GW: Separating facts from fiction

[varwoche]

The basis for my skepticism is the "evidence" provided by thousands of gibbering buffons working in the IPCC, NASA/NOAA ... Scripps

This anti-science statement combined with your whimsical conspiracy theory placing Bush Sr. and Kissinger as behind-the-scenes backers of the environmental movement is casting your posts in a not-entirely-unexpected new light.

 

[Edufer]

I concede that the scientists who are skeptical of AGW are the minority but there are qualified experts in that minority.

Is it your position that skepticism of AGW is irrational?

RandFan, you fell short of the number of scientists opposing AGW. This Wikipedia link gives a list of some more, but those are simply the most famous ones, the most vocal, those who make their voices heard in Congress testimonials, etc. More Skeptics

I am personal friend of many of those guys there.

 

[Edufer]

This anti-science statement combined with your whimsical conspiracy theory placing Bush Sr. and Kissinger as behind-the-scenes backers of the environmental movement is casting your posts in a not-entirely-unexpected new light.

Not used to hearing the truth?

Anti-science statement? That's one of the most scientifically accurate statement ever given in human history!

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, you fell short of the number of scientists opposing AGW. This Wikipedia link gives a list of some more, but those are simply the most famous ones, the most vocal, those who make their voices heard in Congress testimonials, etc. More Skeptics

I am personal friend of many of those guys there.

The list is somewhat questionable.

Jerry Falwell
Pat Robertson

Who gives a flying f*** what Falwell and Robertson think?

 

[delphi_ote]

The Petition dates back to 2001. It seems you haven't read it because the date is on the letter.

But you made no mention of the fact that the signatures were collected between 1999 and 2001. That's 5-7 years ago. Lots of new evidence has come to light since that time.

 

[delphi_ote]

I am personal friend of many of those guys there.

Right. So I'm sure you have a perfectly unbiased opinion on these matters.

 

[varwoche]

I'm skeptical of AGW or at least the extent of AGW. ... What is not known is A.) to what extent either or both contribute to GW and B.) how severe the increase will be.

The extent is a reasonable debate. What to do about it is also a reasonable debate.

I concede that the scientists who are skeptical of AGW are the minority ... Is it your position that skepticism of AGW is irrational?

The way you have framed it, no.

I hope you will consider these recent studies from some top notch scientific organizations and notice that the evidence is mounting.

Scripps/Livermore, Feb 2006
This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps. Barnett says he was "stunned" by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. "The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

Scripps/DOE, Jan 2006:
Human-produced Aerosols in Many Arctic Clouds Contribute to Climate Warming

Woods Hole, Feb 2006
researchers say they may be an indication that greenhouse gases could heat the oceans in the future much more than currently anticipated. The study suggests that climate models underestimate future warming.

 

[RandFan]

The extent is a reasonable debate. What to do about it is also a reasonable debate.

...

I hope you will consider these recent studies from some top notch scientific organizations and notice that the evidence is mounting.

Of course I will consider any evidence.

 

[Edufer]

Right. So I'm sure you have a perfectly unbiased opinion on these matters.

After all your links and praise to official sites and warming scientists, it is as unbiased as yours.

BTW, how about stopping your political rethoric and concentrating on some scientific stuff. Do you have any answer to what I have posted about the flawed study published in Science? Yes, the one about Greenland melting into oblivion.

If not, this thread is dead, as far as I am concened. No time to waste in reading boring comments disguised as "Kill the messenger" messages.

Is up to you, fellers... the ball is in your field.

 

[Edufer]

Scripps: Compelling evidence of global warming, or regional or local warming?

As an example of perfectly legal information for supporting a contradictory view is the temperature trend in central of Argentina, my country. This graph shows the trend for four consecutive years: 2002-2005. Can you spot any warming trend here? Maybe a cooling one?

So?

 

[RandFan]

Scripps: Compelling evidence of global warming, or regional or local warming?

As an example of perfectly legal information for supporting a contradictory view is the temperature trend in central of Argentina, my country. This graph shows the trend for four consecutive years: 2002-2005. Can you spot any warming trend here? Maybe a cooling one?

So?

Could you provide a link?

 

[Orwell]

Scripps: Compelling evidence of global warming, or regional or local warming?

As an example of perfectly legal information for supporting a contradictory view is the temperature trend in central of Argentina, my country. This graph shows the trend for four consecutive years: 2002-2005. Can you spot any warming trend here? Maybe a cooling one?

So?

So what? Local temperatures are meaningless, as you should know, that is, if you truly understand the subject as you claim you do, which I doubt. It's global trends that matter.

By the way...

The 1990s were, globally, the warmest decade since instrumental measurement started in 1860's. Recent scientific evidence based on pre-instrumental proxy climate data, mostly from sites in the northern hemisphere, indicates that the 1990s were the warmest decade and the 1900s the warmest century during the last 1000 years (see attached graph and references). The seven warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred this decade, with the warmest being 1998. The 1999 global mean combined land-surface air and sea surface temperature is estimated to be in the order of 0.3 to 0.4 ºC above the 1961-1990 normal, which will be the 5th warmest in the 140-year record, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press644.html

Why should I believe you and not the WMO?

And more...
2005 warmest on record in north

World at its warmest of past 1,200 years, researchers show

I could link this stuff on and on, quoting sources much more credible than you are...

 

[Edufer]

So what? Local temperatures are meaningless, as you should know, that is, if you truly understand the subject as you claim you do, which I doubt. It's global trends that matter.

Why should I believe you and not the WMO?

Besides that WMO has been wrong more times than I can remember, put it the other way around: Why should you believe the WMO and not me?

I know you will say "because I don't know you" -but do you really know the people at the WMO? Do you?

I know a lot of them, I can assure you that they know doodle-squat about climatology. And many of them (at least most of the guys here in Argentina) besides of being totally incompetent are real crooks.

 

[Edufer]

Could you provide a link?

Analysis of USA temperature period 1900-2000.

Ghostbusting Temperatures

An example: Georgia

Cities in blue have cooled since 1900. Those in red have warmed.

Global temperature trends are made out of many regional ones. Regional trends are made out of many local ones.

If you find around the world an abnormal amount of local and regional trends showing cooling, then something is wrong when they speak about a Global Warming trend.

The surface record as composed (or should we say: "manipulated") by NOAA/GISS, CRU and others, is under strong criticism by I dare say most of climatic scientists. Someone at those "agencies" said years ago: "We must get rid of the satellite data, quick" -he didn't know that the climatologist he was speaking to was a "skeptic".

And everbody then learned that they started to do something to discredit the satellite data.

 

[Orwell]

The surface record as composed (or should we say: "manipulated") by NOAA/GISS, CRU and others, is under strong criticism by I dare say most of climatic scientists. Someone at those "agencies" said years ago: "We must get rid of the satellite data, quick" -he didn't know that the climatologist he was speaking to was a "skeptic".

And everbody then learned that they started to do something to discredit the satellite data.

You're always linking the same web page over and over. And on that last "ghostbusting temperatures" link of yours, all the listed links lead nowhere.

"Manipulated", eh? Are you implying some kind of conspiracy?

 

[Orwell]

Besides that WMO has been wrong more times than I can remember, put it the other way around: Why should you believe the WMO and not me?

I know you will say "because I don't know you" -but do you really know the people at the WMO? Do you?

I know a lot of them, I can assure you that they know doodle-squat about climatology. And many of them (at least most of the guys here in Argentina) besides of being totally incompetent are real crooks.

"The World Meteorological Organization is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 187 Member States and Territories. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established in 1950, WMO became the specialized agency of the United Nations in 1951 for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences. "
http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html

Whereas you, you're some guy on the net, making unsubstantiated claims backed by zero evidence on a sceptics page.

 

[Edufer]

Could you provide a link?

Try this about temperatures all over the world. Lots of temp graphs.

World Temperature Trends

 

[RandFan]

Try this about temperatures all over the world. Lots of temp graphs.

World Temperature Trends

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Whereas you, you're some guy on the net, making unsubstantiated claims backed by zero evidence on a sceptics page.

"Zero"? I don't know how good the data is but to say "zero" is not fair. I don't care that he is "some guy on the net". I only care about the quality of the arguments and the evidence. I'll read the links he provided. Do you have something to rebut the data? I noticed some previous links you or someone else posted. Is there anything relevant regarding this data in those links, if you know?

Thanks

 

[CapelDodger]

Unsubstantiated claims backed by zero evidence.

Edufer carries the Mark of the Cultist. "Special knowledge". (6, to those who know what I know.) "Definition of 'knowledge' [previously a hazy concept] by source of Special Knowledge". (Also 6, don't de-rail by asking.) "Everybody else is stupid and can't understand and has fallen for a Conspiracy". (7. Go figure.)