Spinning off climate change discussion

[Northeast Stinger]

Actual science says there is a problem with the dominant paradigm, but it's labeled non-science because creationists say the same thing. I thought I was pretty clear.

I also said that I did no further investigation into the real science blog, but I also linked other evidence of intentional fraud on climate science.

A serious response would have challenged and discussed with evidence the facts claimed in the blog. You chose simply to mock it and label it heretical. Again, you disclose that for you this is a faith issue.

I am calling a truce on our discussion. I perhaps just do not understand where you are coming from. Anyway, if feels like bad karma to me to be arguing with another Tech fan on the day we need to focus on Clemson.

 

[DTGT]

 

[DTGT]

 

[DTGT]

October 2014 was the warmest October on record, and the year-to-date-period January - October was Earth's warmest such period since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) on Thursday. NOAA also rated the past 12 months--November 2013 through October 2014--as the warmest consecutive 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880. "It is becoming pretty clear that 2014 will end up as the warmest year on record," said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NCDC in an interview with Associated Press. NASA also rated October 2014 as the warmest October on record, tied with 2005. October is the fifth month of 2014 ranked by NOAA as the warmest on record; May, June, August and September 2014 were also the warmest such months on record, and April 2014 was the second warmest April on record. Global ocean temperatures during October 2014 were the warmest on record. This marks the sixth month in a row (beginning in May 2014) that the global ocean temperature broke its monthly temperature record. Global land temperatures in October 2014 were the 5th warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures in October 2014 for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the 9th or 1st warmest in the 36-year record, according to Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), respectively.

From http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2865

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I currently live in walking distance of the UMaine Campus and know some of the professors. I think all of us, laypeople and scientists have been alarmed at how quickly things are heating up. It really is mind boggling.

 

[DTGT]

I currently live in walking distance of the UMaine Campus and know some of the professors. I think all of us, laypeople and scientists have been alarmed at how quickly things are heating up. It really is mind boggling.

The scary part is people see snow where they live and think that any cold weather at all disproves global warming.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Thanks for posting this. My friend who is a meteorologist with the National Weather Service used to argue with me about global warming. Since he knows the science way better than I, my approach was to be respectful and simply ask questions. I used to ask this question all the time: "If ice ages occur as a regular cycle and we are supposedly due for another one, how would that ice age be mitigated if, at the same time, the earth were warming due to green house gases?" I asked the question for two reasons. One was I was honestly curious about how these two phenomena would interact. But the other was that I wanted him to keep tracking the data with an open mind. He eventually came back to me years after we started this conversation and, with a very serious look on his face, said that he now saw evidence that his original opinion was wrong.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The scary part is people see snow where they live and think that any cold weather at all disproves global warming.

Yep. Climate versus weather.

 

[AE 87]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/...ificant-man-made-global-warming-at-this-time/

 

[Northeast Stinger]

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/david-archibald-in-momentus-denial-of.html

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Been researching this guy. I don't know, he sounds kind of suspect, don't you think? He is not a scientist and he did not even graduate from college. He does seem to have good financial connections with the coal industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

 

[DTGT]

Why is anyone listening to John Coleman???

1. His credentials include: Journalism `57 and.... that's it?
2. He co-founded The Weather Channel... but was forced out after 1 year.
3. The remainder of his "career" is he is an on-air weather guy at a couple local stations.
4. He left the American Meteorological Society because he disagreed with them on global warming and climate change.

I don't get it. He has NO credentials, NO expertise, NO experience, NO understanding of science, AND he disagrees with the overwhelming majority of his colleagues.

He is not an expert. He is a grumpy old man that is repeating on Fox News what he saw on Fox News. Fox dredged him up because co-founder of the Weather Channel sounds good and sounds like he might be an expert.

And on to Anthony Watts: He is paid by the polluting industries to not understand global warming.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
-Upton Sinclair

These two are not experts. They are paid corporate shills.

 

[DTGT]

Excellent video:

 

[DTGT]

 

[Northeast Stinger]

What I do not understand is that for as long as I have been aware of this information (the last 30 years) the models have remained fairly consistent. All that has really changed is more data, better measurements and new insights into the nuances of the science. To this layman it all seems fairly simple and straight forward. The other side of the argument always seem to take some obscure point (real or imagined) and blow it out of proportion to cast doubt on the whole model. It is clear that the purpose of this is never to make the science better but to completely debunk the entire model. That is when I get suspicious about larger motives.

 

[AE 87]

@DTGT @Northeast Stinger
Gentlemen, it seems that you have a nice antiphonal choir going in your church of man-made global warming. I won't interrupt for long, but let me remind you of what I wrote in my first post on this topic (my last two paragraphs):

...

