I merely want to know whether you’re in fact predicting global warming, on your timetable of choice; as far as I can tell, your prediction of future global temperature is (as per Scylla’s point) entirely consistent with the world getting no warmer – and possibly even getting a bit cooler – indefinitely.
If I’m mischaracterizing your position, then simply correct me by supplying a prediction that isn’t consistent with the world failing to get warmer. (I fail to see how such a request for clarification is nonsensical, or constitutes argument for argument’s sake; if I state that your prediction seems consistent with the globe getting no warmer, the natural response would be “yes, that’s correct,” or “no, because the following would falsify my prediction…”)
This. I’m not particularly educated about the science involved; I understand the very basics, I understand that the statistical data points to a clear trend, and I understand that almost all of the scientific community that has dealt with the issue is in agreement on it, save for a few biased die-hards like Lord Munkton (or however you spell that moron’s name). Beyond that, my understanding is average at best. That said, it doesn’t matter whether the science is solid or not in this thread; that’s a whole different debate (one which is more or less over, by the way). What matters is this absolutely ridiculous string of quote-mining bullshit being spouted off as revolutionary counterevidence against global warming by tripe stations like The Daily Mail. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, dishonesty is your forte, please deal with the rest of my actual quote or shut up. We are dealing with actual data and the attempts by people to continue to claim that it was altered, the world already got warmer and one is just dishonest when attempting to avoid the issue.
Hey, you’re the OP; if you want to declare that a different debate, it’d be your call all the way – but once you add that said debate is more or less over, I can’t help but ask what is “more or less over”: what is being predicted with rock-solid assurance, such that an unexpected result to the contrary would surprisingly falsify it? Is it a global amount of warming, or – as I’ve seen GIGO state quite recently – is it some other sort of climate change which may or may not involve warming?
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Ah yes, dishonesty is your forte, please deal with the rest of my actual quote or shut up
[/QUOTE]
Oh, is that how the debate is supposed to go? Intriguing.
Your prediction appears entirely consistent with global cooling. You refer to this prediction as “global warming,” which is simply dishonest. Supply a falsifiable prediction that requires warming, or shut up; it’s just dishonest to avoid the issue.
I predict that you will only continue with the stupid points,
Nowhere I said that it is cooling, but BEST, independent statisticians and climate researchers and even **skeptics **report that it is still warming.
And for this discussion, the context is the past and current temperature records (the point of climategate) and not future predictions, It is dishonest in the extreme to avoid them in your way to continue to make an stupid point not related to the current issue.
Since either warming or cooling in the future would be entirely consistent with your predictions, what difference does it make whether cooling or warming shows up in the past? If neither change would falsify the “global warming” claims, why bother citing past data either way now? Surely it’s as irrelevant today as future data about warming or cooling will be in years to come?
Your definition of “global warming” is equally problematic whether reviewing the past or going forward: it isn’t confirmed by warming if it wouldn’t be falsified by cooling – in either this context or the other one.
I believe the figure was something like 97% of climatologists following the current theories? That’s pretty fucking conclusive, especially when you remember that both various religious groups and many large industries have a very serious stake in the opposite result being true – hell, Koch industries’ own study concluded it to be accurate! When over 95% of the scientists working on an issue believe that the overlying theory is correct/accurate, that’s a sign that whoever is denying it has to either step their game up and start convincing people or step their credentials down. When you, a person who is not an active climatologist, bring forward your complaints, ask yourself the following: “why didn’t those guys, the ones actually working on the problem, think of this?”
But as said, this isn’t the place for it. I’ve seen you and GIGO go at it in three different threads; I welcome you to make your own in regards to it.
You are not doing the moronic point that many deniers do of saying that “therefore there can not be snow storms in the future?”
Of course this point is still stupid as it is not what we are dealing with and it is missing what I agree with, and that is that I agree with what researchers did find so far, the earth is warming and humans are causing most of the recent warming increase.
Incidentally, going back to the subject, one of the main reasons why Muller organized BEST was to check and verify if the scientists involved in the Climategate “scandal” were altering the data and doing things like “hiding the decline” (aka: the cooling) the answer was “NO”.
Of course not; I know full well that increased snow storms are consistent with your predictions. Also, decreased ones. Warming is also consistent with your predictions. Cooling is as well. That’s my point:
Again, why is that relevant? A future decline would be entirely consistent with your predictions; why, then, would a past decline be a problem? If it doesn’t make a difference for falsifiability whether the globe gets warmer or cooler from here on out, then why should it make a difference whether it got warmer or cooler up until now?
You seem to think I dispute the predictions. I’m not aware of having done so; I agree, for example, with GIGO’s current prediction, and don’t expect it to be falsified any time soon – and I merely note that said prediction is entirely consistent with cooling as well as with warming. Supply a different prediction and possbily I would deny it, at which point I’d possibly need to step my game up; until then, I’m in mere agreement.
As Feynman would say, just another 10:20:30 point.
As I also mention many times, for some reason you think that getting me to give a different assessment or a different view that is not close to what researchers found before is very, very, very important, but the only reason I see so far is that you do it to avoid dealing with the cites, as the independent statisticians that looked at the data before BEST confirmed that the “climategate” scientists did not lie to us, only dishonest people are still insisting that there is no warming going on.
I’m not supplying a 10:20:30 point; I’m asking why, given your criteria for going forward, the past data would be relevant either way.
No, I’d be equally delighted if you gave the same assessment or view as the researchers. Were this a discussion about data yet to come in, I’d love for you to relay their prediction, and yours, and note whether they’re the same; it makes no difference to me whether they’re the same. As this is a discussion about past data, you can by all means spell out your answer, and theirs, and note whether they’re the same; it makes no difference to me whether they’re the same.
It’s simply that you’re here to answer questions and they’re not. And since you’ve made clear that either warming or cooling would be consistent with your prediction going forward, I’m asking you why it matters whether cooling or warming got noted on the way here. If your answer happens to be the same as theirs, I am as ever delighted; if not, I’m delighted nonetheless.
Am I insisting on that? I’m merely noting that neither warming nor cooling would be consistent with your predictions going forward, such that I can’t see the relevance of warming or cooling up until the present: neither a decline nor an increase would falsify your claims about the future, so why should a past increase or decline have any bearing on claims at present?
But I grant that your predictions going forward aren’t unscientific; they admit of hypothetical falsification! I merely note that neither a rise nor a decline in temperature would so falsify them; either result is consistent with your predictions.
I thus treat the existing data in the same way: whether it reflects a decline or a rise is presumably irrelevant; either result would be consistent with your claims going forward, such that either result would have been consistent with significantly similar claims in the past.
(Possibly a mere decline would have sufficed to falsify it then, but would no longer do so now? If so, specify that it’s not a case of “significantly similar” and I’ll gladly drop the point. But if a past rise or decline is as irrelevant as the impending rise or decline, then what’s the fuss?)
In the future, the temperature will either rise or decline; either would be entirely consistent with your predictions, and to that extent will be irrelevant. In the past, the temperature either rose or declined; a cite to either effect seems equally irrelevant at present, to the same extent and for the same reason.
And he also takes on the Daily Mail for being so gullible.
Ok. Far from gullible, when Hadfiel and others can find the complete emails and context this “failure” of the Daily Mail does not look like a failure but more like willful deception.
And just to be clear, that does not deal with the cite at all. As **Budget Player Cadet **mentions, continue with your [del]trolling[/del] somewhere else.
Just to be clear: as either a decline or a rise would be consistent with your claims about the future, neither hypothetical cite will be relevant then; if either a decline or a rise would likewise have been consistent with similar claims in years past, then no such cite is relevant now.
Where the hell does GIGO predict that temperatures might decline? I have never heard any scientist claim that. I’ve heard them say they might decline over a shortterm period due to other factors, but never that the overall trend would not be warming.
And, if he has, why the hell are you jumping on him when he clearly disagrees with everyone else, and thus can safely be ignored? Why pick on the guy who everyone else would claim is wrong, anyways?