Please look at the black line in the graph you offered up, pre 1995, it's plain to see for those with open eyes. Of course if you do;t believe the science, anf clearly you don't nothing will make you see believe differently. The future is just that and no one can know or predict with absolute certainty, for reasons offered up numerous time in various threads . Your position is show me with certainty or don't show me. The good news is that most wiser people than you know better.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Correlation is not evidence of causation. Post-2005, the black line goes in a completely different direction than the red line prediction based on the CO2 premise.
No, my position is that scientific conclusions should be based on empirical evidence, not computer model predictions.
Where does that leave you black rock??? Still sitting under your dunce cap as usual of course. The definitive perspective on this for terbites by way of the accompanying poll suggests the winner is............Carbon credit scam. Go take your debate to your retired security guard bulletin board forums
And what do you think 'workshop' means?
I know you have memory problems, but I did already post the links to the APS climate change committee, and none of their names were on it. They were there for a half day workshop, there representing the 'deniers' on arguments about climate change. The full discussion is there also on the web site, I linked to that earlier as well.
The billion dollar oil funded lobby has tried to subvert six other scientific associations and failed miserably each time. Even when they got a poll through the APS membership they got less then .5% supporting them. So while your lobbyist friends are all touting this as a big success, the chance that this will fool the 45,000 APS members is about as high as you understanding an IPCC report.
That shows a five year running mean ending in 2010, in other words its a rough chart that's not current. Even in this chart it barely dips below their predictions, when the latest temperature records are added in a full chart, like the one I posted (from skeptical science which means that you can find the data that its based on for yourself if you were smart enough, each post has links to the original papers there, unlike your lobbyist crap).
And again, to underline how your argument is based off of cherry picking, here's a gif that shows your claim vs the long term trends:
Of course there are. As noted by the IPCC itself their projections are long term. Short term predictions, a decade for instance, are noisy, their predictions are more reliable in the half century time frame. Its in that footnote of death I linked to you, as a matter of fact, but you couldn't understand that either. Take a look at the graph of surface temperature, for instance. Its not a straight line, even though its trending up, its squiggly. It goes up for a year, down a bit, then up some more and then down a bit. Just like the daily weather, cold today, warmer tomorrow, cold again....
That's the way reality works. So they make the prediction that the trend will be to go up in full knowledge that it will generally trend up but be squiggly.
Try really hard to understand that point.
That gif above sums a couple of points.
You can see temperature going up generally, but not in a straight line.
You can see how if you start at a high bump and then aim for the lowest bump and draw a line you can make it look like its going down. That's cherry picking.
Can you understand that?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
The IPCC says there are "differences" between what was predicted and what was actually observed. I don't see why you need me to confirm that for you.
Furthermore, the IPCC is completely at odds with whoever produced your un-sourced chart.[/QUOTE]
So, unlike the charts and information that I have cited from the IPCC's reports, your chart comes from a propaganda website. As expected.
The IPCC's 2007 AR4 report predicted increases of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. It is perfectly legitimate to hold the IPCC accountable for its predictions.
And it's funny how the IPCC never recommends a long-term, wait-and-see approach when it comes to policy measures to respond to its alarming predictions.
That 'propaganda' website is not funded by lobbyists and gives links to all their data, including the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC and hadCRUT4 where the data from the chart came from. I challenge you to find one problem with that chart.
And if you want to compare it to the IPCC, here's a link to the preliminary summary of the latest report:
https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/application/pdf/cop19cmp9_opening_ipcc_pachauri_powerpoint.pdf
The skeptical science chart is very similar to the one on page three, the same one that notes that we are experiencing decadal increases of 0.2C, which I believe was the bet you wagered against earlier. I'd say you should check the chart except you've failed twice at reading charts already. In any case, the 2013 report confirms we are indeed experiencing decadal increases of 0.2 C.
So lets just add this to you other fails with charts:
1) couldn't spot a high school level difference in an IPCC chart and a lobbyist doctored one you used for your own argument.
2) couldn't read a chart you supplied - you were challenged three times and failed.
3) can't understand a third chart you supplied
No wonder you keep falling for the climate denial industry's tricks.
99942 Apophis is on a collision course with earth April 24 2029. I have this from credible but wishing to remain anonymous scientific sources, (for obvious reasons) This could result in the total annihilation of mankind so dont let the gw issues get under your skin. Your years are numbered. Enjoy. And don't believe NASA. On this one
And why do you think APS would invite them to a workshop if they thought the science was settled already??
Far higher up the ladder than you bug.
Of course TERB is just chuck full of climatologist and earth scientist, so the poll is a reflect of the truth.
At least you are now admitting that you were wrong when you said they were 'permanent panel' members.
You really should be looking at the stuff you're picking up from the ex-tobacco lobby a bit closer.
You and moviefan have shown yourselves so easy to fool.
Read this article that shows that the sites you get your 'scientific' info from are part of a billion dollar a year lobby campaign.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
The tobacco industry spent a lot of money, but the oil industry has way, way more cash on hand.
And you should check to see if there are links from any of these conservative/oil funds who are supplying you with disinformation, this from the union of concerned scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html
Or you could read one New Zealand scientists story of how he had to deal with lobbyist attacks on his work.
https://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972
Those are the sorts of people you're backing.
The type of people who hire hackers to attack universities to try to make up scandals.
Ex-tobacco lobbyists.
The correct quotation is, 'correlation does not 'necessarily' mean causation'. It's 'not' an absolute. Another mistake from an amateur.
To take it further;
Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. But it is also one of the most abused types of evidence, because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/evidence-in-medicine-correlation-and-causation/
No need, unlike you I can stand on my two feet and don't have to reach up to turn doorknobs around the house and at work.
You didnt answer my question. You should change your handle from groggy to dodgy.
Try again, why do you think APS would invite them to a workshop if they thought the science was settled already?? I know why you dont wanna answer it, its because cracks are appearing in the whole global warming scam, and you dont like it because you think the science is rock solid, which it isnt.
The APS is beginning to see this now as well, if they thought the science was settled they wouldnt waste their time inviting not 1, but 3 global warming skeptics
Because of lobbying by some of your 'think tanks', I would expect.
But just because they were invited to speak as guest experts at a workshop of a sub-committee you shouldn't get too excited.
Any real change in policy would have to go through a period where all 50,000 APS members can review and add input.
And considering their last statement read:
Considering that, your lobbyists are probably pushing this invitation to a workshop of a sub-committee as a big success because they know that is as far as they can get.
Here, check out a map of the Arctic today.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/index_gfcst.php
This may be hard for you but:
choose northern hemisphere
click on temperature anomalies
click on 180 and then click on play.
Note that we are experiencing temperatures that are 20ºC colder then the average and that the air over the Arctic is experiencing 20ºC warmer then average.
Now, go take that to Lindzen and get him to tell you why that's happening.
Did you manage to spot the difference yet in your oil funded graph vs the original yet?
Until you can do that, calling anyone else dumb is just laugh in your face pathetic.
Its a high school level manipulation that really makes you look easy to fool.
And while we are on the subject of scientists and associations, I'll up your three deniers on a workshop of a sub-committee and give you a slam dunk statement from an association representing
400,000 scientists.
Their statement:
That's 400 fucking thousand scientists agreeing on that statement vs your 3 shady characters who were given their half hour to try to convince 50,000 physicists.
If you had any notion of the science of the matter or the money the fossil fuel industry doesn't want to lose and so spends $1 billion a year on disinformation, you'd realize how you've been played for a sucker.
