Here’s how you school climate deniers: The anti-science movement’s biggest fallacies,

[JMapleton]

I think those are grammar mistakes, no?

Atomic Playboy and Doc Savage have just realized this. I don't need to even respond to prove them wrong.

If they are going to accuse me of something, accuse me of the correct mistake. I did not misspell anything.

 

[sandorski]

Atomic Playboy and Doc Savage have just realized this. I don't need to even respond to prove them wrong.

If they are going to accuse me of something, accuse me of the correct mistake. I did not misspell anything.

You have made a Spelling/Grammatical error. Therefor all your Opinions/Statements should be ignored, Past/Present/Future.

You, Sir, have been defeated!!!!!!


..... or something 😛

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

https://news.vice.com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html

 

[mindmajick]

Really?

Because here's last months UAH data:

I think you can see it showing increasing temperatures in the troposphere which is largely in line with MMGW.

For you and Jaskalas here's a really excellent write up on at changes they made recently to the UAH data set. It's even written by a Climate "Skeptic"! It really goes in depth on why they change data and how. Something for everyone.
Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade



So there you have it a climate skeptic meteorologist says you have to manipulate your data.

If I get a chance I'll check out the RSS data.

Edit: if you guys would at least start linking climate skeptics who actually produce data instead of always linking WSJ opinions,or random blogs our debates would be much improved.

This.

It was even simplified in the salon article. There's a reason the Data is adjusted. It's called increasing accuracy.

 

[dphantom]

Really?

Because here's last months UAH data:

I think you can see it showing increasing temperatures in the troposphere which is largely in line with MMGW.

For you and Jaskalas here's a really excellent write up on at changes they made recently to the UAH data set. It's even written by a Climate "Skeptic"! It really goes in depth on why they change data and how. Something for everyone.
Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade



So there you have it a climate skeptic meteorologist says you have to manipulate your data.

If I get a chance I'll check out the RSS data.

Edit: if you guys would at least start linking climate skeptics who actually produce data instead of always linking WSJ opinions,or random blogs our debates would be much improved.

how much of an idiot are you. no one is disagreeing the planet is warming. the question you are totally unable to get thru your mind is HOW MUCH? There is good data ECS is much lower than IPCC thinks. Models are deviating badly from observational data. I think there is warming. I do not know how much is man caused. I think it is some amount. I think some is also natural variance. Is all that clear enough or you do you need some smart pills?

 

[fskimospy]

how much of an idiot are you. no one is disagreeing the planet is warming. the question you are totally unable to get thru your mind is HOW MUCH? There is good data ECS is much lower than IPCC thinks. Models are deviating badly from observational data. I think there is warming. I do not know how much is man caused. I think it is some amount. I think some is also natural variance. Is all that clear enough or you do you need some smart pills?

Instead of personally insulting him why not refute his points?

I'll tell you why: you can't. He is threatening your ideology and your answer is anger instead of introspection.

 

[mindmajick]

how much of an idiot are you. no one is disagreeing the planet is warming. the question you are totally unable to get thru your mind is HOW MUCH? There is good data ECS is much lower than IPCC thinks. Models are deviating badly from observational data. I think there is warming. I do not know how much is man caused. I think it is some amount. I think some is also natural variance. Is all that clear enough or you do you need some smart pills?

Actually... Quite a few people here in P&N have tried to argue just that point.

Despite your anger you seem somewhat logical but you have to realize that with most people these days it's very difficult to even establish a baseline of facts.

The scientist do argue "how much" it's warming. They rarely argue about the causes but just like the first statement the Data is updated constantly.

On a side note: Politics are crazy... A politician is a flip flopper if he doesn't "stick to his guns" but, i wonder, what sane,rational person doesn't update their belief structure once presented with new knowledge?

 

[dank69]

how much of an idiot are you. no one is disagreeing the planet is warming. the question you are totally unable to get thru your mind is HOW MUCH? There is good data ECS is much lower than IPCC thinks. Models are deviating badly from observational data. I think there is warming. I do not know how much is man caused. I think it is some amount. I think some is also natural variance. Is all that clear enough or you do you need some smart pills?

Pretty sure that dude works for NASA or some shit so you might want to dial it back a little bit. :whiste:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Atomic Playboy and Doc Savage have just realized this. I don't need to even respond to prove them wrong.

If they are going to accuse me of something, accuse me of the correct mistake. I did not misspell anything.

You misspelled "affecting." Just because your spellchecker didn't catch it (since "effecting" is still a word) doesn't mean you didn't misspell it. But don't lump me in with Doc; I agree with your post and think that singling out some minor spelling errors is a silly reason to discount what was contained within.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You misspelled "affecting." Just because your spellchecker didn't catch it (since "effecting" is still a word) doesn't mean you didn't misspell it. But don't lump me in with Doc; I agree with your post and think that singling out some minor spelling errors is a silly reason to discount what was contained within.

I thought I bought up a couple other points as well in that post...but hey, let's ignore those and focus debate whether he made a spelling error or a grammatical error. Somebody shoot me.

 

[dank69]

I thought I bought up a couple other points as well in that post...but hey, let's ignore those and focus debate whether he made a spelling error or a grammatical error. Somebody shoot me.

You threw a bunch of shit at the wall hoping something would stick. I called you out on that because none of it applied...but hey, let's ignore that post.

 

[dank69]

You misspelled "affecting." Just because your spellchecker didn't catch it (since "effecting" is still a word) doesn't mean you didn't misspell it. But don't lump me in with Doc; I agree with your post and think that singling out some minor spelling errors is a silly reason to discount what was contained within.

IF he meant to write affecting. A lot of people just don't know when to use affect vs. effect.

 

[OverVolt]

It seems to show the ice nearest to ocean is losing the most mass. As at least I would expect that, since the middle of the continent is very cold while the coasts are warmer.

More about the satellite and data

Okay show the model that says based on that data its going to rain in the Sahara and become a desert in the amazon, or whatever the climate alarmists get away with making up these days.

I don't disagree that the ice is melting, its that you guys draw baseless doom and gloom predictions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Okay show the model that says based on that data its going to rain in the Sahara and become a desert in the amazon, or whatever the climate alarmists get away with making up these days.

I don't disagree that the ice is melting, its that you guys draw baseless doom and gloom predictions.

What???? The doom and gloom comes if we spend a rich man's nickel to fix the problem. This will lead to the enslavement of the entire human race. In no time at all the laws will be enacted that it's the death penalty if we don't fart in little bottles and bury them in land fills.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You threw a bunch of shit at the wall hoping something would stick. I called you out on that because none of it applied...but hey, let's ignore that post.

No, let's not ignore that post. Exactly what was it that you called me out on? That JMapleton made a grammatical error instead of a spelling error?

 

[dphantom]

Here are a few. None deny GW. None deny man causes some fraction of warming.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/full/nature14491.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/...ies-in-deep-ocean-warming-between-two-basins/
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh my God, what am I going to do with you.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154854/why_nuclear_power_is_not_the_answer_to_global_warming

Alternet? Are you serious?

Here's a better source that you may want to consider.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/

 

[dphantom]

Pretty sure that dude works for NASA or some shit so you might want to dial it back a little bit. :whiste:

Why? Is he the world's foremost genius? What does working at a particular place have any bearing short of providing credentials have on an Internet forum populated by the rest of us know-it-alls? 😛

 

[dphantom]

Current studies are revealing fascinating information about climate. The complexity of climate studies really boggles the mind. Clouds, water vapor, oceans, land, solar cosmic rays all interact in ways we do not come close to fully understanding. It is why the CMIP 5 models almost entirely are wrong today.

For those who are convinced that man is the sole or by far the greatest contributor to warming, I would suggest you reserve judgment. Open your mind to new information and get away from the idea that the "science is settled". That man released CO2 is the primary, overwhelming driver of climate. It is very far from settled. There was a time I completely ignored warming. It is obvious to me now there has been some man caused warming over the last several decades. I look forward to more research that better defines how climate variables interact.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Edit: if you guys would at least start linking climate skeptics who actually produce data instead of always linking WSJ opinions,or random blogs our debates would be much improved.

You linked the data yourself. Spencer and Christy are "skeptics" who happen to be the gatekeepers of the UAH data set as well.

 

[dank69]

No, let's not ignore that post. Exactly what was it that you called me out on? That JMapleton made a grammatical error instead of a spelling error?

So you can't read or you just ignore inconvenient posts?

Can you highlight for me the sweeping generalization, the straw man and the misspelling because I can't find even one, let alone multiples of each. Thanks.

 

[dank69]

Current studies are revealing fascinating information about climate. The complexity of climate studies really boggles the mind. Clouds, water vapor, oceans, land, solar cosmic rays all interact in ways we do not come close to fully understanding. It is why the CMIP 5 models almost entirely are wrong today.

For those who are convinced that man is the sole or by far the greatest contributor to warming, I would suggest you reserve judgment. Open your mind to new information and get away from the idea that the "science is settled". That man released CO2 is the primary, overwhelming driver of climate. It is very far from settled. There was a time I completely ignored warming. It is obvious to me now there has been some man caused warming over the last several decades. I look forward to more research that better defines how climate variables interact.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has observable and measurable effects on the amount of heat that is trapped. Man is pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. These things are undeniable FACTS. The science is settled. Yes, we don't know exactly what the effects will be, but we KNOW FOR A FACT that we are causing more heat to be trapped.

 

[dank69]

Why? Is he the world's foremost genius? What does working at a particular place have any bearing short of providing credentials have on an Internet forum populated by the rest of us know-it-alls? 😛

Hey, feel free to tell NASA employees to take some smart pills if that's your thing. Just trying to save you from further embarrassment.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Let me guess, NASA janitors are smarter than your average janitor.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you can't read or you just ignore inconvenient posts?

But far right wing idiots, out of their vast ignorance, have turned it into a debate on if climate change exists at all. When no scientist is even debating this.

Please show evidence that these "far right wing idiots" have actually turned the debate. The fact of the matter is that there is no debate...just a few stupid people with stupid opinions.