today compares to his height a thousand years ago. my guy tried to keep measuring the shadow even though it had become prohibitively difficult to measure. The measurements on the door frame don't go back to a thousand years ago, so your guy is comparing shadow measurements against door frame measurements and declaring a victor. But we don't know how the shadow scales with the actual child, it is only a proxy, fine for comparing shadows against shadows, but as the measurement overlap between the two is puny we don't actually know the scale between the two. The shadow may grow a foot for every inch of child, the scale may change over time, it may be non-linear, it may only be partially affected by the child's actual height, it may dampen out at extreme heights. As such, an attempt to compare shadows to shadows seems to me more reasonable. But both fail to satisfy as proof.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/14/2011 11:25:14 AM

Read the analogy I just edited it. They are not equivalent at all.

12/14/2011 11:25:49 AM

We're not talking about "different means of measurement". Your guy measured one thing (dust/snow) as though it were another (ice). That's not a "mean of measurement", it's a mean of being a dumbass.

Quote :

"Here is the difference between us. You accept such radical reconstructions as proof only if they agree with you. "

No, here is the difference between us: I know what I'm talking about and can discuss things like "proxy measurements" that are core to this discussion without confusing them with "Using the apple-ometer on an orange".


[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 11:26:39 AM

updated

12/14/2011 11:47:47 AM

Quote :

"Using your metaphor, remember what we are trying to measure. We are not trying to decide how tall the child is today, but how his height today compares to his height a thousand years ago. my guy tried to keep measuring the shadow even though it had become prohibitively difficult to measure."

No, your guy kept measuring the shadow even after it turned into something that wasn't a shadow at all. He didn't change his means of measuring to reflect that change, he just kept measuring it as though it were an ordinary shadow. Further he dated the shadow almost 50 years later than its actual date (Because he misunderstand the definition of "present" in the GISP2 data set).

Quote :

"The measurements on the door frame don't go back to a thousand years ago, so your guy is comparing shadow measurements against door frame measurements and declaring a victor. "

We don't even have to go into this, the validity of so-and-so proxy measurement. Your guy took the timeline and slid it forward 50 years, which, when trying to figure out when recent warming started, is sort of key. Not only that but, as I said, he measured non-ice as though it were ice.

Quote :

"But we don't know how the shadow scales with the actual child, it is only a proxy, fine for comparing shadows against shadows, but as the measurement overlap between the two is puny we don't actually know the scale between the two."

Yes. We do know the scale, that's why we use them as fucking proxies. A proxy isn't a proxy unless we know the scale, if not then it's just a measurement. And when measurements aren't useful as proxies (Such as tree rings that aren't sufficiently aged) we don't use those measurements. That's why anybody crowing about the "hide the decline" email instantly exposes themselves as a shithead who doesn't understand half of the process they're convinced is a hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_%28statistics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_%28climate%29

Quote :

"The shadow may grow a foot for every inch of child, the scale may change over time, it may be non-linear, it may only be partially affected by the child's actual height, it may dampen out at extreme heights. As such, an attempt to compare shadows to shadows seems to me more reasonable. But both fail to satisfy as proof."

You're basically saying all proxy measurements are rubbish, and therefor can know nothing at all about the climate prior to 1880. This is up there with somebody barging into a discussion on evolution claiming the Earth's 4000 years old and you can't prove it's older because we don't have videotape of the year 2012 BC.

There's a whole range of ways to verify proxy measurements, generally by looking for covariance between them and comparing their predictions to what we know about historical temperatures from the geological record, sediments, even fossilized plant and animal remains. Scientists don't just pick up an ice core, compare a single slice to a known temperature in 1850, and make an inference about the relationship through all of history. Once again, you come up with a simple-minded caricature of what you imagine might happen in the scientific method, and project that onto reality without even bothering to check that conclusion.

I can understand now why you're a skeptic. If I knew as little as you about this stuff, and saw, through the veil of that ignorance, so much seemingly mystical and half-baked activity on the part of scientists, I'd be skeptical too.


[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 12:37:18 PM

Don't you do this same thing with economic related stuff too? When you start losing ground at landslide speed you resort to something along the lines of "Clearly this system is too complex with too many unknowns, so there are no possible inferences to be made, so the truthfulness of everything we both say is equally uncertain."

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 12:50:47 PM

In this thread, I have learned that knowing things with certainty is compatible with the scientific philosophy.

12/14/2011 2:09:19 PM

Wow, none of the wingnuts have come here to trumpet Dr. Gray's comments about hurricane forecasting? I am shocked and dismayed. aaronburro is usually all over this kind of stuff.

12/14/2011 3:07:45 PM

Quote :

"In this thread, I have learned that knowing things with certainty is compatible with the scientific philosophy."

Who said anything about "knowing things with certainty?"

Just because two statements contain uncertainty does not mean they are equally non-predictive. Certainty is not binary, it's possible for one thing to be more uncertain than another but both be non-certain.

12/14/2011 3:23:19 PM

nah, i'm pretty sure that we are completely certain that anthropogenic global warming i mean climate change is occuring.

it's SCIENCE, bitch!

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM. Reason : (science gives us certainty)]

12/14/2011 5:09:34 PM

bump b/c chit chat is talking about us.

1/23/2012 2:30:54 PM

those jackwagons don't have the skills to talk in this thread (neither do I, but I just lih)

Quote :

"That's why anybody crowing about the "hide the decline" email instantly exposes themselves as a shithead who doesn't understand half of the process they're convinced is a hoax."

to be fair, hide the decline is still pretty infamous. IIRC, what they were "hiding" was the fact that their models diverged massively from the temperature record of this century, precisely where it could have been tested.

1/23/2012 2:47:01 PM

Quote :

"Wow, none of the wingnuts have come here to trumpet Dr. Gray's comments about hurricane forecasting? I am shocked and dismayed. aaronburro is usually all over this kind of stuff."

what do you call this? reverse trolling? retroactive?

1/23/2012 2:47:38 PM

Quote :

"Please point me to a single conviction any of them received"

please point me to any legitimate hearing on the facts that occurred, because the ones that DID occur were foolish show trials where the outcome was always going to be exoneration.

Quote :

"Their methods weren't found to be fraudulent."

Yes, they were. Mann and his buddies specifically spliced on a temperature set at the end of their model and "hid the decline" of the model's results over that same time period. That's fraud.

Quote :

"They do release the methods"

Actually, they didn't, not initially. it took McIntyre and McKitrick eviscerating MBH98 for Mann to even think about releasing his methods to others.

Quote :

"just not the data, because scientists are competitive with data sets"

So, because scientists behave badly, it's OK for them to behave badly. got it.

Quote :

"Except he's not a fraud, his results have been confirmed multiple times as we've pointed out."

Except, he is a fraud, and "right answer + wrong method" is never valid in science, no matter how many times you declare it is. Three studies showed that his study was bogus. It's just that 2 of them made the conclusion the opposite, even though the data analysis on the three studies were almost identical.

Quote :

"And, on top of that, the temperature trend also exists in completely non-urban areas"

Source? The only place I've seen this stated says that it exists in corrected data sets; AKA, after they dick with the numbers to make them say what they want.

Quote :

"The point is, and always has been, that their data is confirmed by other independent research groups. So maybe they did break the law and delete the data"

So what if they did horribly unethical and illegal things. THey still do what we like, so screw it!`

1/23/2012 3:02:21 PM

i like

Quote :

"how aaronburro"

constantly

Quote :

"puts together"

quotes

Quote :

"and arranges them"

separately

Quote :

"so that he"

can distinguish

Quote :

"one argument from"

another

Quote :

"because posting it in one quote"

box

Quote :

"and answering it"

wouldn't be enough

lol



in all seriousness i'm interested in how this data was collected (what instruments, who gathered it, and where they did it)

i mean is this a published article? i'd like a link

[Edited on January 23, 2012 at 3:07 PM. Reason : -]

1/23/2012 3:04:35 PM

im a scientist and i do this shit constantly.

do i care? no. do i think im a good scientist? lol, no. i think im smart however, and i get paid.

because im so accomplished my family, friends, and students all worship me. there is probably some little douche in one of my classes defending me, the reputable william barnaby fogglebottom III, on a messageboard right now.

the current attitude in the country defends me from people like you aaronburro, based on academic merit alone. no nevermind everything you just said.

1/23/2012 3:07:28 PM

^^isn't that the Vostek ice core data?

1/23/2012 4:05:56 PM

Quote :

" please point me to any legitimate hearing on the facts that occurred, because the ones that DID occur were foolish show trials where the outcome was always going to be exoneration."

So you have nothing except accusations, thanks.

Quote :

"Yes, they were. Mann and his buddies specifically spliced on a temperature set at the end of their model and "hid the decline" of the model's results over that same time period. That's fraud. "

No, they "hid the decline" of a specific proxy measurement (tree rings after 1960) because they didn't match up with the actual, recorded temperatures that showed the exact fucking opposite of a decline.

Let me say this again: The "decline" in question was in the temperatures inferred from tree ring data. Tree ring data closely matches temperature readings from thermometers up until about 1960, this has to do with how long it takes tree bark to fully 'die' as it's pushed outward by the tree and stop circulating moisture. Actual temperature readings show the opposite of a decline (upward trend) in temperatures.

Quote :

"Actually, they didn't, not initially. it took McIntyre and McKitrick eviscerating MBH98 for Mann to even think about releasing his methods to others."

So they did, and you have yet to give any indication you've read them over and understand the methodology. Thanks for playing though.

Quote :

"So, because scientists behave badly, it's OK for them to behave badly. got it."

If these were subsidized gas corporations corporations hiding their data you'd be backing them 100%, whatever. For the 100th time, it doesn't matter anyway because there's other research groups completely unaffiliated getting the exact same results over and over again.

Quote :

" Except, he is a fraud, and "right answer + wrong method" is never valid in science, no matter how many times you declare it is."

His method wasn't wrong, and his answer was right. If his method was wrong, please point out how.

Quote :

" Three studies showed that his study was bogus. It's just that 2 of them made the conclusion the opposite, even though the data analysis on the three studies were almost identical. "

Citations please.

Quote :

" Source? The only place I've seen this stated says that it exists in corrected data sets; AKA, after they dick with the numbers to make them say what they want. "

Once again you show that, no matter how many times we post the links, you never fucking read them, ever.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm

Quote :

" So what if they did horribly unethical and illegal things. THey still do what we like, so screw it!`"

You have zero proof they did unethical or illegal things, and have demonstrated you don't even understand the scandal you're bellowing about (for example, you thought "hide the decline" referred to model results, not proxy measurements).

It doesn't matter anyway, nothing would ever convince you because there's clearly nothing resembling reasoning or rationality behind your approach to this. You'll gleefully discard reams of paper in peer reviewed journals and independent studies if you can find 1 webpage written by a "scientist" directly paid by the oil and gas industry that says otherwise. You're a joke and that fact shines through in this thread more than any other.



[Edited on January 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2012 4:27:42 PM

Quote :

"So you have nothing except accusations, thanks."

no, I have how the actual process went. "Hey, Michael, did you do anything wrong?" "No." "OK, well, that settles it!"

Quote :

"No, they "hid the decline" of a specific proxy measurement (tree rings after 1960) because they didn't match up with the actual, recorded temperatures that showed the exact fucking opposite of a decline."

so, you agree. they hid the fact that their model doesn't work.

Quote :

"So they did, and you have yet to give any indication you've read them over and understand the methodology."

except they really didn't. It took someone else to annihilate their study without access to much of the work for them to even begin to be open. and even then, they weren't. that's not good science.

Quote :

"If these were subsidized gas corporations corporations hiding their data you'd be backing them 100%, whatever."

but these aren't, your attempt at the "you, too" fallacy notwithstanding. These are people who work for the government who are REQUIRED BY LAW to release their work to the public. and they didn't, don't, and won't.

Quote :

"For the 100th time, it doesn't matter anyway because there's other research groups completely unaffiliated getting the exact same results over and over again."

and, for the 1000th time, "right answer + wrong method = junk science".

Quote :

"His method wasn't wrong, and his answer was right."

except, his method MOST CERTAINLY was wrong. McIntyre and McKitrick proved it. All you keep going back to is "other people agree with him". The proof that his method was wrong is evident in the fact that phone-books run through his system produce the exact same results.

Quote :

"Citations please."

well, McIntyre and McKitrick, for one. The NAS study had data analysis that was essentially the same, yet came to the opposite conclusion, which was funny. Actually, their conclusion, IIRC, was also that it is now warmer than it was 200 years ago, which we already knew. They chose not to say that the rest of Mann's study was completely unreliable. The other study group was I think the National Research Council, which found similar statistical findings as McIntyre, but, again, made the opposite conclusion.

Quote :

"Once again you show that, no matter how many times we post the links, you never fucking read them, ever."

And, ONCE AGAIN, you post from the same website which can't call a fraud a fraud. You also post the same ADJUSTED numbers.

Quote :

"You have zero proof they did unethical or illegal things"

we have all the proof we need. Saying "hey, delete this stuff that is subject to an FOIA request" is not only unethical, it's illegal. Mann said "OK" and that he would pass it along. And that, to you, was "cleared".

1/23/2012 4:51:15 PM

From Daniels' Republican rebuttal last night:

Quote :

"The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy."

1/25/2012 12:27:09 PM

I'm thinking of bumping my Chit Chat vs. TSB thread in Chit Chat every time this thread comes back to the top.

1/25/2012 1:07:49 PM

thank God for global warming.

this week has been absolutely beautiful! maybe liberals should find something negative to complain about so they dont look like complete dipshits all the time?

100 degree+ summer coming up? no problem!

maybe all those fatasses will have big sweaty heart attacks and healthcare costs will come down for the poor oppressed masses.

