Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[edthecynic]

I havent had time to read the BEST papers but the UHI results seem very odd. I wonder how long the peer review will last and how many changes will be made. interesting times.

As I told you in another thread, removing stations near heat sources would increase rather than decrease the global average because the trends are based on anomalies, not absolute temperature readings. Anomalies are measured against the 20 to 30 year average of that station's temperature and if the station is near a heat source it raises the average temperature the anomaly is measured against thus reducing the anomaly!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real

Liar!

LOL. Ol Sis is up to her usual self. All snide comments and no information. Of course, the fact that the Phd Physicists state exactly opposite of what she states just doesn't seem to penetrate her little 'Conservate' alternative reality.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course, this is just the American Institue of Physics. Hell, Sis might even know what that is.

 

[Article 15]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

Money for the new study, dubbed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

And paid for with Koch money!



Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming - CSMonitor.com

 

[Si modo]

they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real

Liar!

LOL. Ol Sis is up to her usual self. All snide comments and no information. Of course, the fact that the Phd Physicists state exactly opposite of what she states just doesn't seem to penetrate her little 'Conservate' alternative reality.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course, this is just the American Institue of Physics. Hell, Sis might even know what that is.

Well, let's see you find a single post of mine where I ever said there was no warming.

You won't find one where I did, because I never did. But, you DID just lie about my posts.

And, why you link to a site about the 'greenhouse' effect is beyond me. I do know that you lie quite often that I deny that there is a 'greenhouse' effect, but I never have.

I realize you have been pissed that scientists insisted that questionable data be validated, but why you lie about my views yet again, remains for all to ponder to what purpose you choose to lie.

As I say, those who are on solid foundation in their argument, never have reason to lie. But, you lie quite often, at least about me and my views.

 

[Si modo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

Scientific skeptics have not in general. We certainly have insisted that tainted data be verified.

I clearly articulated what I mean with what I said. I'm sorry that escapes you.

 

[code1211]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

There are two separate and distinct considerations in within this topic:

1. Is it warming?
2. What is causing it?

Simply showing that there is warming going on does nothing to attribute cause.

In truth, the second of the graphs posted in the article shows pretty clearly that warming predates the Industrial Revolution and should, to any unbiased observer, also show that whatever it is that caused the cooling to end and the warming to start was not caused by the Industrial revolution.

To argue that the anthropogenic increase of CO2 caused the warming beginning with the Industrial Revolution is arguing that the future causes the past. To pretend that the warming waited until the Industrial Revolution started is misrepresenting the facts.

This is the argument of the warmers and it is simply empty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

You mean like Phil Jones?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones : Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[edthecynic]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

There are two separate and distinct considerations in within this topic:

1. Is it warming?
2. What is causing it?

Simply showing that there is warming going on does nothing to attribute cause.

In truth, the second of the graphs posted in the article shows pretty clearly that warming predates the Industrial Revolution and should, to any unbiased observer, also show that whatever it is that caused the cooling to end and the warming to start was not caused by the Industrial revolution.

To argue that the anthropogenic increase of CO2 caused the warming beginning with the Industrial Revolution is arguing that the future causes the past. To pretend that the warming waited until the Industrial Revolution started is misrepresenting the facts.

This is the argument of the warmers and it is simply empty.

No it doesn't! It shown temps being fairly steady in the vast majority of the reconstructions until after the industrial revolution. In typical denier fashion, you focus only on the few that support your preconceived notions.

Summary




2nd millennium

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the 2nd millennium. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).
It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature. Hence, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.



Expansion of the Instrumental Record

 

[Old Rocks]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

Scientific skeptics have not in general. We certainly have insisted that tainted data be verified.

I clearly articulated what I mean with what I said. I'm sorry that escapes you.

Sis, you are using exactly the same tactics that the people that stated cigarette smoking was harmless used. Don't outright deny, just spread doubt and accuse the scientists of using 'tainted' data.

The AIP site is not tainted data. It is a history of the scientific inquiry into the role of GHGs in our climatic system.

Once again, you are a political hack, not a scientist. Were you a real scientist, you would present data supporting you arguement rather than playing the doubt game.

 

[edthecynic]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

You mean like Phil Jones?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones : Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Well, I was wondering how long it would be before you would post this thoroughly discredited lie of yours. I have nailed you on it at least a dozen times on a dozen different threads only for you to re-post it on yet another thread. You have to admire the shamelessness of CON$ervative liars.

In the part of his answer that you ALWAYS edit out, Jones says THERE IS A WARMING TREND FOR THE PERIOD, but the TIME period is not long enough to be "statistically-significant." So, as you well know, he is not saying that there was no warming after 1995!!!!!!

But I'm sure you will be true to the dishonest nature of CON$ervatism and continue to post your dishonestly edited lie on other threads in the future!

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Jones - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

You mean like Phil Jones?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones : Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Well, I was wondering how long it would be before you would post this thoroughly discredited lie of yours. I have nailed you on it at least a dozen times on a dozen different threads only for you to re-post it on yet another thread. You have to admire the shamelessness of CON$ervative liars.

In the part of his answer that you ALWAYS edit out, Jones says THERE IS A WARMING TREND FOR THE PERIOD, but the TIME period is not long enough to be "statistically-significant." So, as you well know, he is not saying that there was no warming after 1995!!!!!!

But I'm sure you will be true to the dishonest nature of CON$ervatism and continue to post your dishonestly edited lie on other threads in the future!

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Jones - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Q: Did you murder Nicole and Ron Brown

OJ: Yes, but only just

 

[skookerasbil]

they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real

indeed.........because we can. The science crap is important only to the internet k00ks. Nobody else cares!!! The k00ks still dont get this.

Perhaps the deniers do eat crow.........but on that study alone. Not in the bigger picture of things............which is not even debatable>>>>> What Happened to Democrats' Energy, Climate Change Legislation Plans? | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 9, 2010 | PBS .........and this story was written at PBS well over a year ago


And whats happened since then??


Ummm..............nothing s0ns!!! To boot, since then, all we've seen in the news is all the green energy scams related to stimulus money!!! That should really get the ball rolling on climate legislation in America.



Deniers eating crow?????






Nobody gives a rats ass about the science............except of course, lefty internet hero's who engage in science data posting OCD. The rest of the world is obviously unimpressed!!!



I hate to break it to the lefty internet science hero's but after next November, for all intents and purposes, this forum is going to die, except maybe for becomming the science hobby forum.

CON$ revel in their STUPIDITY!!!

Indeed.............

But upon closer inspection, who's not winning???


As I say all the time..........the science doesnt matter. Its 2011, except to the hopelessly duped.

How is the science mattering except to spike the ball in a pissing contest? Does winning a pissing contest make one an internet hero? Evidently so.........but only for the k00ks.


The deniers have their data............the alarmists have their data. The alarmists are 100% certain THEIR data is the only data that matters. OK..........lets say their data wins!!! We'll even give them a trophy!!! And a gold star if they insist. Oh.......ok.......we'll even give edthecynic a framed certificate!!!


But so what?

The longest pisser wins??!!!!!!!!!! Because thats what it is

ok.........so I guess Im stupid for losing the pissing contest. What can I say?



Buuuuuuuuut.................in the real world...........IM WINNING. So I'll take stupid thanks!!!


Ummmm.........in the real world, the "consensus" is hugely underwhelming in the public arena. In fact, a huge majority couldnt give a shit about the consensus. How do I know?


Because
the
country
isnt
doing

DICK

about
greenhouse
gases.

 

[skookerasbil]

so much winning.............

 

[edthecynic]

indeed.........because we can. The science crap is important only to the internet k00ks. Nobody else cares!!! The k00ks still dont get this.

Perhaps the deniers do eat crow.........but on that study alone. Not in the bigger picture of things............which is not even debatable>>>>> What Happened to Democrats' Energy, Climate Change Legislation Plans? | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 9, 2010 | PBS .........and this story was written at PBS well over a year ago


And whats happened since then??


Ummm..............nothing s0ns!!! To boot, since then, all we've seen in the news is all the green energy scams related to stimulus money!!! That should really get the ball rolling on climate legislation in America.



Deniers eating crow?????






Nobody gives a rats ass about the science............except of course, lefty internet hero's who engage in science data posting OCD. The rest of the world is obviously unimpressed!!!



I hate to break it to the lefty internet science hero's but after next November, for all intents and purposes, this forum is going to die, except maybe for becomming the science hobby forum.

CON$ revel in their STUPIDITY!!!

Indeed.............

Buuuuuuuuut.................in the real world...........IM WINNING. So I'll take stupid thanks!!!

The "real world" is nothing but a game to the terminally stupid!

 

[PredFan]

It's the sun stupid!

 

[percysunshine]

The hockey stick has been proven as fraud.

Some people chose to deny this fact.

 

[Si modo]

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

Scientific skeptics have not in general. We certainly have insisted that tainted data be verified.

I clearly articulated what I mean with what I said. I'm sorry that escapes you.

Sis, you are using exactly the same tactics that the people that stated cigarette smoking was harmless used. Don't outright deny, just spread doubt and accuse the scientists of using 'tainted' data.

The AIP site is not tainted data. It is a history of the scientific inquiry into the role of GHGs in our climatic system.

Once again, you are a political hack, not a scientist. Were you a real scientist, you would present data supporting you arguement rather than playing the doubt game.

No, Rocks. What I am doing is correcting your lies about my views and stating that the current state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 to warming.

I would imagine if anyone did a search of the text in that line they would see how many times I have told you exactly that.

You just haven't the ability to grasp a simple fact. Dilettantes usually don't.

And, stating facts is good for the integrity of science. That is something that does not concern you. You soil science and are an enemy of science.

 

[westwall]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

Ummm, no we havn't. We've said that the warming had levelled off. It also appear that we are entering into a cooling phase, but we won't know that for sure for another couple of years. The Earth doesn't have a thermostat that you switch on and off. It takes time for trends to become apparent.

As far as the op ed that Muller released, I don't see anything wrong with it except for the part where he ascribes the warming to human causes with no supporting evidence. He is an avowed warmist after all, but when he gets the paper through peer review we will see what he really has to say.

 

[Oddball]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search

You mean like Phil Jones?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones : Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[westwall]

CON$ revel in their STUPIDITY!!!

Indeed.............

Buuuuuuuuut.................in the real world...........IM WINNING. So I'll take stupid thanks!!!

The "real world" is nothing but a game to the terminally stupid!

So nice of you to admit your disability! First comes acceptance then you can work on the problem. GOOD FOR YOU!