No global warming since 1995?

[easycruise]

Splicing data shenanigans?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

"Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations, the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up.""

 

[Upchurch]

Splicing data shenanigans?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

A blog post written by a denier with no particular scientific training and a political ax to grind? What's not to believe?

eta:
I was, perhaps, a little generous to Ms. Phillips. From the article I linked too:

Phillips argues that evolution is "merely a theory." She writes that it "does not explain the irreducible complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together". She claims that it "does not explain human self-consciousness; it does not explain altruism; it does not explain how existence began". She has also defended the teaching of creationism, alongside the teaching of evolution, in schools.

...

Despite a clear and strong scientific consensus that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, Phillips has repeatedly questioned the safety of the vaccine, continuing to insist that "urgent questions about the vaccine’s safety remain unanswered", shortly after a 2005 Cochrane review of the vaccine, finding "no credible evidence" of a link with autism, led the rest of the media to conclude that the affair was over. Science journalist and physician Ben Goldacre has called Phillips "the MMR sceptic who just doesn't understand science".

and, of course

Phillips has said of global warming that the current "warm spell is well within the normal cyclical fluctuations in temperature from century to century", that blaming "warming on mankind’s activities in producing carbon dioxide" is "utter garbage", and that the campaign to stop man-made global warming is like a "witch-hunt" and is “one of the greatest scientific scams of the modern age”. She believes environmentalists act in a fascistic manner, writing: "It was no accident that Hitler was a green." She has criticised John McCain for his environmental policies: "Anyone who endorses, as he does, the man-made global warming scam displays an alarming absence of judgment and common sense". Further comments by Phillips on the general issue of global warming include: "there is no evidence for global warming", "the ice is increasing, it is not decreasing", and "polar bears are increasing in number, and the temperature is going down, not up".

Awesome reference there, easycruise

 

[easycruise]

A blog post written by a denier with no particular scientific training and a political ax to grind? What's not to believe?

eta:
I was, perhaps, a little generous to Ms. Phillips. From the article I linked too:


Awesome reference there, easycruise

But you don't even realize you are shooting the messenger!

Again, since you have comprehension deficiencies...

"Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations, the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up.

Even one of the IPCC’s lead authors sniffed a problem:

‘This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,’ Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in an e-mail. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist.’

"" Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said..

""What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope.""

Earth to Upchurch...it's data shenanigans whether you want to realize it for the woo-woo it is, or not.

 

[mhaze]

Splicing data shenanigans?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

"Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology....

This was discussed a while back on JREF and I recall challenging any of the local Warmers to actually use the raw data to argue from.

None took this challenge, and I see that here, Upchurch argues ad hominem.

Standard Warmer practice.

 

[easycruise]

Himalaya shenaningans, Upchurch!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

""It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.""

and...

""Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment Minister, said on Tuesday the scandal vindicated his position that there was no proof that Himalayan glaciers were melting abnormally fast. “The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,” he said.""

Is it Ok with you that I can now be skeptical about ANYTHING produced by the IPCC?

 

[easycruise]

Watts weighs in on Phil Jones admission..

Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected:

* Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
* There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
* The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
* This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
* The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
* The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
* There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...th-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

 

[Upchurch]

Even one of the IPCC’s lead authors sniffed a problem:

‘This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,’ Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in an e-mail. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist.’

Yeah, try clicking on the source link that accompanied that quote. Tell me what you find.

Let's see what NCAR says about AGW:

Together, these data show that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:

1. Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2. As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3. Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming.

Earth to Upchurch...it's data shenanigans whether you want to realize it for the woo-woo it is, or not.

So, on the one hand, we have an unsourced quote of an organization's representative with no context repeated by a political hack. On the other hand, we have the organization's own website.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[easycruise]

Jones interview again with Watts comments at end [brackets]..

""Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period. [Not necessarily — what about “natural internal variability” as well as other sources of “natural influences”? This response also assumes that we know all the modes and magnitudes of internal variability and pathways—both qualitatively and quantitatively—by which the sun, for instance, affects our climate.]

 

[easycruise]

Yeah, try clicking on the source link that accompanied that quote. Tell me what you find.

Let's see what NCAR says about AGW:




So, on the one hand, we have an unsourced quote of an organization's representative with no context repeated by a political hack. On the other hand, we have the organization's own website.

Well, I'm convinced.