2/2/2012 2:49:08 PM

Maybe there will be a mass drought and famine so that all the fat people will become skinny (and the skinny people will die )

2/2/2012 5:59:46 PM

As the sun continues it's period of (relatively) inactivity famines are all but a certainty in the near future.

But not for anyone living in the US (don't kid yourself, haha).

2/3/2012 12:09:08 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate?CMP=twt_fd

Nothing too surprising here, just proves what we already knew. Climate change skeptics are just shills for big oil working to undermine actual science.

Also, Charles Koch looks like an aged Stephen Colbert, who traveled back in time to troll us all.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 12:01 PM. Reason : :]

2/15/2012 12:00:16 PM

so does that also mean that anyone with a financial incentive for climate change to be true is also disqualified from speaking? just want to make sure you are being consistent.

2/15/2012 12:39:22 PM

Quote :

"thank God for global warming. this week has been absolutely beautiful! maybe liberals should find something negative to complain about so they dont look like complete dipshits all the time? 100 degree+ summer coming up? no problem! maybe all those fatasses will have big sweaty heart attacks and healthcare costs will come down for the poor oppressed masses."

2/15/2012 1:13:41 PM

Nah, I just think people who advocate shit like this,

Quote :

"The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science", the documents said."

or

Quote :

"Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn."

should be disqualified from speaking. I think it's extraordinarily telling that their stated goals are to dissuade schools from "teaching science" and that they identify their audience as "anti-climate".

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:22 PM. Reason : :]

2/15/2012 1:17:28 PM

so, if I stand to make a trillion bux on climate-change hooplah, I can talk and say whatever I want. but if I stand to make a trillion bux on oil, I cannot. got it

2/15/2012 1:20:27 PM

So you're equating actual science with industry funded propaganda now? Keep digging buddy.

2/15/2012 1:29:26 PM

So you're equating actual science with industry funded propaganda now? Keep digging buddy.

2/15/2012 1:32:12 PM

exactly

2/15/2012 1:32:54 PM

Ok, so just to be clear. You also believe that cigarettes do not cause cancer. That the earth is less than 6000 years old. That evolution isn't real. Oh, and that the 99% of the experts in those fields who agree are just spreading propaganda with no factual basis. Oh and that cigarette companies and churches are just as believable as the scientists. Is that about right?

Also, it would be nice if you actually addressed the facts in that article instead of you know, just spewing stupidity. Or at least backed up your claims that climate scientists are just as financially motivated as the denialists. Of course you can't, which is why you keep repeating the same debunked arguments.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM. Reason : :]

2/15/2012 1:41:14 PM

what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

2/15/2012 2:00:37 PM

Those are all widely accepted conclusions reached via a scientific consensus, and are the cornerstone of research and industries worth billions of dollars. Just like climate change. They are also similarly opposed by organizations who have financial incentives to spread the belief that they are false. Hell, climate change likely enjoys an even greater consensus than the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer, yet it is subjected to much more criticism. So sorry for you that you can't see the link.

2/15/2012 2:28:22 PM

global warming owns

2/15/2012 2:31:29 PM

this would be fine if that was your original beef. however, your only beef is that oil companies or the Koch brothers put money into one organization with whom you disagree. So, your complaint boils down to "I don't like them doing X because I don't like their arguments," which is a pretty worthless complaint.

2/15/2012 2:43:59 PM

No, that wasn't my actual beef. That was you avoiding the entire point of the article, inventing a claim that I didn't make, and starting a completely different argument so you wouldn't have to deal with the actual facts that are crippling to your world view. Otherwise known as "How to Debate Like aaronburro 101".

2/15/2012 3:36:57 PM

Quote :

"what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"

Since the Earth heats unevenly, a change in the overall heat retainment of the Earth would alter the air currents (determined by fronts of cold and hot air plus coriolis forces), changing the distribution of precipitation and cloudcover as well as affecting local temperatures and growing seasons. Since most agriculture is based around a more stable climate configuration, changes in those air currents and heat distributions would almost certainly alter the map of arable land suitable for Tea cultivation. The adjustments necessary to adapt to those changes, however often they would occur, would undoubtably drive up the price of tea, even in China and especially to importers like the US.


[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 3:45:44 PM

Quote :

"No, that wasn't my actual beef."

the FUCK it wasn't. Why else would you post an article that bitches about the Koch brothers funding an organization related to climate change if you weren't bitching about the Koch brothers funding an organization related to climate change? your argument LITERALLY boils down to "people shouldn't be able to argue that climate change isn't happening because I think climate change is happening."

^ well played! +1

2/15/2012 4:03:14 PM