Data about decreasing Arctic sea ice and increasing Antarctic sea ice are just that data. Treating this data as evidence of a theory of climate change requires a scientific argument. At the beginning of the millennium, that scientific argument was put forward by the use of climate models that matched past data and predicted future data. However, much of the data collected since 2000 did not match the expectations of the models.

People who trust science and not scientists, would hesitate to affirm a theory of climate change which the data no longer supports. Religious fideists in the truth of scientists will continue to try and mock those who follow the data as witches and seek to burn them.

Now in my most recent post I linked to an open letter written to challenge the practice of only inviting into a scientific conversation those who believe one side of a disputed theory and not dissenters. He offered several claims of fact which undermine the predictions of the consensus view. He cited not only his own authority but the authority of named professors with relevant Ph.D.s and asserted another 9000 PhD scientists shared this dissent.

In response, you each attacked the blogger who posted the letter and one attacked the author of the letter. Neither investigated the legitimacy of the facts being asserted or the credentials and arguments of the authorities being cited. You thereby confirmed my earlier accusation that "Religious fideists in the truth of scientists will continue to try and mock those who follow the data as witches and seek to burn them."

Without any sense of irony, @DTGT even posted a quote from Upton Sinclair that equally speaks against scientists who make their money from arguing that man-made global warming is true.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of these recent posts is the introduction of the straw man of people equating weather and climate change. No one in this thread has done that, as I recall. As the main dissenter in this conversation, let me restate my dissent: Actual data has not matched the expectation entailed by the theory. Therefore, scientific honesty requires modesty in defending the validity of the theory.

Since I know with certainty that this is an issue of religious faith for you two gentlemen, I will not try any longer to discuss the science. However, for any others interested in the topic, I will post another link that will allow the interested to see that perhaps the science isn't nearly as settled as the alarmists would suggest:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

 

[Northeast Stinger]

@DTGT @Northeast Stinger
Gentlemen, it seems that you have a nice antiphonal choir going in your church of man-made global warming. I won't interrupt for long, but let me remind you of what I wrote in my first post on this topic (my last two paragraphs):


Now in my most recent post I linked to an open letter written to challenge the practice of only inviting into a scientific conversation those who believe one side of a disputed theory and not dissenters. He offered several claims of fact which undermine the predictions of the consensus view. He cited not only his own authority but the authority of named professors with relevant Ph.D.s and asserted another 9000 PhD scientists shared this dissent.

In response, you each attacked the blogger who posted the letter and one attacked the author of the letter. Neither investigated the legitimacy of the facts being asserted or the credentials and arguments of the authorities being cited. You thereby confirmed my earlier accusation that "Religious fideists in the truth of scientists will continue to try and mock those who follow the data as witches and seek to burn them."

Without any sense of irony, @DTGT even posted a quote from Upton Sinclair that equally speaks against scientists who make their money from arguing that man-made global warming is true.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of these recent posts is the introduction of the straw man of people equating weather and climate change. No one in this thread has done that, as I recall. As the main dissenter in this conversation, let me restate my dissent: Actual data has not matched the expectation entailed by the theory. Therefore, scientific honesty requires modesty in defending the validity of the theory.

Since I know with certainty that this is an issue of religious faith for you two gentlemen, I will not try any longer to discuss the science. However, for any others interested in the topic, I will post another link that will allow the interested to see that perhaps the science isn't nearly as settled as the alarmists would suggest:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

I will dutifully read another post of yours but I hope I am not once again disappointed.

I like to keep an open mind but what has closed my mind in the past to climate change deniers is that whenever I take the time to actually burrow down through their long and tedious arguments I can never find any "there" there.

I am going to continue to trust that you are a cut above and honest in your opposition to the majority opinion but I have to say that if these oppositional sites were legitimate I would think they would be open to debate. I find them not to be. To say that anyone who is persuaded by the evidence is an alarmist is kind of a give away that the discussion is no longer dispassionate science. When multiple climate research institutions, whether NOAA, NASA, National Weather Service, or half a dozen other organizations, speak of climate change and global warming we are asked to consider a giant conspiracy the magnitude of which is the size of a small galaxy. I will say this. If you are sincere and your science is good and you are simply trying to be objective, it must be very frustrating to have your position tainted by all the crackpots, fanatics, sleazy industrialists and dingbats on your side of the fence. I know that, philosophically speaking, ideas and facts are more important than personalities and character, but your road must be really lonely and I honestly feel for your plight. You could be absolutely right but no one will ever hear you because of the company you keep.

So, at the risk of prolonging the agony, let me ask one question. Is there a simple layperson's answer to why all the data is showing the planet warming up if that is not indeed the case?

 

[DTGT]

@DTGT @Northeast Stinger
Gentlemen, it seems that you have a nice antiphonal choir going in your church of man-made global warming. I won't interrupt for long, but let me remind you of what I wrote in my first post on this topic (my last two paragraphs):


Now in my most recent post I linked to an open letter written to challenge the practice of only inviting into a scientific conversation those who believe one side of a disputed theory and not dissenters. He offered several claims of fact which undermine the predictions of the consensus view. He cited not only his own authority but the authority of named professors with relevant Ph.D.s and asserted another 9000 PhD scientists shared this dissent.

In response, you each attacked the blogger who posted the letter and one attacked the author of the letter. Neither investigated the legitimacy of the facts being asserted or the credentials and arguments of the authorities being cited. You thereby confirmed my earlier accusation that "Religious fideists in the truth of scientists will continue to try and mock those who follow the data as witches and seek to burn them."

Without any sense of irony, @DTGT even posted a quote from Upton Sinclair that equally speaks against scientists who make their money from arguing that man-made global warming is true.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of these recent posts is the introduction of the straw man of people equating weather and climate change. No one in this thread has done that, as I recall. As the main dissenter in this conversation, let me restate my dissent: Actual data has not matched the expectation entailed by the theory. Therefore, scientific honesty requires modesty in defending the validity of the theory.

Since I know with certainty that this is an issue of religious faith for you two gentlemen, I will not try any longer to discuss the science. However, for any others interested in the topic, I will post another link that will allow the interested to see that perhaps the science isn't nearly as settled as the alarmists would suggest:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

The only claim that he makes is that the scientists and their data is wrong. He makes no other claim. He presents NO evidence. His only argument is an Appeal to Irrelevant Authority of 9000 PhDs which most don't even have a background relevant to Climate. He didn't even Appeal to the Authority of Climate Scientists. He Appealed to the Authority of the PhD.

Where did he get his 9000 PhDs number? From the OISM petition:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html

There are over 600,000 science PhDs that were eligible to sign the petition. 9,000 is only 1.5% of the people that could sign as a PhD.

There were >30,000 science signatures which sounds like a lot until you realize that this is only 0.3% of the science graduates according to OISM definition of scientist. When you back out the non-science people, you get 13,000 or 0.1%.

The American Meteorological Society claims over 14,000 members and the OISM claims 341 meteorologists as petition signatories. That’s only 2.4%.

The experts do not agree with you or John Coleman.

 

[AE 87]

@Northeast Stinger read the Wall Street Journal article. It's written for lay people like yourself. The short answer, as I have stated above, is that all the data does not support the theory.

@DTGT, I don't mean you any disrespect, but I'm not sure how old you are. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. You say:

The only claim that he makes is that the scientists and their data is wrong. He makes no other claim. He presents NO evidence. ...

However, in his open letter, he writes:

There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years.

He then cites the PhD scientists as being in agreement with that claim.
He later cites more data:

The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

So, I really don't know if you struggle with the meaning of the words data or evidence or what. He makes several claims of fact as evidence that theory has not been predicatively accurate. The Wall Street Journal Op Ed offers more.

Here is Ridley's Op Ed from his own website where he also responds to critics:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-global-warming.aspx

I will now leave you to misrepresent me and mock me because your faith will not allow you to rationally discuss the data. I'm done.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The Wall Street Journal article requires me to subscribe to read the article.

In the meantime what is your easy layman's translation for why the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations are saying the climate is warming when it is not? Going back this summer it seemed each month that went by was the hottest on record. I want to say that July might have been normal, by I am going on memory. I remember that June and August and the summer as a whole was the hottest on record. So help me understand how there has not been a fairly continuous heating of the earth's climate over the last several decades?

Side note: I have lived from Maine to Georgia and each place where I have hunkered down for a few years the natives report that the weather is acting strange. Please understand that I know the difference between anecdotal reporting and hard data. But my point is that these reports (including a woman in my church who is 98 years old) correspond to local weather reports in which records continue to be shattered, and these, in turn, seem to correlate with the broader global picture that is being reported.

So let me put it another way. When I was a child, a teenager and a young man I watched weather reports regularly and it was a rare and special event when a weather record was broken. Now as an older adult these reports seems to come quite often. Previously, I was more than willing to chalk these up to regular climate cycles. I also know the difference between weather and climate. But what has struck me in more recent decades has been that what is happening locally, what is being reported by climate scientists, and what has been predicted by computer models seems eerily similar. I do not need all the data to match up exactly. As a matter of fact, from my experiences with science over the years, if it matched up exactly I would think the data was rigged.