Re: Arctic Warming Scare Refuted

by sodbuster Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:54 am

Well Cato like most or maybe all the posters here, I do not know what the data means.

That is why I rely on what qualified scientists say.

The difference between me and the GW deniers is that I admit I am ignorant on the subject while they pretend to be experts based on what rightwing gasbags say.

by SamCogar Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:54 am

sodbuster wrote:
And some may be sincere in their belief that there is no global warming.

But the vast majority say otherwise.

Sherman, that was just as much a lie as was when you claimed all West Virginians were against MTR'ing.

I believe you would rather take poison than tell the truth about anything.

sodbuster wrote: And almost always the deniers resort to anecdotal evidence like we see here.

i.e. it is snowing in Chicago or there is a blizzard in Buffalo.

Just more of your crap. You admit you don't know a damn thing about science so just how in hell do you know what is anecdotal evidence and what isn't?

And the real travesty is that you are drawing a retirement check from the taxpayers in WV.

Your actions prove to me that there ain't no way in hell the citizens of WV got their money's worth out of you.

.

by SamCogar Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:11 pm

sodbuster wrote: ............ I do not know what the data means.

I rely on what qualified scientists say.

............... I am ignorant on the subject ......

You don't know what the data means.

You are ignorant on the subject.

But you know who the qualified scientists are.

GIMME A BREAK

.

by Aaron Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:26 pm

sodbuster wrote:
Aaron wrote:So do the really dumb scientists think global warming is not not man made or that it's not real?

Well aaron an "underwhelming minority" of scientists agree with you.

Along with an overwhelming majority of rightwing gasbags who have a loyal following amongst the ditto heads.

As I've never stated my views on global warming, how do you know if they agree with me or not?

And you didn't answer my question. You stated what the "really smart scientist" believed. I'm asking what the dumb ones believe.

by sodbuster Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:31 pm

"As I've never stated my views on global warming, how do you know if they agree with me or not?"

Sorry about that Aaron I was making an assumption.

I have made the correction.

by Aaron Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:41 pm

No problem Sodbuster.

I realize that even the dumbest scientist is smarter then me when it comes to GW.

I have my thoughts but like you, I'm no expert so I stay out of the debate.

I do disagree with you in that GW is not a political issue though. I won't say which side 'started' it but it's definatley more then just science, especially when you have so many disagreements on one subject.

by Cato Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:18 pm

sodbuster wrote:Well Cato like most or maybe all the posters here, I do not know what the data means.

Then how do you know if what is being said is so or not?

sodbuster wrote:That is why I rely on what qualified scientists say.

Just how do you know they are qualified?

sodbuster wrote:The difference between me and the GW deniers is that I admit I am ignorant on the subject while they pretend to be experts based on what rightwing gasbags say.

No, in reality you do exactly the samething you accuse the right of doing, you base your views on what the leftwing gasbags say.

by **SheikBen** Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:30 pm

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2009) — The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880."

I do not doubt this data, I find that such assessments are very limited (in this case to the year 1880). I believe that weather satellites have been up for 40 years or so.

So, Cato, I do not doubt that the globe has warmed, just as I do not doubt that the globe is subject to warming and cooling (just as it always has), and that mankind polluting the air certainly does not help the case.

My objections, like in so many other areas claimed to be decided by science, are based on my belief that the scientific community has taken legitimate data but then extrapolated it in an illegitimate way, and made conclusions about the data that were unwarranted (in this case, the anthroprogenic conclusion).

I really don't have a dog in this fight as to whether or not we are destroying the earth. I've repeated numerous times that my wife and I are conservationists. We'd have a hybrid if we could afford one. We live in a small house, buy all of our clothing second hand and use cloth diapers. Our house temp is generally set at 66 degrees in the winter.

All I have said is that when you make conclusions based on your biases, you are duty bound to say so. Obviously corporate-funded projects get the "desired results," and yet no one ever suggests that government and environmentalist researchers do not have the same penchant for injecting bias into their conclusions. Even if there does exist such a thing as perfect objectivity, I see zero reason to suppose they are anywhere close to achieving it.

by SamCogar Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:15 pm

SheikBen wrote:"ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2009) — The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880."

I do not doubt this data, I find that such assessments are very limited (in this case to the year 1880).

US Temperatures from 1880 to 2007 at 0.1 degree accuracy

One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs. Below is the 1999 version, and below that is the reworked 2007 version.

In order to visualize the changes, I overlaid the 2007 version on top of the 1999 version, above, and a clear pattern emerged. The pre-1970 temperatures have been nearly uniformly adjusted downwards (red below green) - and the post 1970 temperatures have been adjusted upwards (red above green.) Some of the yearly temperatures have been adjusted by as much as 0.5 degrees. That is a huge total change for a country the size of the US with thousands of separate temperature records.

How could it be determined that so many thermometers were wrong by an average of 0.5 degrees in one particular year several decades ago, and an accurate retrofit be made? Why is the adjustment 0.5 degrees one year, and 0.1 degrees the next?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

by Cato Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:25 pm

SheikBen wrote:"ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2009) — The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880."

I do not doubt this data, I find that such assessments are very limited (in this case to the year 1880). I believe that weather satellites have been up for 40 years or so.

So, Cato, I do not doubt that the globe has warmed, just as I do not doubt that the globe is subject to warming and cooling (just as it always has), and that mankind polluting the air certainly does not help the case.

My objections, like in so many other areas claimed to be decided by science, are based on my belief that the scientific community has taken legitimate data but then extrapolated it in an illegitimate way, and made conclusions about the data that were unwarranted (in this case, the anthroprogenic conclusion).

I really don't have a dog in this fight as to whether or not we are destroying the earth. I've repeated numerous times that my wife and I are conservationists. We'd have a hybrid if we could afford one. We live in a small house, buy all of our clothing second hand and use cloth diapers. Our house temp is generally set at 66 degrees in the winter.

All I have said is that when you make conclusions based on your biases, you are duty bound to say so. Obviously corporate-funded projects get the "desired results," and yet no one ever suggests that government and environmentalist researchers do not have the same penchant for injecting bias into their conclusions. Even if there does exist such a thing as perfect objectivity, I see zero reason to suppose they are anywhere close to achieving it.

And I agree with you wholeheartly. As I have been trying to point out to the Shermans and the Kelis, neither side has captured the moral high ground when it comes to truth. Both are selling an agenda and using propaganda to do it. So many people buy into these lies withoutever taking the time to consider the truth or to consider what someone's agenda really is.

Like you I am a concervationist. Our house is and older larger home. We have put new double pan windows in, we installed a heat pump, we do not heat the whole house, nor do we cool the whole house. We keep the temp at 65 in the winter in the parts of the house we live in. Additionally we own a Honda Civic which is our primary form of transportation. along with that Ihave a Susuki Bergman Scooter that is my mode of transportation back and forth to work.

Like you also, and I have said this more than enough times, I do not think the evidence exists to justify a sudden change in policy that would wreck our industry or price electricity and heating fuels throught he roof. It really concerns me that the political folk have bought into the global warming hoopla hook, line, and sinker. I think they are idiots for doing so. However, I want to temper this with the fact, I don't think anyone or any corporation has the right to wreck the enviornment or to pollute if it can be avoided.

by Sponsored content