So maths is the tool of the cult then......Originally Posted by jmcc
Riiight
You accuse us of being religious zealots because we often point to the global average temperature statistics?
The raw data is there if anyone wants to look at it and critique it.If people want to perform their own experiments and collect their own data, they're more than welcome to do so. It couldn't be further from a religion.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
I guess I can add "There's no such thing as global temperature!" to the list of skeptic positions.
I'm surprised the IPCC has never heard of the medieval warm period AD 800-1300 or then again perhaps you are misrepresenting them in an attempt to 'argue from authority'. Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for your comment "we can not explain this by natural processes" with the inference therefore it has to be manmade; That's hilarious, we can't explain hardly anything about the climate. It's far too complicated for the current models which is why the models have proven themselves hopeless at making accurate predictions time and time again. Your logic is insightful into your mindset; If A+B <>C it must equal Z
The MWP was of course followed by the little ice age which we have been recovering from since. Hopefully temperatures will increase further before we are plunged into the next cold spell.
I should also add I would not believe anything that has been touched by that proven fake Hansen. In October 2008 he claimed another record high only for private individuals to prove he had faked the data using September readings for October after initially denying any wrong doing faced with insurmountable proof he backed down and then claimed it was an error either way his 'mistake' makes him either a liar or an incompetent buffoon; regardless he now has zero credibility and should have been fired on the spot. But then again of course NASA has past form in faking data (spy plane incident) at the government's request so perhaps he was simply following orders.
Last edited by SAT; 28th October 2009 at 05:25 PM.
Maths can be used to justify almost any position by selecting the required data to provide a predetermined outcome.
Because you only point to a global average for a very complex system that contains extremes of temperature.You accuse us of being religious zealots because we often point to the global average temperature statistics?
Would that be the data that mysteriously disappeared when researchers asked for access? Or would it be the falsified Russian data?The raw data is there if anyone wants to look at it and critique it.
Actually it has all the hallmarks of a religion complete with gormless fools who treat the prognostications of its high priests as dogma. Even the concept of mass destruction at some future date is a classic belief of millenarian cults.It couldn't be further from a religion.
Regards...jmcc
As I am sure you know land based temperatures are extremely iffy and largely irrelevant anyway. Ocean temperatures are all that matter and the Argo project shows they have been slightly cooling for the past 8 years; in fact ever since the project came online.
Last edited by SAT; 28th October 2009 at 05:26 PM.
OMG OMG OMG the weather is changing!!!
Whatever,this planet has been hotter and colder in the past, no big deal, life still existed here. We will adapt as we always do.
The worst thing that we could let happen is that people with an agenda start selectively using data to push across new methods of control, eg taxes.
That is far scarier than any ice cap disappearing! After all the ice caps weren't always there...
Economic Left/Right: -8
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Now you are just being naivehttp://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6654CRU Erases Data
by Steve McIntyre on July 29th, 2009
As readers know, both myself and various Climate Audit readers have requested CRU station data from both the Met Office and CRU. While my initial request to CRU was refused, I asked for a reconsideration and the matter is still outstanding, as are all the other CRU requests. Under U.K. Freedom of Information Act, once FOI requests have been made for information, public authorities are not permitted to "alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled." As fordprefect observed the other day, the Computer Misuse Act also prescribes various offences, one of which is the unauthorized modification of the contents of a computer with the intent "to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer".
I was therefore more than a little surprised that on July 27, at about 2:42 p.m. (UK), CRU deleted three files from their data directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/ entitled newcrustnsall.dat.Z, newcruextusall.dat.Z and newcrustnsall.hdr. I have before and after screenshots of the contents of this directory showing the deletion, screenshots that I will show below. I also have a screenshot showing the most recent change of the directory and that no other files were changed. [As readers observed, it is possible and perhaps even likely that the files were moved to a concealed location, rather than totally erased, which would present similar sorts of issues for FOI compliance.]
And
The Dog Ate Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels on National Review OnlineThe Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?
By Patrick J. Michaels
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”
Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
Data manipulation and suppression is the norm for AGW alarmists.
Tombo, I think that it is particularly difficult to represent the position of skeptics correctly or otherwise because they don't seem to have a consistent position, just take contradictory pot-shots at the science. I have counted eight separate positions:
1. The greenhouse effect, discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, does not exist
2. The greenhouse effect exists, but that there is no current increase in global temperatures
3. Global temperatures are increasing, but only within a cyclical pattern that has no connection to human activity
4. Human activity is causing temperatures to increase, but not on a significant scale
5. Human activity is causing temperatures to increase on a significant scale, but this will benefit rather than threaten mankind
6. Human activity is causing threatening temperature increase, but no human intervention is feasible, so remedial action is a better route
7. More scientific research is needed to reach any conclusions on climate change
8. Climate change is a hoax, dreamt up by politicians and scientists trying to justify increased taxes and research budgets
Clearly all of these positions are mutually exclusive, except number eight, which could be combined with any one of the first three or four. This gives the impression that AWG-deniers have no interest in science or even reality, just want to have a variety of positions so that they can always take refuge in the next one when the science contradicts them on the last one.
Which of these best represents your view?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, published by Brandon. "A cracker!" - Eddie Hobbs; "Months of research" - Noel Whelan
You missed the obvious one. A theory makes predictions that are then tested against empirical evidence. AGW theory has failed miserably in this regard and so can no longer be considered a viable theory.
The points you raised are not refutations of AGW per se and are not necessarily alternative theories they are in the main simply folk hypothesising on the possible reasons why AGW theory has been such an unmitigated disaster. It's the same as someone theorising an asteroid is going to hit the Earth and it then misses; people will speculate on why the theory was wrong. Even if their ruminations are also wrong it doesn't change the fact the asteroid missed the Earth.
AGW theory is wrong. It is not incumbent on anyone to come up with a new theory before the old one is buried. We are simply back where we were before the fear-mongering began, we do not have a working climate theory.
Last edited by SAT; 28th October 2009 at 10:01 PM.
the global recession means nobody gives a fukk.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote