• 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!

Global cooling a crock, as oceans continue warming.

ptif219 said:
Nice topic change to avoid the fact that temp data seems to be manipulated by the ssystem
Click to expand...
I'm just responding to the topics you jump onto, seeing as you've been soundly refuted on the previous ones.

It's the systems job to manipulate the temperature data - all of those datasets are out there, but they need to be put together in a representative way to show the global mean temperature. 'Manipulation' is not always a bad thing; you're now just objecting to standard scientific practice. With regards malicious manipulation, there is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. You certainly haven't showed any.
 
iangb said:
I'm just responding to the topics you jump onto, seeing as you've been soundly refuted on the previous ones.

It's the systems job to manipulate the temperature data - all of those datasets are out there, but they need to be put together in a representative way to show the global mean temperature. 'Manipulation' is not always a bad thing; you're now just objecting to standard scientific practice. With regards malicious manipulation, there is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. You certainly haven't showed any.
Click to expand...

They were caught otherwise it would have not been changed. This may be happening often. But then you will defend them no matter what maipulation,coruption or deceit they do as long as the promote warming
 
ptif219 said:
They were caught otherwise it would have not been changed. This may be happening often. But then you will defend them no matter what maipulation,coruption or deceit they do as long as the promote warming
Click to expand...
Again, you have no proof of this. Good luck finding some!
 
iangb said:
Again, you have no proof of this. Good luck finding some!
Click to expand...

They have been caught it shows they have no problem doing it. Even you say manipulating is okay. I say manipulating shows corruption. Just like e-mails and a stacked panel claimed to be independent
 
ptif219 said:
They have been caught it shows they have no problem doing it. Even you say manipulating is okay. I say manipulating shows corruption. Just like e-mails and a stacked panel claimed to be independent
Click to expand...
You do realise that "taking a mean" is a form of data manipulation, yes? Furthermore, they weren't arare they were doing it, and once they found out, the data changed.

You're reading into this like you have an agenda or something.
 
ptif219 said:
So they don't look at what they are compiling to see it fits with the rest of the data? As I said either done on purpose or they are incompetent of keeping accurate records
Click to expand...

You're either a scientist or a data processor. You can't excel at both. The scientist knows instruments and what the data means, but he doesn't know where to put them, how many are needed to get the exact average, and how to accurately assess all the other variables. Only the data processor can figure all of that out.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
You're either a scientist or a data processor. You can't excel at both. The scientist knows instruments and what the data means, but he doesn't know where to put them, how many are needed to get the exact average, and how to accurately assess all the other variables. Only the data processor can figure all of that out.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...
...that's not exactly true either. While there does tend to be speciallism within the field, it's not impossible to be excellent at both - and many are. What the GISS scientists won't have is hands-on knowledge of the workings of another groups collection methods, unless they go to the trouble of looking them up. Two different groups, two different situations.
 
iangb said:
You do realise that "taking a mean" is a form of data manipulation, yes? Furthermore, they weren't arare they were doing it, and once they found out, the data changed.

You're reading into this like you have an agenda or something.
Click to expand...

No I am showing it appears there is corruption. You are trying to justify and explain it away. You have failed
 
ptif219 said:
No I am showing it appears there is corruption. You are trying to justify and explain it away. You have failed
Click to expand...
The only corruption was in the Russian dataset. It was fixed when it was found. Beyond that, you have speculated mightilly but proved very little. Care to try again?

We're looking for evidence of 'doom and gloom tactics being used to knowingly propogate a lie'. So far, you're on a blank.
 
iangb said:
The only corruption was in the Russian dataset. It was fixed when it was found. Beyond that, you have speculated mightilly but proved very little. Care to try again?

We're looking for evidence of 'doom and gloom tactics being used to knowingly propogate a lie'. So far, you're on a blank.
Click to expand...

It was fixed when they got caught. If that had not happened we would have record temps based on false information. This is corruption and incompetence
 
ptif219 said:
It was fixed when they got caught. If that had not happened we would have record temps based on false information. This is corruption and incompetence
Click to expand...
Firstly: You have no evidence of this. Do you know who found out that the dataset was corrupted? Do you have any evidence at all that they knew the dataset was corrupted beforehand, other than speculations that I've already dealt with at least twice?

Secondly: It's true that if it hadn't been found, we would have a record based on false readings. However, it was found, thanks (I suspect) to the scientific method being carried out by the scientists. However, you can't base a criticism upon 'it might not be accurate!' You have to show where it's not accurate.

Thirdly: This in no way reflects 'doom and gloom tactics'. Or even 'knowingly propogate a lie'. If you're going to fling accusations, you could at least fling them in the right direction...
 
iangb said:
Firstly: You have no evidence of this. Do you know who found out that the dataset was corrupted? Do you have any evidence at all that they knew the dataset was corrupted beforehand, other than speculations that I've already dealt with at least twice?

Secondly: It's true that if it hadn't been found, we would have a record based on false readings. However, it was found, thanks (I suspect) to the scientific method being carried out by the scientists. However, you can't base a criticism upon 'it might not be accurate!' You have to show where it's not accurate.

Thirdly: This in no way reflects 'doom and gloom tactics'. Or even 'knowingly propogate a lie'. If you're going to fling accusations, you could at least fling them in the right direction...
Click to expand...

the tendencies and data was corrupted yet the GISS paid no attention. Here is what a small investigation found

GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly – “It’s all pipes!” | Watts Up With That?


It appears there has been an ongoing problem with GISS


http://www.heartland.org/full/24359/Warmest_October_Claim_Was_Wrong_NASA_Admits.html
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
the tendencies and data was corrupted yet the GISS paid no attention. Here is what a small investigation found

GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly – “It’s all pipes!” | Watts Up With That?


It appears there has been an ongoing problem with GISS


Warmest October Claim Was Wrong, NASA Admits - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News
Click to expand...
It certainly seems that the possiblility is there, yes. However, that's a biiiig step away from deliberately misleading doom and gloom - more like 'possibly misleading experimental error'.
 
iangb said:
It certainly seems that the possiblility is there, yes. However, that's a biiiig step away from deliberately misleading doom and gloom - more like 'possibly misleading experimental error'.
Click to expand...

Possible? They have a history of manipulation and exaggerating temps
 
ptif219 said:
Possible? They have a history of manipulation and exaggerating temps
Click to expand...
You have no proof of 'manupulation' - the bad sort, anyway. There is a possibility that temps form that area have been exaggerated - but it's still just a possibility, at this stage.

This still isn't 'doom and gloom'.
 
iangb said:
You have no proof of 'manupulation' - the bad sort, anyway. There is a possibility that temps form that area have been exaggerated - but it's still just a possibility, at this stage.

This still isn't 'doom and gloom'.
Click to expand...

Nice spin but the one link says they have a history of it. More deception from GW propagandists. Facts do not matter promoting warming does
 
ptif219 said:
Nice spin but the one link says they have a history of it. More deception from GW propagandists. Facts do not matter promoting warming does
Click to expand...
Read A history of 'doom and gloom'? Where does it say that?

EDIT: It's also interesting that the article notes that GISS was 'criticised by other climate scientists'. How does that fit into your view of a global conspiracy?
 
Last edited:
iangb said:
Read A history of 'doom and gloom'? Where does it say that?

EDIT: It's also interesting that the article notes that GISS was 'criticised by other climate scientists'. How does that fit into your view of a global conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Shows how a NASA organization is not dealing with facts but is pushing propaganda
 
ptif219 said:
Hansen has been wrong since 1988 and his models have been wrong. Now he claims the oceans will rise. I say his track record shows him to be wrong again

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5581

2010, a Banner Year for Global Warming Predictions | One Utah

C3: 32 Ocean Scientists Trash The Gore & James Hansen Sea-Level Rise Predictions: The Myth Rejected

ABC
Click to expand...
This is a very different story to the one before.

A quick look through your links tells me the following: The last time Hansen was found to be using false statistics, he wasn't aware of it at the time. This time, he appears to be talking about an area which is not his speciallism, and which people from within the specialism disagree with him on. That's not a 'global warming conspiracy', thats someone who shouldn't be talking grabbing the ear of the media and shouting.
 
iangb said:
This is a very different story to the one before.

A quick look through your links tells me the following: The last time Hansen was found to be using false statistics, he wasn't aware of it at the time. This time, he appears to be talking about an area which is not his speciallism, and which people from within the specialism disagree with him on. That's not a 'global warming conspiracy', thats someone who shouldn't be talking grabbing the ear of the media and shouting.
Click to expand...

No surprise you are an apologist for Hansen. He is head of NASA and GISS so if they are wrong as they are often are it appears, he is responsible. He has been wrong and his doom and gloom is all BS
 
ptif219 said:
No surprise you are an apologist for Hansen. He is head of NASA and GISS so if they are wrong as they are often are it appears, he is responsible. He has been wrong and his doom and gloom is all BS
Click to expand...
Did you miss the bit where I said (describing Hansen) "thats someone who shouldn't be talking grabbing the ear of the media and shouting."?

His original 'doom and gloom' was misplaced but unintentionally so - he thought at the time his figures were sound. I don't know whether or not he thinks his current figures are sound - I haven't had time to look into it yet - but it certainly seems like he's out of his depth (no pun intended).

I'll say more as I read more. It'll take a while, though; this is a whole new topic from a few posts ago.

EDIT: I'd appreciate if you didn't post outright lies, though. Hansen is head of GISS: he is not head of NASA.
 
Last edited:
iangb said:
Did you miss the bit where I said (describing Hansen) "thats someone who shouldn't be talking grabbing the ear of the media and shouting."?

His original 'doom and gloom' was misplaced but unintentionally so - he thought at the time his figures were sound. I don't know whether or not he thinks his current figures are sound - I haven't had time to look into it yet - but it certainly seems like he's out of his depth (no pun intended).

I'll say more as I read more. It'll take a while, though; this is a whole new topic from a few posts ago.

EDIT: I'd appreciate if you didn't post outright lies, though. Hansen is head of GISS: he is not head of NASA.
Click to expand...

No its not it shows the deception,the doom and gloom and the propaganda machine of the GW community
 
ptif219 said:
No its not it shows the deception,the doom and gloom and the propaganda machine of the GW community
Click to expand...
OK, I've done my further reading.

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. There is no 'deception' - Hansen wrote an open letter calling for further studies to be done into the effect of GW on sea levels, because he suspects it could go worse than predicted (details are in the link). Some scientists are disagreeing with him, and there's currently a debate on the topic within the 'GW community', as you call it. Skeptics blogs are taking this and running with it to try and disprove Hansen before he gets started - there is no 'doom and gloom' other than Hansen's suspicions, and he is largely unsupported by the rest of 'the GW community' in them.

A while ago, Hansen made a more official report, that was more backed up. However, that backup was later found to be in error.

In other words, there was some accidentaly misplaced 'doom and gloom' a few decades ago, and recently Hansen has been doing his own - unsupported - mongering. Whether it's justified or not will remain to be seen (if the study he's proposing gets done), but it's not 'the GW community' which is doing it, it's someone who is not representative of the whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom