Global warming scepticism

why not? we can look up data that is collected and read it. I can check back 30 plus years and read what average temperatures were at any given city. What I can't do is review the raw data they use to adjust a combined dataset because they keep those records to themselves, unlike a professional scientist would.

 

that's ridiculous, anyone can see exactly what he means and here's an example:

[video=youtube;qRFz8merXEA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA[/video]

just because you don't know how to access the data, doesn't mean anyone is keeping it hidden

 

It is, so you're saying there is still a consensus? Really, I think you need to visit Climate Etc. Judith Curry. It's not the same. Far far from it. Many things have changed to include climategate. But hey you stay focused on your political aspect and I will on the scientific part. Because science isn't your strong suit made obvious in here.

what do the polls show and name the poll.

 

they show that there are lots of idiots around

i think you need to stop being so naive

[video=youtube;dc8A6SIJijs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc8A6SIJijs[/video]

"In her most recent post, Judith Curry says:

"In hindsight, the way the Climategate emails was rolled out, after very careful scrutiny by the targeted bloggers, was handled pretty responsibly. Lets face it – “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” means . . . “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline.”

That statement by Curry is demonstrably wrong. That is a fact borne of logical and scientific examination of the information, and information is not lacking. Curry is wrong.

Beyond that, I think, as implied above, she is either doing something here that is morally wrong (lying to slow down action on climate change) or stupid (she is not smart enough to understand what she is looking at). Here, I want to be clear. The argument that Curry is wrong is logical. Ends there. She’s wrong. The idea that she is either immoral or stupid is both my opinion and NOT an argument about her wrongness. I am not making an ad hominem argument. If you think that is an ad hominem argument then you don’t know what an ad hominum argument is (and isn’t)."

 

no, I'm fairly certain, that the raw data is unavailable from those doing the graphs. It is why Mann has been under the skeptic's watch.

 

One of the great things about science is the open acceptance of new data in a process which never ends. A scientist does not explain gravity then close the book to further discussion. Not you or anyone knows absolutely for sure anything! Everything we know, or believe we know, is subject to change. Regarding science, it is heavily driven by technological advancements which can provide new and conflicting information and it makes most sense to update and modify and improve while maintaining the disciplines of scientific study. The only other option is to have a closed mind and fear challenges...

 

YOU claim failure. But, you don't even claim to be a scientist. You totally swallowed this issue with boat data without even having the first notion of how to think about it.

And, you can't tie "gain power" to this. Those with dollars to gain are big coal, gas and oil. There is no other money source large enough to generate the nearly perfect world wide conspiracy you claim. For EVERY significant science organization not associated with big energy, the largest win they could get would be to be right and contrarian.

Rewards in science go to being novel or contrarian, not "follow the herd". Dr. Curry is a climatology contrarian, so right or wrong, she gets invited everywhere - before congress, to memberships in numerous climate related organizations, etc. Einstein was contrarian. Copernicus was contrarian.

You can't name anyone who got notable reward as a scientist for confirming the results of others.

 

So you can form better scientific conclusions than a real scientist? How are you on rocket science or brain surgery? Do you know more about rocket science than the rocket scientists? It is great that you are a self proclaimed expert. Maybe you should hold a press conference and let the world know.

 

so again I will ask, has Mann provided his raw data? Simple yes or no question and answer.

- - - Updated - - -

form a conclusion based off of what? Are you aware of an experiment that will show how much CO2 affects temperatures? If so, how warm does 120 PPM of CO2 make the earth? What scientific experiment shows us that? You have it?

I don't need to, there are enough humans on this earth that realize that the scientists don't have a clue as to what they are doing. Judith Curry an actual scientist is letting the world know.

 

the video shows that it's not unavailable

 

so you're saying Mann released his raw data? hmmmmm...me don't think so.

 

Thanks...interesting how math can get in the way of things. For me the bottom line is if all living stuff on Earth, particularly humans and animals and food stuff, were grossly tolerant to climate change potential, and we see no serious or critical evidence today of this potential, then it's okay for a moment to trump AGW with politics, etc. But we are seeing the potential today and to ignore this is arrogance and ignorance. Just because many don't like the options to mitigate the potential does not mean that people need to ignore the obvious and refuse consensus. What can create so much fear in people that they can't simply agree that the impacts of mankind are directly correlated to the climate effects? Whether it be our atmosphere or our oceans and lakes and rivers, the collective we are junking up Earth! Population growth and industrialization and higher carbon emissions are testing the limits of Biosphere 1...

 

Can you please provide a scientific and peer reviewed study that states mankind is not responsible for the changes we are seeing in our oceans, lakes, rivers and atmosphere?

 

you do know what the definition of peer means right?

LOL you all have no flippin clue do you? But, you all are funny. Can't figure nothing out, but you're funny to watch.

Hey bubba, show us an experiment that shows man CO2 is different than natures.

And, what is your solution to the problem you claim exists? Money? hahahahahahahahahaha.

 

For the most part we can't blame this on journalism.

The facts about climate change have been in the news for many years now.

So, yes, there may be people who live in the US northeast and are surprised to hear that last January was in the top 4 warmest January's ever recorded, that February was in the top 4 warmest February's ever recorded, and so forth for every month so far this year. In fact, last month was the warmest July ever recorded.

Japan disagrees. They say that every month this year has been in the top 2 warmest, not the top 4 warmest, and that several months set records.

What am I supposed to do about that?

What makes it tough to sell isn't the facts of climate change, it's the ability of the American public to understand or accept science.

I do agree that way too many people think the planet earth is what they see out their window.

That didn't come from "bad journalism".

 

- CO2 is CO2. Human activity is changing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. We are extracting carbon stored as gas, oil, and coal, and exposing it to oxygen (by burning it for fuel, mostly). That means adding huge amounts of CO2 - a major product of combustion.

- UK (and every other first world nation, in fact just about every nation on earth) has moved taxes away from income toward carbon based energy. The result is that they don't take in more revenue, but people are encouraged to conserve on carbon based energy. In fact, they can lower their federal tax bill by conserving, which is something we can not do.

So, your "Money? haha" thing is a little off. However, climate change IS going to cost us in a big way. So, it's no laughing matter that money is involved.

 

If you want to be scientific about it, then let's look at what all the scientists say and be objective. There is a scientific consensus. However, the deniers will find any single source of doubt or disagreement and use that to claim the overall scientific community is wrong.

 

You mean your truth, even if it is not reality.

- - - Updated - - -

So you still think that changing the temperature record to match inferior data is the way to go?

 

So you think the few millions spend by corporations on lobbying somehow matches the billions government is spending on grants? Money is power and government has most of the money and power. The only way to get these grants is to produce what is expected or you won't get the grant. This is the major problem in climate science right now. It has become a circus and the only way to get attention is to come out with another alarmist position.

 

Elementary. The balance of atmospheric carbon isotopes (there are three) has shifted, dating to the start of the industrial revolution, and getting greater. There's no doubt.

 

yes i am, here it is:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/old/mbh99.html

no, i mean the truth

 

What you don't understand is that some of Mann's 'raw data' is pre-manipulated by him so you have no idea how it was manipulated.

BTW, during Mann's lawsuit against Steyn, not one scientist offered a brief on his behalf while Steyn has attracted many briefs. Might be because Mann has become an embarrassment. Well, so much so that a whole book has been published now with other scientists comments about Mann and his shoddy science.

 

i understand that you don't have a clue what you're talking about

 

LOL, sure thing Skippy. Of course you have no idea what I am talking about since you have only looked at alarmist propaganda to get your information instead of actually looking into the background of the highly ridiculed hockey stick. There is a reason a book has been written that includes all of the scientists that have looked into Mann and his shoddy science and commented on it.

 

what a joke, he's a rush limbaugh want-to-be that's known for dramatic political exaggerations