• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No global warming since 1995?

drkitten said:
In that case, I'm fairly confident that when he said that the trend was not significant, he really meant that the trend was extremely significant. I mean, if you really think that he means the opposite of what his words actually say, then you should go all the way.....
Click to expand...

Not completely confident?
 
BenBurch said:
Certainly abusive.
Click to expand...
.
And there's always a link or reference to the "Obama controlled press".
Some of which is so absurd, one can wonder why seemingly sane people can pass such ridiculous situations.
 
BenBurch said:
Actually, no, he doesn't. He just wants to see a stronger signal.
Click to expand...

Stronger signal? What is it going to take for you to understand that there is NO signal. The lack of significant difference means no signal exists at all.

Interesting you should make that comment. The IPCC report citing his work extensively is quite adamant that the signals are unequivocal and rock solid strong. Jones himself has discredited them with his own admissions.
 
Skeptic said:
What bothers me about this is not the behavior of the scientists -- of course anybody who knows the first thing about science knows that no statistically significant global warming in the short term doesn't mean the global warming hypothesis is wrong in general.
Click to expand...

Not sure I can agree with you here. We'd tend to think that long term global warming caused by man must first be demonstrated by at least one short term global warming incident. Then several more, then several more, until finally the long term accrues from the aggregated short terms.

Not only hasn't there been long term global warming, but Dr. Jones admits there hasn't even been short term global warming since 1995. And, he can't "find" his data to even demonstrate the purported 1850-2007 "hockey stick." of long term global temperature "increases."

It just keeps getting better and better. No surprise or anything, it's just fun watching the APG hoaxers starting to squirm a little more every day.:D
 
FarmallMTA said:
Stronger signal? What is it going to take for you to understand that there is NO signal. The lack of significant difference means no signal exists at all.
Click to expand...

I actually think he said that the observed trend was close to the upper limit of the 95% CI. Which means that if you go from 95% CI to 90% CI you have a statistically significant deviation from the mean. Right? I mean, sure 95% is better than 90% and 99.9% is better than either of them, but the setting of these limits (how significant is significantly significant?) is somewhat arbitrary.
 
FarmallMTA said:
Stronger signal? What is it going to take for you to understand that there is NO signal. The lack of significant difference means no signal exists at all.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. That's the second time in this thread you've failed stats 101.
 
FarmallMTA said:
Not sure I can agree with you here. We'd tend to think that long term global warming caused by man must first be demonstrated by at least one short term global warming incident.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who "we" in this sentence is, but it doesn't include any climate scientists.
 
FarmallMTA said:
Stronger signal? What is it going to take for you to understand that there is NO signal. The lack of significant difference means no signal exists at all.

Interesting you should make that comment. The IPCC report citing his work extensively is quite adamant that the signals are unequivocal and rock solid strong. Jones himself has discredited them with his own admissions.
Click to expand...

Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about.
 
applecorped said:
Glaciers have never melted before?
Click to expand...

what's causing them to melt now? obviously warming temperatures. so we KNOW that the Earth is warming.

but what is causing the Earth to warm? most scientists agree it is the addition of GHG into the air by humans.
 
Yes, most insane conspiracy theorists deny AGW. they thinks its a Communist/Jew/NWO conspiracy.
 
Skeptic said:
What bothers me about this is not the behavior of the scientists -- of course anybody who knows the first thing about science knows that no statistically significant global warming in the short term doesn't mean the global warming hypothesis is wrong in general.

(And, by the way, no fair cheating by claiming the change is "probably real" but "only" not statistically significant. The whole point of having statistical tests is for people not to have to use their intuition, with all the embedded bias, false positives, etc.)

What bothers me is the behavior of the media. We've been hearing, not from scientists, but from personalities like Al Gore, how in the last few years global warming has accelerated terribly and therefore tons of stuff needs to be done NOW.

That is what was disproved here, the media hysteria, not the theory of global warming. Such hysteria -- things are getting worse really, really quick, we must do tons of stuff RIGHT NOW at enormous cost OR ELSE WE ARE FACING CATASTROPHE WITHIN FIVE YEARS never matched the reality of the facts.

But this hysteria had been going on in the last 40 years -- as the planet warmed about, I believe, half a degree? The change surely exists, but it is slow. I fail to see why the normal economic response -- the same response we have to, say, changes in the price of oil or whatever -- will not be able to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Problem is, the media (at least the more respectable sections of it) generally seek to get their information from the most prestigious, respected scientific bodies and scientists. In this case, what's happened is that the media who 'did the right thing' (i.e. went to the established climate scientists and IPCC lot) are seeing - as the establishment position continues to unravel - that all along they were building their house on shifting sand.

That's not the media's fault.

It's the fault of the scientists who put this all together, and used a host of less than gentlemanly tactics to establish, push, and defend their case.

It's as though, here in Skeppoworld, there is some unwritten rule saying you can't criticise established orthodox-position scientists, for anything, ever.
Yeah, blame the media instead. :rolleyes:

It's the media's job to do what they can to look for 'big' stories. If the people who are supposed to be telling them the truth are not doing so, and are in fact adumbrating reality to make a quasi-catastrophic domesday case.. then that's not the fault of Joe Scribbler.
 
Last edited:
data shows warming over the last 50 years. the glaciers are melting.

clearly, the Earth is getting warmer. the best theory to explain this, is GHG emissions from man.
 
Sigh... :rolleyes:

In an attempt to get the discussion back to the actual science, as opposed to slinging accusations of conspiracies & politics - blah blah blah - around, here's something for you. For anyone interested in reading up on various GW skeptic claims, and the scientific counter-arguments, check out this link: Skeptical Science - Examining Global Warming Skepticism

There's also a free app available at I-Tunes. Very handy to have when the topic comes up in conversation :)

ETA: This is also very useful for the GW skeptics themselves, because it addresses many of the common arguments from that direction. It's a very useful tool for those who are interested in learning more about the science behind GW, as opposed to those who are merely blindly following ideology.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom