• 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!

Berkeley Earth- second warmest year

Or, you can make graphs that are just wrong.



What I noticed is that the graph Threegoofs posted is clear, concise and sourced based on two consistent sources.

I also noticed that the graph you posted is, as he noted, a total mess. It lists no sources. It has no scale. It interrupts itself with false claims. It ludicrously fails to note that volcanic eruptions temporarily reduce global temperatures, not increases them. It's a morass of misinformation and untenable positions, which displays the utter lack of scientific rigor of its author.

And.... it’s written by a creationist!

I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t put ‘The Rapture’ on the endpoint of the cartoon...errr... ‘graph’.
 
Or, you can make graphs that are just wrong.
Yeah. What I said was done, can be considered wrong. To mislead is wrong.

What I noticed is that the graph Threegoofs posted is clear, concise and sourced based on two consistent sources.
That's the whole point. It's not actually wrong. It's just meant to mislead.

I also noticed that the graph you posted is, as he noted, a total mess. It lists no sources. It has no scale. It interrupts itself with false claims. It ludicrously fails to note that volcanic eruptions temporarily reduce global temperatures, not increases them. It's a morass of misinformation and untenable positions, which displays the utter lack of scientific rigor of its author.
The authors are noted in the graph and here ...

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
 
Very scarey stuff!

I won't be able ro sleep after seeing that graph.

And ( I swear) I'm never using an air conditioner ever again.
 
Actually, it's not. Religious belief is not, ipso facto, proof of bad science. (Remember Isaac Newton.) The authors' claims will be tested by observation the same as all others.

3G still avoids facts by attacking the source.
 
Why? Do you recommend it?

Lots of great insights into climate as predicted by the bible? I guess its about as rational as most of your positions, eh?

I don't know. I didn't read it. Did you?
 
3G still avoids facts by attacking the source.

Actually, no. I outlined the ridiculousness of the 'graph' posted, and am showing you the source is not just questionable, but laughable. I man, really, really laughable. Epically so.
 
Actually, no. I outlined the ridiculousness of the 'graph' posted, and am showing you the source is not just questionable, but laughable. I man, really, really laughable. Epically so.

Oh. So it's something you don't know anything about but you're sure you know all about it. That seems to be your thing.
Okay, I'll drop it.

So tell us what you don't agree with that's in the graph that documents periods of climate fluctuation that's been established for many years?
Be specific.
 
The side with the weaker case is always tempted by the ad hominem argument.

Calling it "weaker case" is too generous.
Have you ever known him to have any kind of a case or exhibit any real grasp of the subject matter?
It always comes down to "Because they said so."
I asked him what exactly he saw wrong in the graph.
Think he'll have an on-point answer?
Let's watch.
 
Last edited:
Oh. So it's something you don't know anything about but you're sure you know all about it. That seems to be your thing.
Okay, I'll drop it.

So tell us what you don't agree with that's in the graph that documents periods of climate fluctuation that's been established for many years?
Be specific.

No data source. No values given on the Y axis. Wholly imaginary stuff (nomanic times?) pointed out on the chart. Giant, smooth fluctuations relating to fantasy more than objective reality. And the fact that the guy who wrote it thinks that God wrote it all down in a book a few thousand years ago (right after the world was created, natch) and will tell us what will happen to climate in the future in his ancient book.
 
No data source. No values given on the Y axis. Wholly imaginary stuff (nomanic times?) pointed out on the chart. Giant, smooth fluctuations relating to fantasy more than objective reality. And the fact that the guy who wrote it thinks that God wrote it all down in a book a few thousand years ago (right after the world was created, natch) and will tell us what will happen to climate in the future in his ancient book.

Your problems with the representations on the graph ... what are they?
Were there warm and cool periods at those times in history or not?
If you don't know or would rather not admit it just say so.
 
Your problems with the representations on the graph ... what are they?
Were there warm and cool periods at those times in history or not?
If you don't know or would rather not admit it just say so.

LOL.

I cant be any clearer. Let me know what the data source is for the temps and see how it compares.

And maybe the appropriate bible verses for what will happen in the 2020s. :laughat:
 
LOL.

I cant be any clearer. Let me know what the data source is for the temps and see how it compares.

And maybe the appropriate bible verses for what will happen in the 2020s. :laughat:

I gave the link.
If it helps to get you to actually read anything I should mention that the authors noted that " ... land and ocean readings have rebounded to the highest levels in recorded history in 2016 with a temperature of 58.69 degrees Fahrenheit."
Go ahead. Don't be afraid. You might be surprised at what they say.

So were there warm and cool periods at those times in history as represented by the graph or not?
Yes? No?
You're not doing yourself any good by avoiding an answer.
Looks very bad.
 
Your problems with the representations on the graph ... what are they?
Were there warm and cool periods at those times in history or not?
3G is pretty clear on his objections, as am I.

1) There is no scale on the Y axis -- epic fail

2) The graph -- and the webpage you linked to -- obscures its sources. The article lists 2, and only 2, sources:

"Climate and the Affairs of Men" -- a book published in 1977. Browning had basically no training in climate science, was a routine doomsayer, made foolish predictions about earthquakes based on his quack theories, and predicted the Earth was heading towards a cooling phase. Oooops. (His co-author appears to be a non-entity.)

""Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles" is another quack book, claiming that there is a correlation between cycles of climate (which don't exist as he describes) and big events in world history.

Harris/Mann, meanwhile, are trying to sell people on the idea of a "1000 year cycle" (from the 2nd book above). They claim that the latest warm cycle ended a few years ago, and that "we have begun a slow, but steady, period of cooling in the mid-latitudes, this despite some lingering warming in the Arctic regions." That was in 2002. And on a website that hasn't been updated since 2012. Ooops.

It seems pretty clear to me that the site is, at best, pseudo-scientific woo that can be safely ignored. Citing it, and defending it? Not a good look.
 
I gave the link.
If it helps to get you to actually read anything I should mention that the authors noted that " ... land and ocean readings have rebounded to the highest levels in recorded history in 2016 with a temperature of 58.69 degrees Fahrenheit."
Go ahead. Don't be afraid. You might be surprised at what they say.

So were there warm and cool periods at those times in history as represented by the graph or not?
Yes? No?
You're not doing yourself any good by avoiding an answer.
Looks very bad.

Yes. I realize they say that.

What’s the data source? Jesus?
 
Yeah. What I said was done, can be considered wrong. To mislead is wrong.


That's the whole point. It's not actually wrong. It's just meant to mislead.


The authors are noted in the graph and here ...

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Well, there are problems with that chart.

An analysis from another forum.

If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website About Long Range Weather, Cliff Harris & Randy Mann of Harris-Mann Climatology and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be
 
Back
Top Bottom