The warmers are becoming skeptics

[Hallo Alfie]

Thank you.
What's very strange is that in a social issues thread, I put up something to do with ...

Surprise!
A Social issue.

 

[a_unique_person]

Thank you.
What's very strange is that in a social issues thread, I put up something to do with ...

Surprise!
A Social issue.

But you never address the science.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Why are you surprised about that?
I have said many times I will let others attend that area of the discussion.

Does it frustrate you that I wont play your way? What a pity.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why are you surprised about that?
I have said many times I will let others attend that area of the discussion.

Does it frustrate you that I wont play your way? What a pity.

It's not a matter of my way. I just find it amazing that someone can be so interested in something, but studiously avoid knowing anything about it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's not a matter of my way. I just find it amazing that someone can be so interested in something, but studiously avoid knowing anything about it.

Bzzzz. wrong.

Got anything to say on the social issues surrounding this?

 

[a_unique_person]

Bzzzz. wrong.

Got anything to say on the social issues surrounding this?

You might as well ask me if I think the IPCC report should have a cover that is blue or beige.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The why are you posting in a social issues thread?
Anyway, I have no intention of getting into (yet) another discussion about me - flattered as I am. So you can address the OP, the other social and political type points or head back to the science threads.

 

[Meed]

The why are you posting in a social issues thread?
Anyway, I have no intention of getting into (yet) another discussion about me - flattered as I am. So you can address the OP, the other social and political type points or head back to the science threads.

This request would be easier to take seriously if you didn't spend all your time in the science threads talking about "group think", "political pressure" and "rude behavior".

 

[Meed]

Kinda hard to talk about why people may or may not be migrating from "warmer" to "denier" or vice versa without getting into the science?

 

[BeAChooser]

Wait, that graph lines up with this graph?

Except as I noted earlier, the last portion of the line in your graph is based on the temperatures from ground stations that might be biased towards hotter values (the cooler ones having been eliminated when they closed 75% of all stations over that time period). Now isn't it curious that the temperature increases match the solar irradiance increases in the earlier years. Now if it turns out the temperature data is indeed biased as alleged (an allegation that has not been proven wrong) (and an allegation that might be what Phil Jones was talking about when he admitted that since 1995 there's been no global warming), then perhaps your graph is just plain wrong?

 

[BeAChooser]

Here is a newer study

And is it courtesy of the some of the same people that the emails showed have been deceiving the public and failing to use unbiased data?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This request would be easier to take seriously if you didn't spend all your time in the science threads talking about "group think", "political pressure" and "rude behavior".

Groupthink isn't science?

Kinda hard to talk about why people may or may not be migrating from "warmer" to "denier" or vice versa without getting into the science?

For some (mainly warmers) who can't separate them and make the entire thing one great big moral issue.

 

[mhaze]

Except as I noted earlier, the last portion of the line in your graph is based on the temperatures from ground stations that might be biased towards hotter values (the cooler ones having been eliminated when they closed 75% of all stations over that time period). Now isn't it curious that the temperature increases match the solar irradiance increases in the earlier years. Now if it turns out the temperature data is indeed biased as alleged (an allegation that has not been proven wrong) (and an allegation that might be what Phil Jones was talking about when he admitted that since 1995 there's been no global warming), then perhaps your graph is just plain wrong?

Just to add a bit to this discussion, which is a rehash of many that have occurred - the first chart below is sunspots vs temp, and the second is the aK geomagnetic solar flux vs temp. The aK fit is superior, clearly, and this is over the last several decades in which Warmers claim the sun could not have been the cause of the warming (or whatever they claim at the moment, it is hard to keep track of it, it is nothing but psychological denial really).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

.. snip.. it is hard to keep track of it, it is nothing but psychological denial really.

Careful Mhaze. apparently Psychology isn't science so we aren't supposed to mention it.

 

[Carefulplease]

Just to add a bit to this discussion, which is a rehash of many that have occurred - the first chart below is sunspots vs temp, and the second is the aK geomagnetic solar flux vs temp. The aK fit is superior, clearly, and this is over the last several decades in which Warmers claim the sun could not have been the cause of the warming (or whatever they claim at the moment, it is hard to keep track of it, it is nothing but psychological denial really).


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244a71a73b40961.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224495e34e0a9922.png[/qimg]

It is helpful when you mention you sources:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1474706506000131

 

[Meed]

Groupthink isn't science?

Well technically anything can be studied scientifically, but accusing posters of group think in global warming threads isn't what I'd call science discussion.

I could be pedantic and come back with "science isn't a social issue?" but you get the idea.

For some (mainly warmers) who can't separate them and make the entire thing one great big moral issue.

No idea what you just said. Oh well.

 

[mhaze]

It is helpful when you mention you sources:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1474706506000131

sorry, here is pdf

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Surprise, surprise: Looks like he's got a new article out:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-...quest-id=b6fb4942-0a7e-466d-bcdb-a94dc95dc786

 

[mhaze]

Careful Mhaze. apparently Psychology isn't science so we aren't supposed to mention it.

Err...Don't worry. My small, humble and concise charts and pictures cannot compete with the huge, bigger than a pc screen, flashy multicolored projections of Alarmist fantasies. Thus I contribute the alarmist Warmer fantasy of the Denier-Skeptic:

 

[jmarcure]

Thus I contribute the alarmist Warmer fantasy of the Denier-Skeptic:

I've been lurking around here for years and I pretty much concluded that in order to be a Skeptic you had to absolutely know that AWG was real and that there was know doubt in any credible persons mind, findings or research.

So I ask how you can be a Denier-Skeptic? Although I do realize that is not your label but the label you believed assigned by those you label alarmist Warmer which I assume translates to Skeptic.

 

[GreyICE]

Except as I noted earlier, the last portion of the line in your graph is based on the temperatures from ground stations that might be biased towards hotter values (the cooler ones having been eliminated when they closed 75% of all stations over that time period). Now isn't it curious that the temperature increases match the solar irradiance increases in the earlier years. Now if it turns out the temperature data is indeed biased as alleged (an allegation that has not been proven wrong) (and an allegation that might be what Phil Jones was talking about when he admitted that since 1995 there's been no global warming), then perhaps your graph is just plain wrong?

Okay, so let me get this straight. The sun is increasing in output, which we know from the fact that a few other planets in the solar system are increasing in temperature. Direct measurements are showing no increase, but reconstructions in the past show a small increase in the middle of last century (but other reconstructions of temperature are flat wrong).

Meanwhile, direct measurements are biased because of a fake warming trend that is generated by false measurements.

So to summarize: The globe isn't warming. Even if it is warming it is caused by the sun. Even if the temperature record doesn't track the sun it's because the temperature record is falsified. Even if CO2 is known to absorb light in the spectrum output by the earth, it's not a greenhouse gas. Or if it is a greenhouse gas, its not an important one. Or if it is an important one, the atmosphere is fortunately already saturated. At every single level. Even near space, where there isn't much atmosphere at all. Or if it's not saturated there, the air is so thin it doesn't matter.

Do I have this about right, or is there something you feel the need to add?

I note that you have failed, again, to provide a link to your claim. It's because I said I'm 80% I know what idiotic tripe you're parroting (it has to do with a change in the collection methodology for stations in Canada, which was done by the Canadian government, and doesn't really effect the data entering the model - Canadian data just comes in later).

Or maybe it's the 20%, and you have some good and convincing evidence?