Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

[fskimospy]

What scientific evidence am I ignoring that contradicts my position. I've asked for this several times yet you keep pointing to a blog on human pyschology. Please be specific or don't bother responding....I'm tiring of this game.

You've been pointed to it repeatedly and have repeatedly included links that discuss this. I have even quoted passages showing the flaws in this reasoning.

I'm also tiring of this game. You should genuinely consider why you so stubbornly refuse to accept science in this case. I imagine you accept it in others.

 

[desy]

If anybody loves to massage data its the AGW skeptics
Heartland Institute 101, if you can't dazzle with brilliance baffle w bullsh1t
Ultimately the earth will get hotter the skeptics will become fewer and arguing over semantics will be all they have left.
It will be like 'I never said it wasn't going to get hotter just when it was going to' and so forth.
The problem is the solutions proposed can be political and philosophical which shoves the blinders on when facing evidence

 

[xBiffx]

Nope, I'm merely offering an explanation as to why you and so many other people are ignoring scientific evidence that contradicts your position.

You should genuinely consider why you so stubbornly refuse to accept science in this case.

 

[werepossum]

From your own article:

Using an extreme outlier year as the start for a series is bad science.

The planet as a whole is still warming. Lull not found.

Again, I strongly suggest you read the New Yorker article.

On the other hand, starting global warming analysis at the end of the Little ice Age is simply good, sound, unbiased science of the most brilliant and honest sort.

You've been pointed to it repeatedly and have repeatedly included links that discuss this. I have even quoted passages showing the flaws in this reasoning.

I'm also tiring of this game. You should genuinely consider why you so stubbornly refuse to accept science in this case. I imagine you accept it in others.

How about because in this particular case, accepting science requires ignoring observed reality?

Climate models remain useful only for predicting things that have already happened. In no other discipline are such models not discarded. If for instance one built bridges that continuously failed, one would rapidly become not a bridge builder no matter how many explanations one produced after the fact. With CAGW however it's "The science is settled. Um, okay, NOW the science is settled. Crap. Okay, now the science is really settled."

 

[fskimospy]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You think that amateur web-based climate analysis is the same thing as the actual statements of scientists. When people tell you this, you think they're doing the same thing you are.

This is probably why getting people to break out of things like the anti-vax nuttery and such is so hard. They genuinely don't see what the problem is.

 

[fskimospy]

On the other hand, starting global warming analysis at the end of the Little ice Age is simply good, sound, unbiased science of the most brilliant and honest sort.

How about because in this particular case, accepting science requires ignoring observed reality?

Climate models remain useful only for predicting things that have already happened. In no other discipline are such models not discarded. If for instance one built bridges that continuously failed, one would rapidly become not a bridge builder no matter how many explanations one produced after the fact. With CAGW however it's "The science is settled. Um, okay, NOW the science is settled. Crap. Okay, now the science is really settled."

Lol. Are you just TRYING to prove my point?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You've been pointed to it repeatedly and have repeatedly included links that discuss this. I have even quoted passages showing the flaws in this reasoning.

I'm also tiring of this game. You should genuinely consider why you so stubbornly refuse to accept science in this case. I imagine you accept it in others.

Nothing specific again regarding flaws in this reasoning...nothing except your usual misdirection and empty rhetoric. It's really hard to refute facts...isn't it?

I'll just chalk this one up as 'perhaps we're talking past each other'.

 

[dank69]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You think that amateur web-based climate analysis is the same thing as the actual statements of scientists. When people tell you this, you think they're doing the same thing you are.

This is probably why getting people to break out of things like the anti-vax nuttery and such is so hard. They genuinely don't see what the problem is.

Funny part is, Biff sees all the same behavior in anti-GMO nutters and is probably just as frustrated with it as we are, yet he doesn't see the parallels. Maybe we should tell Biff that every time he doesn't take some helicopter mom's blog post about GMO dangers seriously he is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing specific again regarding flaws in this reasoning...nothing except your usual misdirection and empty rhetoric. It's really hard to refute facts...isn't it?

I'll just chalk this one up as 'perhaps we're talking past each other'.

Definitely not hard to refute "facts". (edited to include my interpretation of what you guys are calling facts) Chalk it up to whatever you want.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny part is, Biff sees all the same behavior in anti-GMO nutters and is probably just as frustrated with it as we are, yet he doesn't see the parallels. Maybe we should tell Biff that every time he doesn't take some helicopter mom's blog post about GMO dangers seriously he is the pot calling the kettle black.

Exactly. Climate change deniers and anti-GMO nutters have so much in common it's not even funny, yet I imagine both regard each other as ignoramuses for ignoring science.

 

[werepossum]

Lol. Are you just TRYING to prove my point?

Have you ever seen anything that didn't prove whatever point you were trying to make?

 

[xBiffx]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You think that amateur web-based climate analysis is the same thing as the actual statements of scientists. When people tell you this, you think they're doing the same thing you are.

This is probably why getting people to break out of things like the anti-vax nuttery and such is so hard. They genuinely don't see what the problem is.

I hear statements from actual scientists on a daily basis. Saying that a statement that comes from an actual scientists carries more weight than an amateur web-based analysis just because it came from an actual scientist is pretty ignorant. Basically, scientists say a lot of things and make a lot of claims, but that doesn't make them right just because they have a PhD or something.

If you actually worked with scientists in the real world, you would know exactly what I am talking about. You really need to stop giving so much credit just because you think the source is creditworthy.

 

[fskimospy]

Have you ever seen anything that didn't prove whatever point you were trying to make?

lol.

 

[fskimospy]

I hear statements from actual scientists on a daily basis. Saying that a statement that comes from an actual scientists carries more weight than an amateur web-based analysis is pretty ignorant. Basically, scientists say a lot of things and make a lot of claims, but that doesn't make them right just because they have a PhD or something.

If you actually worked with scientists in the real world, you would know exactly what I am talking about. You really need to stop giving so much credit just because you think the source is creditworthy.

Of course they don't have to be right, but in these cases they are simply making statements in line with the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field. As non-experts it seems awfully odd to take the analysis of a blog, particularly a blog with as poor a reputation as that one, over them. I think it is hardly a coincidence that this selective acceptance of science dovetails with people's political beliefs.

It's the same thing as the anti-GMO people. I'm sure tons of them accept climate change science but because liberals tend to be more amenable to accepting pseudoscientific nonsense about GMOs, they are similarly unpersuaded.

 

[Babbles]

. . . With CAGW however it's "The science is settled. Um, okay, NOW the science is settled. Crap. Okay, now the science is really settled."

Everybody should be cautious if you hear/see a phrase like "now the science is really settled." On the other end of the spectrum, my wife is a historian and I think she would agree that you should also avoid people who say "Now the history is really settled."

Some things are 'settled' in that there are widely accepted theories that best describe things, for example evolution, but there are still gaps here and there in our complete understanding of the phenomenon. Nothing is ever settled.

 

[dank69]

Everybody should be cautious if you hear/see a phrase like "now the science is really settled." On the other end of the spectrum, my wife is a historian and I think she would agree that you should also avoid people who say "Now the history is really settled."

Some things are 'settled' in that there are widely accepted theories that best describe things, for example evolution, but there are still gaps here and there in our complete understanding of the phenomenon. Nothing is ever settled.

All that werepossum is going to glean from your post is that he never has to believe scientific consensus again because it is never settled.

 

[Babbles]

I hear statements from actual scientists on a daily basis. Saying that a statement that comes from an actual scientists carries more weight than an amateur web-based analysis just because it came from an actual scientist is pretty ignorant. Basically, scientists say a lot of things and make a lot of claims, but that doesn't make them right just because they have a PhD or something.

If you actually worked with scientists in the real world, you would know exactly what I am talking about. You really need to stop giving so much credit just because you think the source is creditworthy.

I hear statements from actual scientists on a daily basis too! I consider myself one and I work with a ton of them. I am not really sure what your point is. Technically I am in marketing now, so guess I have less science cred today than in the past.

Frankly, I think it is ignorant to ignore subject matter experts and instead go with the amateur blogger. A specialist should carry more weight! That's why the are a specialist! I am going to assume you see a specialist for everything else in your life: Dentist to look at your teeth, an attorney for contracts, a mechanic for your car, a physician for your colon, programmer for software - that's all obvious right? However, when it gets to climate then suddenly the need for specialization doesn't matter?

Scientists do make a lot of claims, and certainly not all of them can be 'correct.' However, 'correct' is itself a tricky word. Obviously some are pseudo science, but hopefully that is in the minority. Just because a scientist say it doesn't always mean it it is right. But chances are it is more correct than a non-trained amateur blogger.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Definitely not hard to refute "facts". (edited to include my interpretation of what you guys are calling facts) Chalk it up to whatever you want.

Please know that I don't presume to speak for "you guys". And the only fact I stated was indeed a fact...that there is currently a lull in the rise of observed global temperatures...a fact that you've consistently failed to refute with any semblance of scientific evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

Please know that I don't presume to speak for "you guys". And the only fact I stated was indeed a fact...that there is currently a lull in the rise of observed global temperatures...a fact that you've consistently failed to refute with any semblance of scientific evidence.

Actually I've provided you with quotes from your own sources as to why your depiction of it is poor science. You are free to ignore them at your leisure, just as the anti-vax people are.

 

[xBiffx]

Of course they don't have to be right, but in these cases they are simply making statements in line with the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.

Many experts in a field used to agree that the world was flat. That worked out well. You seem to think that continuity of thought or people being agreeable is some sort of characteristic of undeniability. I simply do not subscribe to that belief.

Quite simply, experts can be as wrong as anyone else. A group of experts doesn't change that.

Here is a nice little experiment: get 100 PhD's and put them in an auditorium. Now yell fire and watch what happens. Now do the same thing with a bunch of high school graduates and see what happens. Point is, one PhD can be smart but combining 100 of them doesn't make them any smarter.

 

[Thebobo]

This is what I think when reading this thread.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g1lev1/an-outbreak-of-liberal-idiocy

 

[Babbles]

Please know that I don't presume to speak for "you guys". And the only fact I stated was indeed a fact...that there is currently a lull in the rise of observed global temperatures...a fact that you've consistently failed to refute with any semblance of scientific evidence.

You need to be cautious when using the word facts. This goes with all sides of an argument. If you were to find out that every single on of those monitoring stations was incorrectly calibrated, therefore generating inaccurate data then your 'facts' change.

That's why scientists, and historians, would say things like "There is a consensus that the data/evidence supports that there is blah-blah-blah happening."

 

[glenn1]

This is what I think when reading this thread.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g1lev1/an-outbreak-of-liberal-idiocy

Do pro-vaccine people demand we change the entire basis of our economy and redistribute billions if not trillions of dollars to third world nations to deal with the problem?

 

[Babbles]

Many experts in a field used to agree that the world was flat. That worked out well. You seem to think that continuity of thought or people being agreeable is some sort of characteristic of undeniability. I simply do not subscribe to that belief.

Quite simply, experts can be as wrong as anyone else. A group of experts doesn't change that.

First, that is a common misconception that anybody seriously thought the world was flat. Certainly some people did, and some probably still do. But, it was never a widely-held belief. Certainly not the 'experts' - whomever they may have been (sailors?).

Experts can be wrong, but not as wrong as anyone else. Again, that is why they are experts. Otherwise we should all quit our respective careers. For example, an expert should have 95% confidence in whatever they are doing, and 'anyone else' would have lower confidence limits. Otherwise that 'everyone else' would be an expert. Again, experts can and are wrong but not to the same degree.

Here is a nice little experiment: get 100 PhD's and put them in an auditorium. Now yell fire and watch what happens. Now do the same thing with a bunch of high school graduates and see what happens. Point is, one PhD can be smart but combining 100 of them doesn't make them any smarter.

If those 100 people have PhD in fire or disaster management - i.e. they are subject matter experts in that field - then it should be reasonable to expect different reactions than non-expert high school graduates. Assuming those high school graduates aren't (e.g.) firemen themselves (i.e. subject matter experts).

Also, putting 100 subject matter experts together does make them 'smarter' (again with the quotes because I am not sure exactly what 'smarter' means here); contrary to popular belief about herd mentality. The notion of one lone inventor coming up with the next big thing is a fallacy. Most break-throughs are by collaboration.

 

[xBiffx]

Experts can be wrong, but not as wrong as anyone else.

I stopped reading right there (well not really). Let me know when you've successfully picked up a turd from the clean end as well.