You also seem to be "due diligence" challenged..Same thing here..still unsourced? took me 10 seconds to find it.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-01-21-antarctica_global_warming_N.htm

From the article..

""Some researchers skeptical about the magnitude of global warming overall said that the new study didn't match their measurements from satellites and that there appears to be no warming in Antarctica since 1980.

"It overstates what they have obtained from their analysis," said Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado.

More shenanigans, Upchurch?

 

[Upchurch]

You also seem to be "due diligence" challenged..Same thing here..

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-01-21-antarctica_global_warming_N.htm

Did you read the rest of that article?

 

[easycruise]

And the cockroaches just keep on coming...

Netherlands sloppy research ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

""Skeptics say (IPCC) errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on "grey literature" outside leading scientific journals. The panel's reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming.""

NOW can I be skeptical about ANYTHING the IPCC produces?

 

[easycruise]

Did you read the rest of that article?

Yes. Now you expect me to believe Steig after he makes up stuff? Come now! And forget about Shindell, he's a fool and a hack. Already been exposed.

Steig said.."Steig said a different and independent study using ice cores drilled in west Antarctica found the same thing as his paper. And recent satellite data also confirms what this paper has found, Steig added.""

That's like saying that the hockey stick methodology is valid because it was confirmed by other studies!

And Steig mentions no sources with his supposed corroboration. A few posts ago you railed at something be "unsourced", yet you give Steig a pass. Interesting critical thinking skills you possess.

 

[Upchurch]

"Skeptics say..."

*sigh*

Unnamed "skeptics", huh?

Confirmation bias, much?

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. Now you expect me to believe Steig after he makes up stuff? Come now!

Made what stuff up?

And forget about Shindell, he's a fool and a hack. Already been exposed.

Exposed where?

 

[easycruise]

Made what stuff up?

Are you dense? He made up some of the data. Reading problems again?

Exposed where?

Here, by me. I take on Shindell, Phil Plait and skewer skeptigirl all at the same time..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73716&page=5

 

[Upchurch]

Are you dense? He made up some of the data. Reading problems again?

I have no reading problems. I read the article and understand that extrapolation is not "making stuff up".

Here, by me. I take on Shindell, Phil Plait and skewer skeptigirl all at the same time..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73716&page=5

I'll have to read the thread before I can comment. At first glance, I see you doing a lot of same bad tactics you are using in this thread.

 

[easycruise]

I have no reading problems. I read the article and understand that extrapolation is not "making stuff up".

Take it up with Trenberth who said.."Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. "It is hard to make data where none exist."

 

[Upchurch]

Take it up with Trenberth who said.."Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. "It is hard to make data where none exist."

Wow. You are cherry-picking the out of that quote. He also said that it is "a pretty good analysis". In other words, it is too far out of context to determine his full opinion of the study, let alone the topic.

I will also point out that his group's official position is that there is a human contribution to global warming.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I can just picture these people during the Cuba Missile Crisis.

Someone watching the news: Applecorped! Mhaze! Alfie! The Soviets have put ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on Cuba!
The aforementioned: There have never been weapons on Cuba before?
SWN: Not with nuclear warheads!
AM: Can you prove they've got nuclear warheads?
SWN: Well, that's what everyone agrees on!
AM: Well, I believe they don't, and that this is just a ploy to get costly reforms into our economic system.
SWN: But we could be weeks or days from World War Three!
AM: Wars are a natural part of human nature, and have happened many times before. Hence, they're totally harmless.
SWN: But-- but--
AM: And even World Wars I and II were proven to be beneficial financially. Hence, a WWIII would be a good thing.
SWN: :speechless:

You forgot the last line:

Let's Nuke em.

Yeah, we have a "true believer" here alright.

Coming from a true believer.
btw, how can skeptics be true believers?

This was discussed a while back on JREF and I recall challenging any of the local Warmers to actually use the raw data to argue from.

None took this challenge, and I see that here, Upchurch argues ad hominem.

Standard Warmer practice.

Standard Groupthink

Himalaya shenaningans, Upchurch!

Is it Ok with you that I can now be skeptical about ANYTHING produced by the IPCC?

I am now(evenmore than before) and wonder why others aren't.
Oh yeah, I forgot - one doesn't question the church leaders.

 

[a_unique_person]

Coming from a true believer.
btw, how can skeptics be true believers?

You keep calling yourself a skeptic, but refuse to address the physical evidence.