Did we miss this? 2014 was the warmest year on record

[Subyman]

So your definition of "science" is wide enough to include prognosticating about world wide cataclysm? Climate change is the red-headed stepchild of science.... at best.

Uhm, you just gave your opinion on "all" scientists here:

Here are statements published by "scientists" in 1970. Do you sense any similarities? So in other words, I heard all this shit before from scientists when I was a kid in the 70s. They never stopped fear-mongering, they just changed what they were fear-mongering about.

It is appears the "scientists" are all in full fear-mongering, end-of-the-world mode.

So in those quotes you claim all scientists never stop fear mongering. I say, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on scientists. Then you tell me I'm generalizing your comments to include all scientists, which you said...

I think you may need to step away, reformulate your thoughts, and then let me know what your point is.

Just so you know, my point is that the majority of people that accept global warming aren't nut job people "overwhelmed by fear" like Michael1980 said here:

Most global warming belivers are overwhelmed by the fear of a warmer planet.

Thanks for derailing the conversation though.

 

[Jaskalas]

Here is another article about how smoothing the temperature data does not affect its end result when compared to the raw data, although I think the author takes a slightly combative approach with his language:

http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/temperature-data-is-not-the-biggest-scientific-scandal-ever/

You make an argument for oranges when that discussion is apples.
I will now present the argument for trashed / tampered surface station data.

Basic Math For Academics
The problem is that they take UHI contaminated Urban stations and use those to replace the data of Rural stations. Example.

In recent years, up to HALF the US surface station data is infilled.

The result:

There is a very good correlation between infilling and inflated temperatures. The more fake data they generate, the larger the divergence in temperature vs. measured.

Related media:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

 

[dank69]

Are you being serious or just contrarian?

Haha, you have to understand that michal has the lowest IQ of anyone on this entire forum.

 

[dank69]

Here are statements published by "scientists" in 1970. Do you sense any similarities? So in other words, I heard all this shit before from scientists when I was a kid in the 70s. They never stopped fear-mongering, they just changed what they were fear-mongering about.

Maybe those guys weren't accounting for advances in food production technology?

 

[werepossum]

You make an argument for oranges when that discussion is apples.
I will now present the argument for trashed / tampered surface station data.

Basic Math For Academics
The problem is that they take UHI contaminated Urban stations and use those to replace the data of Rural stations. Example.

In recent years, up to HALF the US surface station data is infilled.

The result:

Related media:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

That for me is the problem in a nutshell. We continually hear that the science is settled. Why then do we need such rampant dishonesty to demonstrate that science? Seems to me that climate science is much like high school science - one knows "the right answer", so one can do whatever manipulation is needed to make theory yield that answer.

 

[rudeguy]

Haha, you have to understand that michal has the lowest IQ of anyone on this entire forum.

I find it really interesting that all the people on your side of the issue are the ones hurling so many insults.

Its almost like you can't back up your theory, so you resort to personal attacks.







Almost.

 

[fskimospy]

That for me is the problem in a nutshell. We continually hear that the science is settled. Why then do we need such rampant dishonesty to demonstrate that science? Seems to me that climate science is much like high school science - one knows "the right answer", so one can do whatever manipulation is needed to make theory yield that answer.

Here's the thing, the person who is being dishonest is Steven Goddard, not the scientists. He's fairly clueless when it comes to climate science and he's been busted before peddling bullshit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard#Claims_of_NASA_manipulation_of_temperature_data

Doesn't it all make a lot more sense when you realize that the climate deniers are the ones engaging in rampant dishonesty?

If you're interested about infilling and how it works mathematically you can read about it here:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/infilling-climatology-and-anomalies.html

 

[Subyman]

You make an argument for oranges when that discussion is apples.
I will now present the argument for trashed / tampered surface station data.

Basic Math For Academics
The problem is that they take UHI contaminated Urban stations and use those to replace the data of Rural stations. Example.

In recent years, up to HALF the US surface station data is infilled.

