• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Global Warming Since 1998?

So this is fun!

Jack Hays said:
JC has no agenda.
Click to expand...

This is a speculative claim that is proven false by your own source:

Jack Hays said:
Judith Curry et al make short work of this.

Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

". . . My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."
Click to expand...

What kind of scientist specifically mentions a politician as part of his scientific analysis ? Obviously, this "scientist" has an agenda, to fan the flames of climate change deniers conspiratorial nonsense.

There are certainly limitations on climate models, on temperature measurements, and on predictive capacity.

However, to doubt the incontrovertible science that significant alterations to the composition of the atmosphere cannot possibly change the amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the physical sciences.

The idea that, in light of our scientific limitations in measuring or predicting the effects of changing the atmosphere, we should do NOTHING, is an exercise in stupidity.

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend,"

Also, read "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov. Brilliant novel.
 
Absentglare said:
So this is fun!



This is a speculative claim that is proven false by your own source:



What kind of scientist specifically mentions a politician as part of his scientific analysis ? Obviously, this "scientist" has an agenda, to fan the flames of climate change deniers conspiratorial nonsense.

There are certainly limitations on climate models, on temperature measurements, and on predictive capacity.

However, to doubt the incontrovertible science that significant alterations to the composition of the atmosphere cannot possibly change the amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the physical sciences.

The idea that, in light of our scientific limitations in measuring or predicting the effects of changing the atmosphere, we should do NOTHING, is an exercise in stupidity.

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend,"

Also, read "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov. Brilliant novel.
Click to expand...

JC is standing up against politicization.
 
MrT said:
Do you mind if I ask for the name of a source that you would consider to be credible and not biased on this topic?
Click to expand...

The hallmark of science is skepticism. It is all well and good for someone to come up with a theory, but it is all about testing the theory, and attempting to disprove it - that is science.

If it holds up? Fine; if not, it has to be thrown out, and it's back to the drawing board.

The subject of AGW isn't science though, it is an agenda driven political vehicle masquerading as science.

Because there is so much money to be had - money, careers, advancement, publishing, prestige, etc... there are many who simply want nothing more than to get on the gravy train, and start funneling all of that grant money into their coffers. Power corrupts, but money sure isn't far behind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who can you trust?? In terms of the science?? You have to have an open mind, and look at what the skeptic is saying is wrong with theory or study. If the skeptics work is flawed, then he is back to the drawing board; but if the theory or study are disproved - the jig is up.

Of course that is not how things work on the subject of AGW. Too much money at stake; $$billions upon $$billions of government funds up for grabs; political agendas to be advanced and protected, etc. Because of that, any science that refutes any paper or study in support of AGW is attacked and prevented from publication in most instances. People have to risk advancement or their careers to go against the orthodoxy - that isn't science.

Mann's Hockey Stick is a perfect example. In the first place, it flies in the face of centuries worth of known temperature records, so there's the first clue - something is definitely wrong with the picture. Then Mann, et al engage in a pathetic coverup and stall to prevent anyone from getting a hold of their methodology and programming - certainly not the hallmark of good science; and, of course later, after the Climategate emails came out, we had confirmation that they were engaging in all manner of dirty dealing, misconduct to hide their crimes - in a scientific sense.

McIntyre and Mckitrick were eventually able to get a hold of Mann's data, and of course it was shown to be a bunch of hooey. That should have been the end of it; but of course by then, Al Gore had won a Nobel Prize, and the Hockey Stick had taken on mythical proportions - it had to be defended in a political sense.

So?? Circle the wagon, rig the review process, get a bunch of your pals to "peer review" it and call it golden, etc...

That is not science - that is misconduct and corruption masquerading as science.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, I follow the science, and my favorite scientist for years has been Richard Lindzen. There are many, many other scientists out there doing yeoman's work and risking their careers - and fortunately, slowly but surely, more people are coming to understand that AGW isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
 
Threegoofs said:
Which is totally expected in a court case.

But thanks for confirming you've got nothing, except for the word of a Rush Limbaugh stand-in.
Click to expand...

I don't have anything because I don't need anything. Steyn wants the trial; MM does not.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hardly.
Click to expand...

Agenda : the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

"Standing up against politicization," is an underlying intention or motive. I prefer to listen to scientists who don't speak with clear political motives.
 
Verax said:
If you have say 1000 different pieces of evidence and their strengths range from say 66% to 95%, the analysis doesn't understand every bit of it perfectly but they all consistently point towards the same conclusions. Do you think it would be safe to say it's probably a pretty strong case? Could you also probably call the conclusions something close to a fact?
Click to expand...
No. Not when there is 100:1 or more of the funding going to research such things. The evidence is being bought.

Verax said:
So now with keeping that in mind. When you take a single piece of evidence out of that collection and say "well it only has a probability of 75% of being mostly correct so I think the entire case is flimsy and not based in fact".
Click to expand...
Meaningless. Now if all these individual cases were based on entirely different research paths, then there might be something to be said about it. As it stands, the same set of papers are being used as foundational gospel.

Verax said:
Sorry you're deniers. Whenever peer reviewed research gets in the way of your argument you dismiss it and point to a blog as the truth or just whip out your own ideas.
Click to expand...
I dismiss very little peer research papers. I note that the pundits say things the papers do not.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No. Not when there is 100:1 or more of the funding going to research such things. The evidence is being bought.


Meaningless. Now if all these individual cases were based on entirely different research paths, then there might be something to be said about it. As it stands, the same set of papers are being used as foundational gospel.


I dismiss very little peer research papers. I note that the pundits say things the papers do not.
Click to expand...

This post contradicts itself.

You dismiss a unanimity of evidence on the basis that the research conclusions were all bought on behalf of some conspiratorial agenda.

Then, you say you don't dismiss a lot of peer reviewed research.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding something ?
 
Absentglare said:
This post contradicts itself.

You dismiss a unanimity of evidence on the basis that the research conclusions were all bought on behalf of some conspiratorial agenda.

Then, you say you don't dismiss a lot of peer reviewed research.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding something ?
Click to expand...

It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma posted as a riddle.

When ones ideology does not allow one to accept facts, amazing mental gymnastics follow.

I still wonder how the NSF can be part of the conspiracy when a thousand other disciplines are fighting for funds every day.
 
wist43 said:
"Hide the decline... 'Mike's nature trick'..." etc

Of course all of the other frauds are going to produce nonsense to try and cover for their poster child, lol...

Judith Curry says that technically his paper isn't "fraud" in the academic and legal sense, but rather "misleading" and "dishonest"... I have no problem coming right out and saying he intentionally manipulated the data to produce a misleading or dishonest graph - I'd call that fraud.

Fraudulent(?) hockey stick | Climate Etc.

Here are some quotes from Curry's article:

"Mann’s intentional failure to disclose and efforts to hide the “dirty laundry” could be argued to be fraud. However, the arguments for ‘fraud’ are more convincing in context of the communication of the hockey stick to the public – the infamous ‘Mikes Nature trick’ to ‘hide the decline.’"

"There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled."

"It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one)"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You people certainly "circle the wagons", don't you, lol...
Click to expand...

3G is a true believer. He will simply regurgitate all the rhetoric that defends 'global warming'. Caught lying? There's an excuse. Caught gaming data? The dog ate their homework. Caught manipulating data to bring about a desired result? The sun was in their eyes. It's always an excuse but it's always happening.
 
code1211 said:
Mithrae said:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 5.7
Fig5-07.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm really not used to you saying anything that's not critical on my posts. Thank you for that.

On the the charts you post, the end of the charts are the instrument record and prone to show quicker and more dramatic changes than the averaged and smoothed proxies.
Click to expand...

Many paleoclimate proxies (eg. tree rings) have annual resolutions, comparable to the instrumental record. Over the last thousand years, I'd guess that most if not all have resolutions below twenty years - but this is then brought up to a coarser level of representation to tidy up the graph a little: According to the graph's caption "All series represent anomalies (°C) from the 1881–1980 mean (horizontal dashed line) and have been smoothed with a filter that reduces variations on time scales less than about 50 years." This is easily seen by comparing the HadCRUT4 NH data on the graph with Wood for Trees; it shows much less detail than a 10-year mean, looking more like a 30-year mean instead.

As for showing more dramatic changes, there's no basis for generalising really; there's a couple of clear contradictions to that, and some confirmations. The orange and light blue plots are the extra-tropical studies (land only and land/ocean, respectively), and compared against the 60-90N CRUTEM plot at least two of them (Christiansen/Ljunqvist 2012, thin light blue line, and Da'Arrigo 2006, thin orange, if I might hazard a guess at recalling the authors' names) show noticeably more dramatic trends for the early 20th century warming and mid-century cooling. In those two cases at least, the actual historical climatic reality is likely to have had considerably less variation on average than the proxy studies show. On the other hand Ljunqvist 2010 (thick light blue) shows considerably less warming/cooling than CRUTEM30-90; so the historical reality was probably a little less staid than its depiction.
 
Mithrae said:
Lindzen's results are incorporated by the IPCC, and undoubtedly contributed to 'likely' sensitivity range being brought back down from the AR4 to the TAR level. The working group reports review and summarize contemporary science. That's what most so-called 'sceptics' seem unable to comprehend; cherry-picking and hammering on and on about a handful of fringe scientists is the work of bloggers and propagandists. Professor Lindzen's conclusions, while undoubtedly worth considering, are literally the lowest by a considerable margin amongst over 20 contemporary sensitivity studies cited in AR5. There are two observational and one paleoclimate studies which suggest best estimates for sensitivity higher than 4 degrees, yet I have rarely if ever seen 'alarmists' harping on and on about those outliers, have you?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-20.jpg
Click to expand...
Lindzen was an contributing author in the early IPCC reports, his later work shows the IPCC
estimates too high. He says the ECS for doubling CO2 is about 1°C, quite a bit lower
than the IPCC 1.5 to 4.5°C range.
 
wist43 said:
The hallmark of science is skepticism. It is all well and good for someone to come up with a theory, but it is all about testing the theory, and attempting to disprove it - that is science.

If it holds up? Fine; if not, it has to be thrown out, and it's back to the drawing board.

The subject of AGW isn't science though, it is an agenda driven political vehicle masquerading as science.

Because there is so much money to be had - money, careers, advancement, publishing, prestige, etc... there are many who simply want nothing more than to get on the gravy train, and start funneling all of that grant money into their coffers. Power corrupts, but money sure isn't far behind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who can you trust?? In terms of the science?? You have to have an open mind, and look at what the skeptic is saying is wrong with theory or study. If the skeptics work is flawed, then he is back to the drawing board; but if the theory or study are disproved - the jig is up.

Of course that is not how things work on the subject of AGW. Too much money at stake; $$billions upon $$billions of government funds up for grabs; political agendas to be advanced and protected, etc. Because of that, any science that refutes any paper or study in support of AGW is attacked and prevented from publication in most instances. People have to risk advancement or their careers to go against the orthodoxy - that isn't science.

Mann's Hockey Stick is a perfect example. In the first place, it flies in the face of centuries worth of known temperature records, so there's the first clue - something is definitely wrong with the picture. Then Mann, et al engage in a pathetic coverup and stall to prevent anyone from getting a hold of their methodology and programming - certainly not the hallmark of good science; and, of course later, after the Climategate emails came out, we had confirmation that they were engaging in all manner of dirty dealing, misconduct to hide their crimes - in a scientific sense.

McIntyre and Mckitrick were eventually able to get a hold of Mann's data, and of course it was shown to be a bunch of hooey. That should have been the end of it; but of course by then, Al Gore had won a Nobel Prize, and the Hockey Stick had taken on mythical proportions - it had to be defended in a political sense.

So?? Circle the wagon, rig the review process, get a bunch of your pals to "peer review" it and call it golden, etc...

That is not science - that is misconduct and corruption masquerading as science.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, I follow the science, and my favorite scientist for years has been Richard Lindzen. There are many, many other scientists out there doing yeoman's work and risking their careers - and fortunately, slowly but surely, more people are coming to understand that AGW isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
Click to expand...



You say this is not "science".


Who has disproven that

1) combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2
2) CO2 has IR active vibrational modes
3) CO2 as a whole re-radiates some IR back towards the surface of earth


oh, nobody?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
You say this is not "science".


Who has disproven that

1) combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2
2) CO2 has IR active vibrational modes
3) CO2 as a whole re-radiates some IR back towards the surface of earth


oh, nobody?
Click to expand...
No one has to, the quantum states of CO2 are well known,
and the direct response of adding CO2 is widely accepted.
The question has never been about CO2, but the amplified feedbacks
predicted by the IPCC.
CO2 direct response to doubling (IPCC 1.2°C) (not many question this!)
IPCC predicted feedback (1.5 to 4.5 °C) Based on a belief that most of the feedbacks will be positive.
The amplified feedback is also the portion of the prediction missing the mark.
 
longview said:
No one has to, the quantum states of CO2 are well known,
and the direct response of adding CO2 is widely accepted.
The question has never been about CO2, but the amplified feedbacks
.
Click to expand...



so "AGW" exists, and the title of the thread is junk, as was the post replied to.
thank you for your confirmation
 
wist43 said:
The hallmark of science is skepticism. It is all well and good for someone to come up with a theory, but it is all about testing the theory, and attempting to disprove it - that is science.

If it holds up? Fine; if not, it has to be thrown out, and it's back to the drawing board.

The subject of AGW isn't science though, it is an agenda driven political vehicle masquerading as science.

Because there is so much money to be had - money, careers, advancement, publishing, prestige, etc... there are many who simply want nothing more than to get on the gravy train, and start funneling all of that grant money into their coffers. Power corrupts, but money sure isn't far behind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who can you trust?? In terms of the science?? You have to have an open mind, and look at what the skeptic is saying is wrong with theory or study. If the skeptics work is flawed, then he is back to the drawing board; but if the theory or study are disproved - the jig is up.

Of course that is not how things work on the subject of AGW. Too much money at stake; $$billions upon $$billions of government funds up for grabs; political agendas to be advanced and protected, etc. Because of that, any science that refutes any paper or study in support of AGW is attacked and prevented from publication in most instances. People have to risk advancement or their careers to go against the orthodoxy - that isn't science.

Mann's Hockey Stick is a perfect example. In the first place, it flies in the face of centuries worth of known temperature records, so there's the first clue - something is definitely wrong with the picture. Then Mann, et al engage in a pathetic coverup and stall to prevent anyone from getting a hold of their methodology and programming - certainly not the hallmark of good science; and, of course later, after the Climategate emails came out, we had confirmation that they were engaging in all manner of dirty dealing, misconduct to hide their crimes - in a scientific sense.

McIntyre and Mckitrick were eventually able to get a hold of Mann's data, and of course it was shown to be a bunch of hooey. That should have been the end of it; but of course by then, Al Gore had won a Nobel Prize, and the Hockey Stick had taken on mythical proportions - it had to be defended in a political sense.

So?? Circle the wagon, rig the review process, get a bunch of your pals to "peer review" it and call it golden, etc...

That is not science - that is misconduct and corruption masquerading as science.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, I follow the science, and my favorite scientist for years has been Richard Lindzen. There are many, many other scientists out there doing yeoman's work and risking their careers - and fortunately, slowly but surely, more people are coming to understand that AGW isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
Click to expand...

So you begin by extolling the virtues of science and the inherent skepticism that should be associated...and then dismiss the research conducted by thousands of scientists who followed this exact same procedure because of a belief that the theory is politically motivated.

And throughout the entirety of your post, you pretty much ignored the one simple question that I asked. The closest you came to telling me a source that you trust is by naming Professor Lindzen. Now Professor Lindzen is a respectable expert in this field, but the thrust of his argument is, "Yes, the climate is most likely warming and we are most likely to blame, but it is not as big a problem as most people say." And while that is a fine theory to hold and the severity of this problem has not been proven, the inherent risks associated with non-action - namely the fact that there is a time lag between any pollution/reduction and its impact on the climate and the fact that the solution to this problem requires changes by every person in the planet - makes that theory into one which holds no real ramifications for society.

This is especially true when you note that Professor Lindzen is one of the scientists from that 3% of climatologists that do not accept the theory, and indeed every group of national or international group of scientists falls squarely into the "climate change is real and significantly impacted by humans" camp. Another reason to minimize Professor Lindzen's recommendations (i.e. do nothing until we are absolutely certain) is because of all of the very positive benefits that can result from the larger movement to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions - e.g. better health, less energy dependence, etc.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
so "AGW" exists, and the title of the thread is junk, as was the post replied to.
thank you for your confirmation
Click to expand...
Actually the title of the thread is
No Global Warming Since 1998?
Click to expand...
And the observed warming since 1998 has been marginal.
I know GISS just added .05 °C by changing the references,
So what have we got for the data sets, 1998 to 2014?
GISS .63 to .75 delta + .12 standard deviation .18
Hadcrut4 .535 to .564 delta + .03 standard deviation .30
UAH .42 to .32 delta -.1 standard deviation .20
RSS .55 to .25 delta -.3 standard deviation .18

GISS got a bump from changing references, but still in the noise.
Even with the .12 of warming of the highest data set, the warming per decade
is only .075 °C per decade, well below the expected .21 °C per decade expected.
UAH and RSS show a negative, while Harcrut is way into the noise.
 
Absentglare said:
This post contradicts itself.
Click to expand...
I can't help your lack of understanding.

Absentglare said:
You dismiss a unanimity of evidence on the basis that the research conclusions were all bought on behalf of some conspiratorial agenda.
Click to expand...
LOL...

You are really arrogant to think you know what I am doing.

Conspiracy...

LOL...

Maybe you should look up the definition of conspiracy, then tell us all how I think that is the process.

Let's add ignorance to your arrogance.

Absentglare said:
Then, you say you don't dismiss a lot of peer reviewed research.
Click to expand...
I dismiss very little of the research, for the manner in which it was done. Most is ambiguous at best because of the way they write it.

Absentglare said:
Maybe i'm misunderstanding something ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Ever read a peer researched paper, and then read what the pundits tell us it says?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom