• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Through August, 2015 is - BY FAR - the warmest year on record

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PokerGuy said:
You mean like when anyone asks questions about the true believers and their agenda they become "deniers!"?

Let me know when someone has a plan that doesn't call for more money and power to be handed to idiots with a political agenda to supposedly "solve" this problem for us.
Click to expand...

Let us know when adopting new Technology is Free.
 
PokerGuy said:
Because it's equally likely that the data hasn't been adjusted to remove "measurement biases", but rather that the data has been 'corrected' to support an agenda.
Click to expand...
So you're claiming that there's a 50-50 chance that the foundation of modern-day climate science is fraud? In other words, the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the consensus are knowing participants in a huge, data-manipulation conspiracy.

Please provide evidence to support this contention.
 
shira said:
"Reversing the trend" is not the only valid goal. "Slowing the increase" or "stopping the increase" are also highly desirable.

Furthermore, if everyone in Congress were on board with the fact that we and the rest of the world need to do something about climate change, we could easily make trade agreements contingent on significant greenhouse-gas-emission controls on the part of our trading partners: "If you want access to U.S. markets, you must implement the following changes . . . ." That's not just good for the planet, it's also doing business on a level playing field.
Click to expand...

I don't see China nor any of the 3rd world countries the slight bit interested in reducing their CO2 output.

Yet all the trade agreement currently in the works and supported by the administration has no clauses for such.
 
shira said:
So you're claiming that there's a 50-50 chance that the foundation of modern-day climate science is fraud? In other words, the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the consensus are knowing participants in a huge, data-manipulation conspiracy.

Please provide evidence to support this contention.
Click to expand...

Why would I provide evidence to support a contention you made up? I said the "adjustments" made to this particular data set are equally likely to be legit as not, it's not like we've ever seen such "adjustments" made to research data to support a particular conclusion right?

Oh, and if these "adjustments" are "the foundation of modern-day climate science", then we have bigger problems anyway.
 
sandorski said:
Let us know when adopting new Technology is Free.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "new technology"? What is the actual price? What is the actual benefit? Everything needs to be evaluated based on cost benefit analysis, not some feel good BS about saving the planet.
 
smackababy said:
One patch of warm weather isn't sign of a trend. Remember that when it was record colds?


For the record, I don't disbelieve in climate change, mostly because I'm not a moron. But, just going by data in August as indicative of a real change isn't exactly something good.
Click to expand...

When were these global record colds you are talking about?
 
eskimospy said:
Okay so there's no basis then.

This is just another rung on the ladder of climate denial. As always the answer is the same: do nothing.
Click to expand...

Just like your answer -- the answer of the true believers -- is always the same: give us your money and give us more control/power.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
I don't see China nor any of the 3rd world countries the slight bit interested in reducing their CO2 output.

Yet all the trade agreement currently in the works and supported by the administration has no clauses for such.
Click to expand...
That couldn't possibly be because Republicans in Congress would absolutely, positively NOT agree to such language, could it?
 
PokerGuy said:
Very simple: my opinion. If you don't like it, feel free to substitute your own.
Click to expand...

Kind of like: "There's a 50-50 chance that Ted Cruz is a closet pedophile."

What? You want evidence to back up that statement? Why? It's "my opinion." I don't need no stinkin' "evidence."

Great approach to having substantive discussions. 🙄
 
Hi I am a climate change denier, I will believe anything that supports what I already think, if it doesn't support it it's because it's because all the climate scientists manipulate their data and we all know raw data is king!

That's my opinion deal with it, I don't care about anyone else I know what I know and you won't change that.
 
shira said:
Great approach to having substantive discussions. 🙄
Click to expand...

Hey, if you want to simply accept as a fact that "adjustments" make the data better without questioning it, that's up to you. At some point you'll have to wake up and realize that this global warming/climate change stuff left the realm of objective science and became a political agenda long time ago.
 
PokerGuy said:
Hey, if you want to simply accept as a fact that "adjustments" make the data better without questioning it, that's up to you. At some point you'll have to wake up and realize that this global warming/climate change stuff left the realm of objective science and became a political agenda long time ago.
Click to expand...

You're projecting. It's always been a political issue for deniers. Always.

Every competently compiled data set has adjuatments in it for known errors. If yku arent adjusting your data you are doing it wrong. The adjustments they make are transparent and open to scientific critique.

There has never been a successful scientific rebuttal to the scientific consensus because there probably isn't one. It is heartening to see the deniers retreat further each year, but it's also frustrating to see people so committed to ideology over what the science says.

If the scientific community came out tomorrow and said they were all wrong about climate change I would gladly accept it. The question here is why you have to manufacture conspiracies in order to avoid doing that.
 
shira said:
That couldn't possibly be because Republicans in Congress would absolutely, positively NOT agree to such language, could it?
Click to expand...

Who cares? Whatever gets the Big Progressive Swim going is good with me, I don't know why it's taking so long.
 
glenn1 said:
Who cares? Whatever gets the Big Progressive Swim going is good with me, I don't know why it's taking so long.
Click to expand...

Good old glenn, master of the totally irrational, spite based public policy.

Here's a hint: there's a lot more people on the coasts than where you are, and they have a lot more power and money. If you got your wish and push comes to shove, who do you think will end up on the short end, the coastal people with all the money and power or the inland people like you?
 
shira said:
Because scientists constantly evaluate data and look for biases. And when measurable, predictable biases in the data are identified, methods to remove them are devised.

Why would you think that uncorrected 60-year-old data is superior to 60-year-old data that's been adjusted to remove measurement biases?
Click to expand...
How many experiments do you think were done to determine this "measurable, predictable" bias? How rigorous an analysis do you believe was done to determine the exact conditions at the time of each measurement? (I'm assuming here that even a True Believer understands that measurements would vary according to the exact conditions prevailing at that exact location and time.) Because I'm betting that this "peer-reviewed study" is naught but an explanation of why this might happen coupled with determining what "correction factor" brings today's measurements in line with the model.

You guys can get away with this behavior once or thrice. But when you continually go back and adjust past measurements to what the models require - and ALWAYS to what the models require - at that point only the truly gullible or the truly invested will ever believe you are doing science. This isn't science, it's advocacy math.
 
PokerGuy said:
Hey, if you want to simply accept as a fact that "adjustments" make the data better without questioning it, that's up to you. At some point you'll have to wake up and realize that this global warming/climate change stuff left the realm of objective science and became a political agenda long time ago.
Click to expand...
One could probably extrapolate how long before "science" tells us that the Earth was a frozen, uninhabitable wasteland until the Industrial Revolution, 'cause damn it, models don't lie!
 
werepossum said:
How many experiments do you think were done to determine this "measurable, predictable" bias? How rigorous an analysis do you believe was done to determine the exact conditions at the time of each measurement? (I'm assuming here that even a True Believer understands that measurements would vary according to the exact conditions prevailing at that exact location and time.) Because I'm betting that this "peer-reviewed study" is naught but an explanation of why this might happen coupled with determining what "correction factor" brings today's measurements in line with the model.

You guys can get away with this behavior once or thrice. But when you continually go back and adjust past measurements to what the models require - and ALWAYS to what the models require - at that point only the truly gullible or the truly invested will ever believe you are doing science. This isn't science, it's advocacy math.
Click to expand...
The answers to your questions are in the peer-reviewed papers. And - apparently - the research backing up data-tweaks is sufficiently rigorous that other climatologists have adopted those methods for their own research.

But since you - based solely on faith - are convinced that climate scientists are just making stuff up, no amount of research can ever change your mind. After all, any research cited is produced by climate scientists, who cannot be trusted.

Great circular bubble-system you've got there.
 
shira said:
The answers to your questions are in the peer-reviewed papers. And - apparently - the research backing up data-tweaks is sufficiently rigorous that other climatologists have adopted those methods for their own research.

But since you - based solely on faith - are convinced that climate scientists are just making stuff up, no amount of research can ever change your mind. After all, any research cited is produced by climate scientists, who cannot be trusted.

Great circular bubble-system you've got there.
Click to expand...
Um, would these be the same "climate scientists" who reviewed and approved Mann's paper without his original data or algorithms?
 
werepossum said:
Um, would these be the same "climate scientists" who reviewed and approved Mann's paper without his original data or algorithms?
Click to expand...
No. I'm referring to the other 10,000 climate scientists, and their research and papers. You know, the ones whose research you choose to ignore in order to make your entire universe of climate-science the cherry-picked, high-profile cases that (you erroneously believe) confirm your foregone conclusions.

Edit: No, let's take a different tack here, so you can't sidetrack this discussion: Let's assume everything you believe about Michael Mann is true. Score 1 for you. Now, what about the other 10,000 climate scientists and their research?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top