The result:

Related media:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

I made no argument, to be clear. I just linked an interesting article and noted that the author may be a bit combative. Thanks for the other links though.

 

[Subyman]

That for me is the problem in a nutshell. We continually hear that the science is settled. Why then do we need such rampant dishonesty to demonstrate that science? Seems to me that climate science is much like high school science - one knows "the right answer", so one can do whatever manipulation is needed to make theory yield that answer.

I don't believe there is "rampant" dishonesty. There are some scientists that have lied to get ahead, but that stuff quickly gets recognized and disowned. That is one of the reasons I think the field of science is so great. It is always, always under intense scrutiny and generally accepting of logical arguments.

 

[dank69]

I find it really interesting that all the people on your side of the issue are the ones hurling so many insults.

Its almost like you can't back up your theory, so you resort to personal attacks.







Almost.

:hmm:

Wait what?

The global warming boozo's are the ones that are selling and living on fear.

OMG if we dont do SOMETHING right NOW. Bad things will happen. The whole global warming movement is based on fear mongering.

The replay was specific to Moonb----. Who always says conservatives are ruled by fear. Most global warming belivers are overwhelmed by the fear of a warmer planet. Just look at the ideas they are spewing. 'We should do anything to help stop this' 'Doing nothing is terrible' 'Lets ban cars in cities'. 'The world will blow up if we don't do something'

He's mind is so warped he isn't able to see the world of fear he lives in.

 

[bradley]

Still too small of a sample size.

 

[rudeguy]

:hmm:

to be fair moony's mind is warped. I like him, I'm glad he posts, but he is twisted.


This thread is a great example of why so many of us laugh off global warming. We ask questions, challenge theories and point out flaws and in return we are attacked and even compared to Nazis. All because we dared not believe someone's word and asked for proof. Then when confronted, global warming supporters admit they are ignorant even though they attacked us for asking simple questions.

Its a sad day when subyman is the most intelligent sounding person in a thread.

 

[michal1980]

:hmm:

Context asshole.

Moonie claims conservatives live in fear.

Yet this thread proves that left is completely living in fear of global warming.

How does that liberal fear fit moonies world view? It doesn't, he just twists it into more conservative bashing.

 

[Subyman]

Context asshole.

Moonie claims conservatives live in fear.

Yet this thread proves that left is completely living in fear of global warming.

How does that liberal fear fit moonies world view? It doesn't, he just twists it into more conservative bashing.

I don't think this thread proves much of anything.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you're interested about infilling and how it works mathematically you can read about it here:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/infilling-climatology-and-anomalies.html

I think it works just fine... to explain the differences between the Surface and Satellite data. When the adjustments just keep increasing the temp trend, we have a hard time believing that UHI has been properly accounted for.

For a bonus round... you think adjustments like this might contribute to the "warmest year ever" record? Or maybe... it helps instill a sense of confidence... down to hundredths of a degree.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it works just fine... to explain the differences between the Surface and Satellite data. When the adjustments just keep increasing the temp trend, we have a hard time believing that UHI has been properly accounted for.

For a bonus round... you think adjustments like this might contribute to the "warmest year ever" record? Or maybe... it helps instill a sense of confidence... down to hundredths of a degree.

Why do you keep linking to Steven Goddard while ignoring that he has already been exposed as being both dishonest and clueless on this issue? You cut out the previous link that talks about that and the sources cited go into his incompetence in some detail.

 

[Moonbeam]

The replay was specific to Moonb----. Who always says conservatives are ruled by fear. Most global warming belivers are overwhelmed by the fear of a warmer planet. Just look at the ideas they are spewing. 'We should do anything to help stop this' 'Doing nothing is terrible' 'Lets ban cars in cities'. 'The world will blow up if we don't do something'

He's mind is so warped he isn't able to see the world of fear he lives in.

Hehehe, please try to understand that if you put a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, something terrible and horrifying is going to happen to me. I am going to lose one of my favorite sources of humor. You have a brain defect and the result is that any thought that comes to you is bound to be defective. Your only hope is to stop believing in anything that crosses your mind. Read this and with the assumption that every word is true because it is:

http://www.realsceptic.com/2014/05/...ed-on-evidence-science-denial-based-on-faith/

The faith he speaks of is your belief in an altered reality that does not exist.

You are a programmed machine. You are in love with your program. You are absolutely and totally deranged and totally hopeless. You are so far down the rabbit hole you'll never dig your way out. You and your kind are going to be responsible for an ecological catastrophe. It is going to happen if no cure for your defective brain can be found. Why would I be afraid of the inevitable. Because you are on a path to destruction, I don't have any hope either. I can't fix you because you don't want to be fixed because you are to egotistical to admit your damaged. I'm fucked because you are. I have renounced violence as a means to deal with people like you, because you mean to do well but don't understand what real good is. There is only love, and I hope with all my heart and soul that you get better. Children are so beautiful and I am sad how they will suffer. There is nothing for me but to weep on the cross. I embrace the suffering you fear.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why do you keep linking to Steven Goddard while ignoring that he has already been exposed as being both dishonest and clueless on this issue? You cut out the previous link that talks about that and the sources cited go into his incompetence in some detail.

Attacking that blogger won't make the data go away.
I'm sorry you don't have an answer for why Surface data is diverging from Satellite data.

 

[Moonbeam]

Attacking that blogger won't make the data go away.
I'm sorry you don't have an answer for why Surface data is diverging from Satellite data.

My theory is that surface data measures how warm things appear to be on the surface and Satellite data measures how warm they appear to be from space.

 

[nickqt]

My theory is that surface data measures how warm things appear to be on the surface and Satellite data measures how warm they appear to be from space.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

 

[mizzou]

it's cold outside right now, at this very second.

therefore any data accumulated in the previous year( or any years prior to that ) about something being warm, is now invalid.

 

[bradly1101]

Here, let me provide a counterpoint:

1. Global warming is a lie, therefore do nothing.
2. Even if it's true scientists don't know because of a newspaper story about global cooling, therefore do nothing.
3. Even if scientists do know it's happening we can't say man is causing it, therefore do nothing.
4. Even if we can say man is causing it we can't stop it, therefore do nothing.
5. Even if we can stop it China and India won't go along, therefore do nothing.
6. Even if China and India will go along it's too expensive, therefore do nothing.
7. Even if it's cost effective compared to the alternative fuck you, you're a commie.

Some of us do something. I like my hardware, but it is in low power mode or asleep most of the time. We like to travel, but we just don't. If I don't need to be somewhere I'm not going to create a huge carbon footprint to see a pretty view somewhere exotic. I can cook an exotic meal for us, rent an exotic movie and watch a travel show to an exotic place, all without too much pollution and CO2 output. If everybody did a little we could make a huge difference.

 

[bradly1101]

it's cold outside right now, at this very second.

therefore any data accumulated in the previous year( or any years prior to that ) about something being warm, is now invalid.

I don't know, it was 87F here today in southern CA, so we cancel each other out.

 

[werepossum]

Here's the thing, the person who is being dishonest is Steven Goddard, not the scientists. He's fairly clueless when it comes to climate science and he's been busted before peddling bullshit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard#Claims_of_NASA_manipulation_of_temperature_data

Doesn't it all make a lot more sense when you realize that the climate deniers are the ones engaging in rampant dishonesty?

If you're interested about infilling and how it works mathematically you can read about it here:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/infilling-climatology-and-anomalies.html

How it works is exactly why I called high school science.

1. I did not get the result I expected.
2. Since I know the correct answer, I'll simply change the datum to that. I'll recognize the correct methodology because it gives me the answer I need.

This is exactly why all published measurements of the universe's expansion were wrong in direction until we got satellite telescopes. The science on the sign of the acceleration was settled, so any data had to be massaged until they agreed with the theory. That isn't science, it's science class. And it's gotten so laughable that climate scientists "correct" measurements recorded decades ago.

 

[boomerang]