The new official climate change thread
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
Fail.
A metaphor would have been 'NOAA's adjustment of SST's based on new information is like fraud'.
Instead you just said NOAA's adjustments were fraud.
Lets just add this to the list of things you don't understand, yet claim you do, in your continuing 'dunning-kruger effect' ignorance.
It is kinda difficult to publish when you are dead. You can not be that stupid can you?
If you watched the video he discuss the scientific methodology, proposing a hypothesis and then showed the evidence.
Enough to raise some serous questions before developing an economically devastating and technologically unachievable policy
No he just questions the conclusions of your studies
A zealot is someone who is absolute in their believe despite any alternative evidence that they are 100% without a doubt right
That describes you
I on the other hand recognise that if man-kind is the cause of climate change then we need to take action.
Dr. Carter raises some serious questions about the interpolation of the data in particular the reference time frame.
The planet has an eccentric orbit round a big flaming ball of gas. It may just be the nature of that orbit which causes variations in climate, which may or may eventually cook or freeze our existence
But then you would not get to tax anyone now would you?
As a Zealot, you lack credibility.
You could solve that by explaining how to replace a growing 100 MM barrels of oil computation per day?
While at the same time elimination the burning of coal
Please provide an intelligent response as the phrase Renewable Energy can not come close to replacing a fraction of that consumption
Derive a hypothesis
Can the world replace a growing 100 MM bbl of oil per day?
Then collect the data and determine if you can prove this hypothesis
since scientific methodology is absent any pre-demined bias you will conclude it can not, as that is a huge/ growing/massive amount of energy relative to projected renewable output
Being a zelot is so much easier for you and I suspect you will take the easy route
The metaphor in question was "Enron-style accounting."
I'm confident "sane people here" can figure out whether or not it was meant to be taken literally.
You have a point, trying to stretch your accusation into a metaphor fails.
It wasn't a metaphor or even a simile, it was just an accusation of fraud.
As you stated you 'compared' NOAA's actions to fraud, that's not a metaphor or a simile, that's an accusation.
Thanks for helping to clear that up.
Agreed. I fully acknowledge that I accused the NOAA of cooking the books.
I said the metaphor was "Enron-style accounting."
(And I love how you tried to blame me for the fact that you don't know the difference between a metaphor and a simile. :beguiled
As Dr. Carter pointed out your time reference is too short
Does this chart shows a flat, horizontal line for a much longer time period 400,000 years?
No
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Hey man-kind was not around for most of those spikes
What do you make of that ?
You really can't judge what is science, can you?
For instance, if you go to the IPCC website compare what is available there with the evidence and hypothesis from your youtube video.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Note that they fully document each statement with footnotes that link you to the original research, to sites where you can download the data for comparison and fully inspect the science and the math.
Contrast that with your youtube video, where the 'evidence' comes out as poorly compressed video of a totally undocumented powerpoint presentation with no links to his data, sources or references. Instead he uses second hand charts of the upper troposphere (a denier favourite is to use only upper atmosphere temperatures in a debate on surface warming), quotes from Anthony Watts (another denier who has never published research, instead posts from an incredibly error prone blog).
There is no legit evidence from that video, its just a rehashing of the usual idiotic claims that zealots like you want to hear.
You sir, are a zealot.
No, I was responding to k douglas' claim:
And your source, dead Dr Carter makes idiotic mistakes.
His calculation of temperatures on your page states its 'lower atmosphere' readings, as he mixes surface temp reconstructions with upper stratosphere satellite data:
That's just stupid to put those in the same chart and claim that its one series of measurements.
Surface reconstructions and then stratosphere?
How stupid do you have to be to not notice that stuff, larue?
That's not a metaphor, that's a straight up accusation.
And as long as you're accusing NOAA of fraud, its time for you clearly state what this fraud is.
1) What about the changes in June 2015 to NOAA's SST weighting is specifically fraudulent?
2) Do you think every change in their methodology is fraud, or only this one?
3) What evidence do you have that these changes were fraud?
4) Is your claim of fraud only based on its effect on the bet you lost?
5) Do you think changes in methodology where the temp goes down are also fraud, or only ones where it goes up?
Or are you just going to squirm away?
I've provided you with plenty of information before, but here you go.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...a_of_cooking_the_books_on_climate_change.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
I assume you'll be retracting your previous claim that I "backed down" from what I had previously posted. That is irrefutably false.
You backed down previously from stating you were accusing NOAA to claiming it was just a 'metaphor'.
Now that you are back to claiming its fraud, you need specify what this fraud claim is based on.
Not one of your links contains allegations or evidence of fraud, this claim is entirely coming from you.
You failed to provide a basis or evidence for this claim that NOAA committed fraud.
You still can't answer these questions.
1) What about the changes in June 2015 to NOAA's SST weighting is specifically fraudulent?
2) Do you think every change in their methodology is fraud, or only this one?
3) What evidence do you have that these changes were fraud?
4) Is your claim of fraud only based on its effect on the bet you lost?
5) Do you think changes in methodology where the temp goes down are also fraud, or only ones where it goes up?
Just wildly curious because I generally give these climate threads a wide berth but has anyone reading these threads actually wrote:
' ... OMG ... You are right ! Obviously Climate change is /a worldwide conspiracy / a scientific certainty / the world's most boring topic.
Hallelujah ! My life has changed for the better !'
' ... OMG ... You are right ! Obviously Climate change is /a worldwide conspiracy / a scientific certainty / the world's most boring topic.
Hallelujah ! My life has changed for the better !'
No, hasn't happened.
The trolls are trolls, and the conspiracy kooks keep digging their heels in even as we hit yet another global temperature record.
Those who understand the science see the evidence get stronger every day.
While the denier universe gets more scared of liability in the wake of the Exxon investigations.
Its a bit like watching the last defenders of apartheid, or the last few people who still thought tobacco smoke was good for you.
They get crazier with every post, like moviefan accusing NOAA of fraud, but they don't notice the rest of the world has moved on.
No, I said "Enron-style accounting" was a metaphor. And I never used the word "just".
At no point have I ever backed down. You should show a bit of integrity and acknowledge that fact.
Try reading them.
What the links show is the NOAA replaced good data with obviously bad data for entirely political reasons -- to produce the false claim that the "warming slowdown" never happened.
No one buys it. Even your hero, fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann, has acknowledged the slowdown was real and that the NOAA got it wrong.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
I will take the word of a scientist vs. the word of a Groggy turned Frankfooter.
What's it like pretending to be someone other than yourself?
My guess is you misunderstood the atmospheric data
It is a shame you can not ask him
Using a 16 year history to draw a conclusion about global warming is just foolish.
How can one draw a conclusion about a planet which is several billion years old by looking at a couple hundred or even a couple of thousand years???
Try looking at a frequency which takes into account multiple freezing / thawing cycles ie multiple ice ages ago and then further
It is called taking an objective look
Zelots do not take an objective look
Nobody trusts or believes a zealot
& you are one with the credibility issue Groggy / Frankfooter
You may well be right & man-kind may be cooking the planet, but your approach as a zelot will not convince anyone
Your act is just like watching one of those evangelical ministers preaching to the TV
