A MUST SEE! Global Warming Swindle!

POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, July 3, 2009 16:48
VIEWED: 11643
PAGE 4 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, I'd say I've probably looked at this issue a lot. And I agree with the experts.

Which experts? Because the experts don't all agree....

My husband is a research scientist working at the Dept of Energy, where everyone pays lip service to GW. But he doesn't subscribe to it, and he doesn't know any of his colleagues who does. But hey, that's where the money is, so they all go along. There is a difference between experts who don't believe it but don't want to rock the GW boat, and experts who aggressively push the GW agenda, and experts who deny GW, and experts who question the validity of the data.

No matter one's position on GW, one can always find experts to support that particular position. It's called confirmation bias. One finds the evidence to support a position that has already been chosen. That is why "appealing to authority" is one of the most popular rationalizations for one's position. Science is the careful practice of weeding out both appeals to authority and confirmation bias.

For me, the default position is business as usual. If someone wants to make a case for GW, they have to present evidence, hard scientific evidence. So far I haven't even seen hard scientific evidence that the earth is warming. Climatologies are intelligent, educated speculation, but speculation nonetheless. No one knows, with any certainty that meets scientific rigors, what the annual mean of the earth's surface temperature is, let alone knows if it is rising.

And if you have looked at the methodology and data for determining climatologies and think they are scientifically valid and representative of the earth's true mean of hugely variant surface temperatures for a 30 year period, please explain why you think they are more than speculation.

--------------------------
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:05 PM

The Earth has warmed on average 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last half century. The above linked "documentary" even ACKNOWLEDGES this. Furthermore, as that is an average global temperature only, temperatures have have been twenty degrees higher, on average, in arctic and antarctic climates.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html

Look, no offense, but the DoE has ENERGY as it's concern, not the climate. I'm really not surprised to hear that your husband and his colleagues don't think global warming exists, or is a problem.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The Earth has warmed on average 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last half century.

And how do you know this? Because the experts you linked to say so?

Where's the real life data? (As opposed to fake, sim data.)

Let me put it another way. Where is the absolute data, that is data based from actual thermometer measurements? See, all the links you sent, and all the links I've looked at, show relative data, data relative to the flatline 0 degrees, which is the computer-modeling derived climatology. It is all artificially adjusted and computed, not the actual measurements. The thing about adjusting and computing data is that you can adjust them to whatever you want. Sort of defeats the purpose of science. If you trust their judgement, expertise, and integrity, then you can trust their adjustments. But science is supposed to be NOT about trust.

It doesn't matter if my husband is an energy scientist or a climate scientist. The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend. And I have seen none either. If you have seen absolute data that supports the above quoted conclusion, please provide it.

Thanks.

--------------------------
The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't
misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know.
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

GRIPPER

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:42 PM

I always find amusement in the belief hel dby som epeople that the climate has NEVER changed in th epast,and that somehow a)WE are reponsible for preferring to liv ein this millenium,and b)That th eidea of a climatic shift i s ALWAYS a bad thing....hey,didn't Greenland used to be ,you know;green?

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Where's the real life data? (As opposed to fake, sim data.)

Another thing scientists aren't supposed to do is say data is only real if it fits their preconceptions.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:54 PM

I just edited the post to explain what I mean by "real" data. I mean absolute data.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And how do you know this? Because the experts you linked to say so?

Where's the real life data? (As opposed to fake, sim data.)

It doesn't matter if my husband is an energy scientist or a climate scientist. The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend. And I have seen none either. If you have seen data that supports the above conclusion, please provide it.

Thanks.

I just LINKED you the hard data. The graphs you saw were not projected climate sims, but 200 years worth of temperature measurements, taken monthly and averaged for a year, and then averaged with (in the past 50 years) over 7,000 different monitoring stations at different locations AROUND THE WORLD. Global Temperature Average. 0.6 Degrees Celsius.

I am not just trusting the experts, canttakethesky. I am not a grant-based scientist, but I am an environmental scientist, with a heavy geology, chemistry, hydrology, and atmospheric science background. I got my degree at the University of Utah's Department of Geology, and if you didn't know, Utah is a fairly damn conservative state, all considering. I don't really enjoy hearing that 5 years of stuff I studied is being dismissed as myself just being a sheep.

Okay, how's about this: why do you think the DoE has more expertise in global warming data than National Air And Ocean? BOTH are government agencies. You're choosing to take one of their perspectives over the other because your husband is at one, okay. But does that make the conclusions of the other branch wrong?

I'm just saying, no offense to you, your husband, or his colleagues, but America is facing an Energy Crisis. And I can understand how people working in the department of energy might categorize global/national danger differently than myself. I can even see how people at the DoE might consider global warming as a THREAT to their efforts to resolve what they see as the greater crisis.

But maybe you and your husband shouldn't be so quick to just dismiss global warming. Not being convinced by the data is not evidence that the data doesn't exist, nor is it a judgment upon those who ARE convinced by the data.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 11:07 PM

Actually, no, Greenland was never green, except maybe several million years ago when it was part of Pangea. Or Gondwanaland. Or Rodinia. But in the recent past, for as long as we have ice data to figure out what temperatures have been, which go back a few ten thousand years, no.

Greenland was called Greenland as a marketing ploy. The viking group that discovered it was hoping they could encourage farmers to travel there.

However, climate change does NOT say climate change hasn't existed in the past, only that present, human activity is causing unprecedented change.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I just LINKED you the hard data. The graphs you saw were not projected climate sims, but 200 years worth of temperature measurements, taken monthly and averaged for a year, and then averaged with (in the past 50 years) over 7,000 different monitoring stations at different locations AROUND THE WORLD. Global Temperature Average. 0.6 Degrees Celsius.

Uh...no. The data you linked to me is an adjusted computer modeled summary, comparing various measurements to a statistic simulated artifact called a "climatology." There is no absolute surface average temperature for the globe. It doesn't exist. What is that 0.6 degrees celcius? It is a RELATIVE change in temperature from the climatology. What was it before, and what did it change to? Do you know? No you don't. Because the absolute measurements don't exist.

Quote:
I don't really enjoy hearing that 5 years of stuff I studied is being dismissed as myself just being a sheep.

Then show me data that hasn't been adjusted by people you trust.

Quote:
Okay, how's about this: why do you think the DoE has more expertise in global warming data than National Air And Ocean?

I don't think that. See, I don't think in terms of expertise. So I don't compare which has more expertise, and who I should trust more. I trust the data, period. If it is not there, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

Quote:
I can even see how people at the DoE might consider global warming as a THREAT to their efforts to resolve what they see as the greater crisis.

Oh, no! You miss understand me. They all embrace GW! They don't believe it, but they sure pay it lip service--cause that is where the money is, you see? They want money just like the next person.

Let me put it this way. If you are handing out huge research grants to investigate the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lots of people are going to send you research proposals to investigate it. After all, why not? It COULD exist. I'm not going to go on record to say it's all hogwash. I'm going to talk about how important investigating the FSM is and how my methods are going to help solve your problem. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in it, see? It's a job.

Quote:
Not being convinced by the data is not evidence that the data doesn't exist, nor is it a judgment upon those who ARE convinced by the data.

You are absolutely right here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I am not saying GW doesn't exist. I will never say that. I am saying thus far, there is no hard evidence that GW exists. Big difference.

I also make no judgement on the PEOPLE who find existing evidence compelling. You want to believe in God, or the FSM, or GW, or whatever it is you believe, that is fine with me. I don't think less of you as a person.

What I am judging is conclusions of GW themselves as unscientific. I judge the fallacy of hasty generalization in climate research. I judge the fallacy of calling appealing to authority, "science." I also judge the offensiveness when people want to legislate their faith in "experts" onto me.

I apologize that I have been inept at making a distinction between criticizing a body of conclusions I see as an unmerited farce, and criticizing people who subscribe to those conclusions. I don't believe the tenets of hinduism for example, and I might severely criticize the core beliefs of that religion, but I don't have anything against hindus.

GW, as it stands, is like a religion to me. My only beef is when they try to pass for a science, and when they try to force me to pay for that religion. I have nothing against those who believe in that religion, personally. I also mean no offense, personally.

-----------------
What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?
-- Henry David Thoreau

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:47 AM

I posted a link earlier that in turn, linked to this. But in case you didn't click on that link, here it is directly:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

It explains why there are no absolute surface air temperatures, and why there is no such thing as an annual global mean surface temperature, and why the enormous variance of temperatures throughout the globe, throughout the year is neither here nor there for climate researchers. It clearly explains that when you look at what you consider to be "hard data," you are really looking at adjusted data compared to other adjusted data.

When data is adjusted, the conclusions leave the realm of the objective and become subjective. It leaves science, and becomes opinion, or faith.

--------------------------
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
-- Ashley Montague

I might add, GWists have certainty without any proof as well.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE