Print

[jbs49238]

Data is great, when it is realiably compared to similar data. 

I study and understand weather, and for all the horrible tragic dramatic events you can point to to prove "global warming" I can point you to equally tragic if not worse events from when the globe was "cool".

Hot weather make for the best time to push this agenda... after all by golly it is hot... The United States had a hot day and is experiencing a hot and dry period right now... EVER HEAR OF THE DUST BOWL?  Was that from global warming?  Your data suggests not!

Your data is a squiggly line, a group of years below the mean and a group of years above.  You have no evidence, only a hunch that the line will never fall back below the mean.  Junk science at its best.  Something to monitor and take note of?  Yes, something to present as a dire end of times argument?  Only if you are pushing an agenda.

I am not burying my head in the sand, I just don't agree with your "science".  Figures don't lie but....  You know the rest.

[jbs49238]

More instances of dramatic and horrifying weather, all equal or worse to todays sensational events.  All occuring during "global cooling"?

http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/sig_weath_events.html

Just because the news makes it look like the world is ending, these events have been ongoing for decades upon decades.

[ducksoup]

It’s all just a cycle, wait maybe it is a Depeche Mode, no wait it doesn’t exist....

The vast majority of EXPERTS agree that climate change is real and not a cycle.  You know - the people who actually do know what they are talking about. 

I find the whole - bury your head - argument as ludicrous.  You go to the doctor and he says the spots on your skin is cancer, so you go to 2000 more doctors and get the same diagnosis, yet when number 2001 agrees with you that it could be moles or freckles you believe that one.  Then when you are near death from cancer you agree that maybe all of those doctors were right after all, just before you take your last breath.

That’s the big problem, if you are wrong, if it is a real event and not a cycle, to do nothing means really bad.  You can say you were wrong as the last man on earth dies?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and some say it is running out.  It makes complete sense to try to change to something else, hydro, wind, solar, and maybe nuclear, probably all of the above. 

[Baby Hitler]

More instances of dramatic and horrifying weather, all equal or worse to todays sensational events.  All occuring during "global cooling"?

The proper term is climate change. Radical change in weather caused by an overall increase in the world's temperature.

[lordfly]

Your data is a squiggly line, a group of years below the mean and a group of years above.

Uh, it's a pretty solid trend upwards since 1860. I'm not sure if you ever took a statistics class, but upward/downward trends are rarely a straight line in the real world.

Even oil industry shills agree the earth is getting warmer at this point. The big "thing" now with climate change is whether it's our fault (hint: it is), or weather it's all just God's Plan For The Planet (hint: it isn't).

but hey, who cares, I'll be dead in a few decades anyway, and I don't really care about your kids or grandkids, so I'm going to buy all the aerosol cans I can and burn them in your front yard, and pump sludge into your water table, and burn all the coal ever, because it's cheap and it's here now and i'm a Murkin.

[jbs49238]

or that?

Uh, it's a pretty solid trend upwards since 1860.

I'm not sure if you ever took a statistics class, but upward/downward trends are rarely a straight line in the real world.

It is?  Are we looking at the same chart that FB kindly provided?  I see a downward trend all the way into the teens... a move towards normal and even an area of fluctuation for about 25 years from 1950-1975.  So your argument is about 30 years of data in a 150 year cycle, 20% of a given sample and only a small sample over the history of the earth.  YET YOU DEMAND I ACCEPT IT AS FACT?

I have an education level more than what I figure you think I do, and my grade in statistics class was just fine thank you.  Even my statistics prof would agree that the graph provides evidence of somesort of pattern, but is not proof of anything.

You are glorifying junk science, and that is fine... it is the chic thing to do... but just realize that it is junk science.  Why is it junk science?  Because there are several people offering reasonable alternative theories that your proof and data does not explain.  But instead of acknowledging that what you are pushing is an agenda based on a theory, you just state it as fact and accuse everyone who refuses to buy in as being ignorant and evil.

What does the chart look like to the left of the start point FB?  Here is a hint either a: NO ONE KNOWS  or b: There is a big spike above the mean that is hidden from general view because it absolutely kills the idea that this warming trend is something we have never seen before.  There used to be dinosaurs on the planet FB, what was our global temperatture then?

[Baby Hitler]

Actually the reason that there isn't records before then, is because there weren't records being taken before then.

That particular graph is an accumulation of data from all over the world, including the oceans. (Hence the "Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean" title) Those grey bars represent the monthly highs and lows for that particular year.

Guess we will have to wait another 150 years to see if your theory pans out.

Oh, here's another Junk Science report that you will just poo poo away.



That only goes back 1000 years, sorry I don't have anything from the dinosaurs yet, they always are late turning in their homework.

[lordfly]

It is?  Are we looking at the same chart that FB kindly provided?  I see a downward trend all the way into the teens... a move towards normal and even an area of fluctuation for about 25 years from 1950-1975.  So your argument is about 30 years of data in a 150 year cycle, 20% of a given sample and only a small sample over the history of the earth.  YET YOU DEMAND I ACCEPT IT AS FACT?

I have an education level more than what I figure you think I do, and my grade in statistics class was just fine thank you.  Even my statistics prof would agree that the graph provides evidence of somesort of pattern, but is not proof of anything.

You are glorifying junk science, and that is fine... it is the chic thing to do... but just realize that it is junk science.  Why is it junk science?  Because there are several people offering reasonable alternative theories that your proof and data does not explain.  But instead of acknowledging that what you are pushing is an agenda based on a theory, you just state it as fact and accuse everyone who refuses to buy in as being ignorant and evil.

What does the chart look like to the left of the start point FB?  Here is a hint either a: NO ONE KNOWS  or b: There is a big spike above the mean that is hidden from general view because it absolutely kills the idea that this warming trend is something we have never seen before.  There used to be dinosaurs on the planet FB, what was our global temperatture then?

You're right, it must be all a grand Socialist conspiracy to keep you from driving your Jeep because the libruls hate teh hitlerz. or whatever.

I bow to your infinite statistical wisdom. The graph is "inconclusive", therefore it's "okay" to "burn fossil fuels", roughly "forever", and "as much as we want", because "murka **** yeah."

[lordfly]

I'd listen to your rebuttal, but I'm too busy waving my petroleum-based American flag around on top of my Humvee while I shoot baby polar bears full of aerosol. These ice caps won't melt themselves!

[jbs49238]

Nice... two replies filled with snark.  And one with highly unproven science.  Awsome!

Tree rings indicate moisture, and growth rate.  Not temperature... unless you "conclude" that moisture and growth rate MUST coincide with temperature.  Try harder because they don't.

More junk science!

[jbs49238]

It’s all just a cycle, wait maybe it is a Depeche Mode, no wait it doesn’t exist....

The vast majority of EXPERTS agree that climate change is real and not a cycle.  You know - the people who actually do know what they are talking about. 

I find the whole - bury your head - argument as ludicrous.  You go to the doctor and he says the spots on your skin is cancer, so you go to 2000 more doctors and get the same diagnosis, yet when number 2001 agrees with you that it could be moles or freckles you believe that one.  Then when you are near death from cancer you agree that maybe all of those doctors were right after all, just before you take your last breath.

That’s the big problem, if you are wrong, if it is a real event and not a cycle, to do nothing means really bad.  You can say you were wrong as the last man on earth dies?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and some say it is running out.  It makes complete sense to try to change to something else, hydro, wind, solar, and maybe nuclear, probably all of the above. 

If you read the posts, I am NOT the one taking the "I am right you are wrong approach" here.  That would be FB and LF.

I am all in favor of alternative fuels... of course how do we know that in 30 years (because apparently that is all it takes to draw a conclusive study for an earth that has existed for millions or years) that alternative fuels won't have some unforseen consequence that launches us into another quadrillionaire motived death march towards the center of the sun?

Chicken Little said the sky was falling too.

[lordfly]

Nice... two replies filled with snark.  And one with highly unproven science.  Awsome!

Tree rings indicate moisture, and growth rate.  Not temperature... unless you "conclude" that moisture and growth rate MUST coincide with temperature.  Try harder because they don't.

More junk science!

I refuse to believe the polar ice caps are melting, because of SCIENCE!

[Baby Hitler]

Nice... two replies filled with snark.  And one with highly unproven science.  Awsome!

Tree rings indicate moisture, and growth rate.  Not temperature... unless you "conclude" that moisture and growth rate MUST coincide with temperature.  Try harder because they don't.

More junk science!

Yep, them there boys at NASA haven't a damn clue what they are talking about.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

[jbs49238]

NASA... You mean outer space?

I can provide rebuttals to everything you bring to the plate, but you will just poo poo everyone and say "blah blah blah it is happening and you are an uneducated fool until you agree with me" so really what is the point in continuing?

You believe a theory that you cannot prove.  I have alternate examples that debunk what you believe... yet you have the PROOF?  That is not in line with the Scientific Theory.  Therefore you are in bed with junk science.  I will wait for PROOF.

[Professor H]

g
It’s all just a cycle, wait maybe it is a Depeche Mode, no wait it doesn’t exist....

The vast majority of EXPERTS agree that climate change is real and not a cycle.  You know - the people who actually do know what they are talking about. 

Climatologist extrapolate or pick and chose what they look at as data from some some shaky sourses when you start going back more than 150 years to regions where measurements were not recorded with the regularity of today's data.

I also find it interesting they don't offer data on the sun and it's activities to coincide with temporal changes. Or do they consider that junk science since they can't make their "case" if it's included?

 Is pollution hurting the Earth - yes but is it the sole source of warming or cooling cycles - no!  The mass and energy of the Sun, solar cycles, and even proximity of other planets have more effect than many choose to consider for some reason?  Probably from that same lack of recorded data.  Size and mass and energy make it a more reasonable explanation   Put the pollution as a small percentage of contribution and you'd be closer to actuality say 10%?  Thus it plays a small role but not the major cause.

Of that small percent how much can be affected by US gov controls? After all isn't that what the debate really is about?  Letting the government tell us what we can or can not do. ("it's for the children")