How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[jimbob]

Steverino,

I take it you don't actually have a point to make. Megalodon's charts seem perfectly clear and easy to understand for me, however, the last scatterplot shows all you need.

I would agree that this only shows that there is warming, not what causes it. However some people seem to be disputing that fact too.

I thought the debate had movd on from "there is no warming" to "there is warming, but it is nothing to do with man".

Nobody has explained why "natural" warming would be a good thing if "artificial" warming would be bad. If the climate changes (whether "naturally" or "artificially") it is going to be disruptive, because at the very least, the optimum locations are going to change.

 

[TrueSceptic]

If you keep practicing, you may get good at producing propaganda (science...nope!).

The irony being that the whole GW Denialist industry is about deceit and propaganda, not science.

Of course, I could have added evasion to the list. For instance, I repeatedly ask your views on the greenhouse effect and you ignore me each time. Why is that?

Meanwhile in the real world -

2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Speaker Bio's

Do you really want us to go through that list and see how many are left after applying my filters?

 

[mhaze]

The irony being that the whole GW Denialist industry is about deceit and propaganda, not science.

Of course, I could have added evasion to the list. For instance, I repeatedly ask your views on the greenhouse effect and you ignore me each time. Why is that?


Do you really want us to go through that list and see how many are left after applying my filters?

I've seen no ability on your part to critique objectively or otherwise the work of scientists, so it would be of no interest to me how you might spin opinions on the scientists speaking at the conference.

Your negative, sarcastic and predictable attitude isn't conducive to actual discussion. In case you may be wondering why some of your questions get ignored. Coming from you in such mode, they may not be worth answering.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I've seen no ability on your part to critique objectively or otherwise the work of scientists, so it would be of no interest to me how you might spin opinions on the scientists speaking at the conference.

Really? Do you think this is about science? It is about the behaviour of people like you. Again, you refuse to answer a question and insult instead.

You have no idea about my scientific knowledge. It is irrelevant to this thread in any case.

I don't have to "spin" opinions. They can speak for themselves. Do you want to look at those or not? A frequent tactic of yours is to post some list and then chicken out when someone suggests actually looking at it.

Your negative, sarcastic and predictable attitude isn't conducive to actual discussion. In case you may be wondering why some of your questions get ignored. Coming from you in such mode, they may not be worth answering.

Well this is really funny because soon after I came here, I asked a very reasonable question and you responded in a way that no trustworthy, reasonable person would.

Is your attitude conducive to discussion? I've seen little evidence of that.

 

[CapelDodger]

The answer appears to be "No".

It always has been before.

 

[CapelDodger]

2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Speaker Bio's

Something else the aspiring GW Sceptic should appreciate is the power of pretentious titles. This reference (for those not in the know) is to the Heartland Institute's jolly in Manhattan. I gather Lord Munchkin went down very well (most of the audience was 'Murrican, and they're mugs for British aristocracy) but I've yet to find a transcript. I'm sure it'll turn up soon.

For more information, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nd-no-real-scientists-came/langswitch_lang/in

 

[CapelDodger]

Geeze, you are as bitter here as you are on the other (John Coleman) thread where you personally attack me ...

I rather resent that. I don't bitterly resent it, I'm not going to start stalking you or anything, but all the same I'm a bit miffed. I only engage in personal attacks on a very select few, of whom you're not one.

... as if I am the only one who contradicts you. Now I see on this thread you are playing defense.

Your perceptions are your business. They may also be your problem, but that's not for me to say.

Get a life Mr. Chartman.

Let's take it elsewhere, since this is where we talk about people like you and talking to you is a diversion. Obviously I couldn't let your egregious canard go by without some response, but I've said my piece. Let's speak no more of it.

 

[David Rodale]

Dave, you really crack me up... you're not paying attention to what's going on on the thread, are you?

Your latest straw to grasp is laughable. It takes an idiot to look at an outlier and fit a trend through it. The graphs I've posted show what has happened so far: an obvious warming in the last four decades. You are the person that predicted, among other things:

that removing the 1998 data would cancel the warming trend of 30 years


and I proved you wrong;

You changed that to from 1998 it's not warming

and I proved you wrong;

You claimed that the oceans weren't warming


and I proved you wrong;

you implied (based on 7 years out of 40) that CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature



and I proved you wrong again...

I have to ask... are you a masochist?

Here it is, your cooling, sweeping in as a red tide



You're depressing...

I am dealing with pre-school mentality in your argument.

The question is not whether it has warmed; it is, and always has been my point that the warming we've seen has slowed down and flattened. I posted a three step graph illustrating this.

It is not arguable.

What you can't seem to grasp is every single one of your graphs showing the long term trend is a comparison to the baseline temperature; 1951-1980, 1961-1990 etc. Anything (linear regression trend) over the baseline in a color graph will be "red" i.e. warm. A 30 year trend is not wiped out in one, five or likely even ten, although it is possible. If that happened it would not be statistically probable.

One year is not a trend, however the current cooling is contributing to the recent non-warming trend of the last several years. Also, in every ENSO event there is a rebound and it shouldn't be a surprise when it happens after this La Nina.

What will be telling is what happens in the next year and so on. Even Capeldodger understands this. Our disagreement is he views the next 2-7 years important, which is true, but he doesn't consider the last 2-7.

If you can't provide my exact quotes, don't be putting words into my mouth. At some point I will refer to you as I've never done yet in this forum, that being a liar.

Also Megalodon, why don't you just give Capeldodger a simple explanation of R2? You are careful to note "correlation is not causation", but then go on to claim you have explained 70% of temperature rise is due to CO2. NOT!!! It has long ago diverged from any correlation you'd like to attribute.

Casual readers please note, when Megalodon posts the pretty graphs, they are all compared to the long term trend, and are useless in analyzing current conditions. Should a cooling trend be .2 deg/decade, Megalodon would still produce the same results for the next 20 years and would be able to claim "it is still warming". That is the game he/she is playing.

Lastly, Megalodon, you stated the oceans are warming. Your color graphs showing RED is again playing games. Last year you became a bit irritated because I didn't bring up the ocean heat content issue until Lyman's updated data was released which showed no warming. The data was for 2003-2006. Do you think the OHC has increased the last two years? Wanna bet on it?

The fact is the oceans are not warming and that is a big problem for AGW. No annual increase of OHC, no global warming. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[Megalodon]

What you can't seem to grasp is every single one of your graphs showing the long term trend is a comparison to the baseline temperature; 1951-1980, 1961-1990 etc. Anything (linear regression trend) over the baseline in a color graph will be "red" i.e. warm. A 30 year trend is not wiped out in one, five or likely even ten, although it is possible. If that happened it would not be statistically probable.

Statistics... you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means...

You obviously can't read graphs... But that's ok, I've gotten used to it...

One year is not a trend, however the current cooling is contributing to the recent non-warming trend of the last several years. Also, in every ENSO event there is a rebound and it shouldn't be a surprise when it happens after this La Nina.

Do you even read what you post? News flash: Last year tied with 98 as the second warmest year on record... this in a solar minimum...

What will be telling is what happens in the next year and so on. Even Capeldodger understands this. Our disagreement is he views the next 2-7 years important, which is true, but he doesn't consider the last 2-7.

Your making things up again... the fact that the last 7 years have been constantly well above climatology is worthy of consideration, and I believe CD is of that opinion. but you, on the other hand, dismiss it as irrelevant.

Also Megalodon, why don't you just give Capeldodger a simple explanation of R2?

Are you dense?... how much simpler do you want my explanation? should I scribble it for you in pretty colors?

You are careful to note "correlation is not causation", but then go on to claim you have explained 70% of temperature rise is due to CO2. NOT!!!

You don't know much statistics, do you?... That the R^2 is 0.7 means exactly that 70% of the variation can be explained by the independent variable. Deal with it.

It has long ago diverged from any correlation you'd like to attribute.

Yes, we all know that cherrypicking data on a chaotic system will prove whatever you want... I wrote about it in my post...

Casual readers please note, when Megalodon posts the pretty graphs, they are all compared to the long term trend, and are useless in analyzing current conditions.

Don't worry with the casual readers... they're all too busy laughing at you.

You don't have the slightest idea what my graphs show, and are making a fool of yourself by trying to address them... face it, your useless without your blogs.

Should a cooling trend be .2 deg/decade, Megalodon would still produce the same results for the next 20 years and would be able to claim "it is still warming". That is the game he/she is playing.

You are... limited.

Lastly, Megalodon, you stated the oceans are warming. Your color graphs showing RED is again playing games.

My only graph concerning oceans is B&W. Don't drink and post...

Last year you became a bit irritated because I didn't bring up the ocean heat content issue until Lyman's updated data was released which showed no warming.

Last year I became irritated because you failed to understand a scientific work, which you obviously still don't grasp... I've learned since then, and am now only slightly amused.

The fact is the oceans are not warming and that is a big problem for AGW.

Let's try again:



If the oceans are not warming, why the jump to the right?

No annual increase of OHC, no global warming. It's no more complicated than that.

OK guys, shut down the PCs... Dave figured it all out, let's all pack and leave... last one out shuts the light...

 

[David Rodale]

Statistics... you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means...

You obviously can't read graphs... But that's ok, I've gotten used to it...



Do you even read what you post? News flash: Last year tied with 98 as the second warmest year on record... this in a solar minimum...



Your making things up again... the fact that the last 7 years have been constantly well above climatology is worthy of consideration, and I believe CD is of that opinion. but you, on the other hand, dismiss it as irrelevant.



Are you dense?... how much simpler do you want my explanation? should I scribble it for you in pretty colors?



You don't know much statistics, do you?... That the R^2 is 0.7 means exactly that 70% of the variation can be explained by the independent variable. Deal with it.



Yes, we all know that cherrypicking data on a chaotic system will prove whatever you want... I wrote about it in my post...



Don't worry with the casual readers... they're all too busy laughing at you.

You don't have the slightest idea what my graphs show, and are making a fool of yourself by trying to address them... face it, your useless without your blogs.



You are... limited.



My only graph concerning oceans is B&W. Don't drink and post...



Last year I became irritated because you failed to understand a scientific work, which you obviously still don't grasp... I've learned since then, and am now only slightly amused.



Let's try again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg

If the oceans are not warming, why the jump to the right?



OK guys, shut down the PCs... Dave figured it all out, let's all pack and leave... last one out shuts the light...

Climate Metric Reality Check #2 Long Term Sea Surface Temperature Trend Anomalies and Ocean Heat Content Trends - Evidence For No Recent Global Warming

1. There has been long term warming of the upper ocean, since at least 1955.
2. The upper ocean heat content changes over time closely map onto the sea surface temperature anomaly trends.
3. In the last four years, the sea surface temperature average between 60N and 60S has cooled.

How many more reality checks do you want?

It's not warming....

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, I noticed this yesterday. We are drifting away from the OP towards discussing the science, or at least what GWS claim is the science, and I played a part in this. If we're not careful this will look like most other GW threads.

This one's turned out to be an excellent venue for a Megalodon-Rodale DeathMatch You'll have noticed that there's some back-story there, all of it along the same lines. Intermittent engagements, with lots of lying low in between. The Megalodon in the undergrowth, the Rodale in a burrow hoping for it to go away.

Here it's as if they're tied-up in a sack together, which is just what Megalodon has wanted for a while now.

 

[CapelDodger]

Climate Metric Reality Check #2 Long Term Sea Surface Temperature Trend Anomalies and Ocean Heat Content Trends - Evidence For No Recent Global Warming



How many more reality checks do you want?

It's not warming....

"Elvis has left the sack".

 

[CapelDodger]

What will be telling is what happens in the next year and so on. Even Capeldodger understands this. Our disagreement is he views the next 2-7 years important, which is true, but he doesn't consider the last 2-7.

I both considered them beforhand and experienced them in between. Forget the last seven years. They're gone. Nobody's going to make them any different, try as they might.

There's no refuge in the past. You can, of course, take comfort in it until the future rolls over you. Let us know how that works out for you.

Also Megalodon, why don't you just give Capeldodger a simple explanation of R2?

Did you provide one that I missed?

 

[mhaze]

Climate Metric Reality Check #2 Long Term Sea Surface Temperature Trend Anomalies and Ocean Heat Content Trends - Evidence For No Recent Global Warming
How many more reality checks do you want?

It's not warming....

That section continues....

......However the absence of recognition (and possible explanation) of this change in sea surface temperature trend in the 2007 IPCC report, and other sources including the media, presents yet further evidence on the lack of balance in such assessments. Moreover, since the upper ocean heat content trends are clearly correlated to the sea surface temperature trends, we should expect that the accumulation in Joules within the climate system is failing the litmus test during this time period as proposed on Climate Science at....

 

[bobdroege7]

Climate Metric Reality Check #2 Long Term Sea Surface Temperature Trend Anomalies and Ocean Heat Content Trends - Evidence For No Recent Global Warming



How many more reality checks do you want?

It's not warming....

It's the sun

 

[fsol]

Ocean heat content goes up and down. The longer trend is up. This has already been done to death on here. It is in chapter 5 of the WG1 report.

Why not cherry pick 1981 and say that the warming stopped then?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Dup.

 

[TrueSceptic]

This one's turned out to be an excellent venue for a Megalodon-Rodale DeathMatch You'll have noticed that there's some back-story there, all of it along the same lines. Intermittent engagements, with lots of lying low in between. The Megalodon in the undergrowth, the Rodale in a burrow hoping for it to go away.

Here it's as if they're tied-up in a sack together, which is just what Megalodon has wanted for a while now.

Well, I find it easier to imagine a megalodon in the sea. Perhaps they are in the same tank at SeaWorld?

 

[a_unique_person]

If you keep practicing, you may get good at producing propaganda (science...nope!).

Meanwhile in the real world -

2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Speaker Bio's

See, there's you're problem. A scientific conference, that lets any nutter stand up and make an idiot of himself. Exhibit A is David Archibald. Exhibit B Monckton. What sort of a conference is it where amateurs can get up and speak, just because they say what you want to hear?

 

[TrueSceptic]

See, there's you're problem. A scientific conference, that lets any nutter stand up and make an idiot of himself. Exhibit A is David Archibald. Exhibit B Monckton. What sort of a conference is it where amateurs can get up and speak, just because they say what you want to hear?

Another name that tells us a lot is Marc Morano. Isn't he the political propagandist working for Inhofe, and thought to be behind the Kerry swiftboating campaign?