2 edits
Originally posted by SpastiGovThe graph was never broken; it's since been improved, but it was always accepted by the scientific community. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
Your reply is a typical non sequitur. I was responding to twhitehead who said "every chart he's seen shows a marked increase at the end". Presumably he meant warming. Thus my comment: "Like the infamous hockey stick?" That specious graph invented by Michael Mann that is now broken (not that it stopped Al Gore using it in his comedy).
Got it?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925431.400
I was merely trying to educate you on the gross inaccuracies of the link you posted.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyOh right, the hockey stick that has been proven totally flawed on numerous occasions?
The graph was never broken; it's since been improved, but it was always accepted by the scientific community. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925431.400
I was merely trying to educate you on the gross inaccuracies of the link you posted.
Ever wonder why the IPCC dumped it from their latest report?
1. Because it was finally proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt to be utterly wrong and its conclusions based on completely spurious data, supported by dubiously unscientific methodology.
2. It's inclusion (as a central plank of IPCC propaganda) was shown to be severely damaging the IPCC's reputation.
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovPerhaps you'd care to look at the latest report itself
Oh right, the hockey stick that has been proven totally flawed on numerous occasions?
Ever wonder why the IPCC dumped it from their latest report?
1. Because it was finally proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt to be utterly wrong and its conclusions based on completely spurious data, supported by dubiously unscientific methodology.
2. It's inclu ...[text shortened]... s a central plank of IPCC propaganda) was shown to be severely damaging the IPCC's reputation.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf
Look at page 35 and you will clearly see MBH1999 - Mann's reconstructed curve. Go to page 34 and you'll see lots of space dedicated to explaining the hockey stick debate. Yes, the curve has been reconstructed since 1998, but that just goes to show their dedication to accuracy.
There are countless myths surrounding the hockey stick which you would realise if you could be bothered to read the links I post. The political debate about the stick has overshadowed the actual scientific debate.
The people who've "shown" it to be wrong are the ones who have been discredited, just go to the NS links I posted above, and read them. Or read this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
The close reproducibility of the MBH98 reconstruction based on both (a) the use of an independent CFR method and (b) the use of the individual proxies used by MBH98 rather than the Multiproxy/PC representation used by MBH98, discredits the arguments put forth by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in support of their putative correction to the MBH98 reconstruction.
Here's more about how those boys are making false claims
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
Originally posted by SpastiGovHi SpastiGov,
Oh right, the hockey stick that has been proven totally flawed on numerous occasions?
Ever wonder why the IPCC dumped it from their latest report?
1. Because it was finally proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt to be utterly wrong and its conclusions based on completely spurious data, supported by dubiously unscientific methodology.
2. It's inclu ...[text shortened]... s a central plank of IPCC propaganda) was shown to be severely damaging the IPCC's reputation.
What scientific criteria would suffice to get you to believe that humans are contributing to global
warming?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ZahlanziHere's what you do Zahlanzi, build a warehouse and start stocking up on oil, plastic and medicine and leave the rest of us alone. No body owes you any of those things.
oooooh the first reasonable thing you said in a long time.
then why do you thrash it like it were "Earth is flat" theory?
yes it is a theory. like all theories, some aspects are correct and some are wrong.
what the greenies are doing wrong is dramatize and exaggerate all aspects concerning global warming.
what the anti GW people are doing wrong ...[text shortened]... g a little messed up( little, according to the anti GW, more if we listen to the greenies)
AGWing theory is one of the greatest threats to freedom today, the 'solution' is always the same - control and regulation.
Sometime ago there was a thread along the lines of - we're past the tipping point, the temp is accelerating out of control. There was the usual gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and pulling of hair from the panic merchants. When it was pointed out to them that if there was no going back then their quest for unearned power/control/regulation (in the realm of economics these are overwhelmingly left whingers) had no basis the thread literally rocketed off the bottom of the page.
Originally posted by WajomaI miss the part where people have freedom to damage the planet that everyone else has to live on. I bet you'd have something to say if someone started dumping chemical waste on your front lawn.
Here's what you do Zahlanzi, build a warehouse and start stocking up on oil, plastic and medicine and leave the rest of us alone. No body owes you any of those things.
AGWing theory is one of the greatest threats to freedom today, the 'solution' is always the same - control and regulation.
Sometime ago there was a thread along the lines of - we're past ...[text shortened]... mingly left whingers) had no basis the thread literally rocketed off the bottom of the page.
Being too late to reverse the trend is no excuse to ignore the situation and exacerbate it.
AGW itself is the greatest threat to freedom - freedom to live in a secure environment.
Just because we've gotten away with this much damage, it doesn't justify doing more.
Originally posted by SpastiGovIt's another opinion piece. Speaking of the fashionably frightened, it is a website which is "fashionably frightened" of the "liberal media", careful, they're out to get you. You consider a site professing to advance the free market is likely to take a balanced view to climate change? (I've not a problem with the free market per se, but find its proponents tend to be a little one-minded in its pursuit)
Excellent article! Thanks macswain. It's what I've been saying for ages, that the current 'golbal warming' trend is just another hobgoblin in a long list of hobgoblins!
Full report here: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Now, three weeks later, and a link to proper data is still forthcoming. Three weeks, most threads live and die in that time, and you haven't given one link to a paper containing anything other than armchair comments by skeptical hacks on data which they improperly use, either due to some agenda (there's a turn for the books) or simply because they don't know how to analyse the data.
The hockey stick argument was challenged a few years back, by other climate scientists (which seems to bely the conspiracy theories of the establishment just in it for the money) but the theory was found to hold. What people do is look at the yearly temperatures and start to see this huge drop off in the past three years, but look at the five year average (which is a pretty good thing to do when talking about climate) this drop off has had virtually no effect on the "hockey stick".
Now, one article, with data, preferably something that was published and not just posted on the internet by some hack (these are the things we gave to you).
Stop bull*hitting and put your money where your mouths are.
Originally posted by WajomaWell, good thing no one is saying that the temp is out of control, we don't have data to support that view, and whoever said it int he first place on that other thread was as bad as you are at looking at the data.
Here's what you do Zahlanzi, build a warehouse and start stocking up on oil, plastic and medicine and leave the rest of us alone. No body owes you any of those things.
AGWing theory is one of the greatest threats to freedom today, the 'solution' is always the same - control and regulation.
Sometime ago there was a thread along the lines of - we're past ...[text shortened]... mingly left whingers) had no basis the thread literally rocketed off the bottom of the page.
As for the threat to freedom. What the hell are you talking about? Regulation of anti-social activities, you consider a threat to freedom? If you wanna tell Zahlanzi to hole up in a warehouse with oil plastic etc. and leave everyone else alone, spare a thought for yourself and consider how much more freedom you'd have if you just fecked off to some island in the middle of the pacific. You wouldn't have to worry about a lot of threats to freedom, like laws. Just do what you want, provided you don't do it near THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT SEES THAT THE POINT OF REGULATION IS NOT TO THREATEN FREEDOM.
Originally posted by agrysonAgryson:
It's another opinion piece. Speaking of the fashionably frightened, it is a website which is "fashionably frightened" of the "liberal media", careful, they're out to get you. You consider a site professing to advance the free market is likely to take a balanced view to climate change? (I've not a problem with the free market per se, but find its proponents t ...[text shortened]... hings we gave to you).
Stop bull*hitting and put your money where your mouths are.
Please cool down.
You undoubtedly fashion this attack on the article found at: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice. But you refute things that are not in the article instead of what IS in the article.
This article simply lists articles that were printed concerning "Warming" and "Cooling" over the past 110 years. All these articles were actually printed by major newspapers and magazines of the time. The articles REFLECT SCIENTIFIC DATA AT THE TIME THEY WERE PRINTED.
This report merely shows a timeline of vacillation of scientific opinion over the past century and how excited people of the time became about this information and it did not matter whether the "new" trend was heating or cooling. Much like people today.
You apply an argument here about "hockey stick" and "conspiracy theories" which have nothing to do about this particular article.
If you attack the article, that attack must be based on what is actually in the article. Are any of the reprints from 1890's, 1920's, 1930's, etc., etc. untrue? If so point them out.
Originally posted by MacSwainI did go into detail on the article when you posted the exact same one in the consensus on global warming thread (My response is on the top of page 14). I'm not going to repeat my criticisms (and agreements) in this thread a second time when they're already up on the progenitor of this thread.
You apply an argument here about "hockey stick" and "conspiracy theories" which have nothing to do about this particular article.
If you attack the article, that attack must be based on what is actually in the article. Are any of the reprints from 1890's, 1920's, 1930's, etc., etc. untrue? If so point them out.
So my "attack" on the article has been made on the specific content of that article already, but in this second posting I had chosen to respond to the more general route the arguments were taking as a result of that article.
Don't you read the responses to your own posts in other threads?
Originally posted by agrysonROFL: You certainly go for personal attacks, but I enjoy it, so don't ever change!
I did go into detail on the article when you posted the exact same one in the consensus on global warming thread (My response is on the top of page 14). I'm not going to repeat my criticisms (and agreements) in this thread a second time when they're already up on the progenitor of this thread.
So my "attack" on the article has been made on the specific con ...[text shortened]... a result of that article.
Don't you read the responses to your own posts in other threads?
Of course I read responses to my posts. I found yours (in the other thread) to be well thought out, except for the "inadvertant" comment 🙂 There was the personal attack part you cannot seem to resist. Thank you! Therefore I did not feel a need to respond.
In this thread I found your response to be off topic to the article and felt a need to challenge your stance.
The point being, not were those climate bulletins regarding warming & cooling true or false, instead, did they actually exist/happen or did the creators of the report make it up.
I have not seen where you said any of those reprinted articles did not exist in the decades past,as represented.
I know you understand the point since you are the brightest bulb in the box. OOPS! (personal attack on my part) sorry 😉