Actually the info is easy to find, but there you go again certifying all how useless you really are, and once again, it is by looking at the context that one can do a good check of what what done to the data to get the graphs.
And for not searching you look then more pathetic when information is available, I should not had said similar, but **worse **probabilities, for less probabilities than what we are expecting about the rise of temperature with an increase of CO2, society decided to do something about regulating Tobacco.
So what about the probability of the warming that comes when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles?
So yes, my posturing is that you will be useless again and forget to post a link to the articles that are using your images, either because it will show how dumb the denier writers (and you for swallowing it) were, if the article you got the images comes from a denier site; or it would show how properly the scientists explained in proper context why the discrepancy you are complaining about comes from.
Since I was capable of doing a simple search and citations to support what I said, come with the full articles that use the images you posted, otherwise you do deserve the titles others are giving you in this thread.
And in case the condiment of Chicken brain does not get it, this was done before by him, posting images that showed just partial shots of the recent upward trend in temperature in an attempt to show the last few years looked just like the period around the 60’s to the 70’s.
With no context the effect was just like the denier site (found after many searches) wanted it, to imply that there was no difference and nature was doing the changes, only that the shots omitted that the temperature was higher on the second image. The reason now to demand a proper context is that I want to verify how the likely proper adjustments were done to the data that the deniers are attempting to discredit.
What smokng gun did I say I found?
I’m simply pointing out that the adjustments on raw data are what change the trend from diverging to paralell. What is the right thing to do? If it was, did they do it right? Those are good questions for I and you do not have the answer.
Does the whole “you’re a fool and an ignorant bitch” really work for you on real life debating or is it simply web-cojones?
So, you’re still on the “I don’t comment on NCDC data” camp. OK.
You pointed to a data-less article, not I.
Yor tobacco article, while very interesting, offers absolutely zero information on statistical uncertainty and error bars. I don’t see how that article helps prove or disproves those two very vlear topics.
Will there be warming if CO2 doubles? Of course. The doubling CO2 alone would contribute about 1°C. It is the forcings and positive feedabacks the get the (real or supposed) extra warming. You do know that positive feedback make for very unstable systems, don’t you?
SO, again, no comment on data, only the name of the guy posting it.
I’ll post the place(s) later or tomorrow or whenever, but please don’t make your reply 49.9% “it’s a deniers place”, 49.9% a link to your favourite website and 0.2% actual anaylisis.
It was the 30’s actually, and you pulled the same “I don’t comment on data” stuff. You didn’t even bring yourself to say the data was wrong.
Of course, no comment either on the super-extrapolated map.
So sorry to bust your bubble, you missed the point that societies committed to a path of action in the past with even less odds than the ones mentioned regarding the likely rise in temperature.
Your original say so was “Would you accept any other area (or human experience) of science with such levels of uncertainty?”
The answer is that not only I would accept it, it was accepted before by many societies that rely on science to make progress, similar situations can be found (with the same merchants of doubt as opponents) with issues like CFCs affecting the ozone layer, Acid Rain and phosphate river contamination.
Ignorance showing once again, it is not only models that are used to calculate how warm it will get.
The important bit starts at minute 16, the models agree with the data.
Meh, that is translated as “I do not want to deal with the fact that I’m repeating items that were explained properly many times before.”
I never said that because the point was that the graphics without context were offered to mislead others into assuming that nature was driving the changes, ignoring on purpose the warming that took place from the 70’s on.
And to repeat, no comment in the specifics will be made until you post the context, chances are that once again the researchers had excellent reasons to adjust the data, unadjusted data can mislead and deniers of course love that.
Incidentally, the last images posted by you seem to come from Watts up With That, a site that claims to do science, but in reality they never report how wrong they were regarding temperature adjustments.
I assume that dodging works great when you debate against the wall. However, in real life, it doesn’t.
And the data was… , I see, none.
For the fourth time, with uncertainty a mean statistical uncertainty of outcomes (e.g. how much rain will we get this year? Well, the 10-year average is 10 mm. This year we’ll get more 11-345mm with 95% confidence). Yo do know even a bit a statistics, don’t you?
I didn’t say what many societies did, I asked about you.
So, you’d happy with the answer "This car gives between 3 and 54 mpg 95% of the time"as a good answer for mileage?
You’ve got to be really full of yourself if I’m going to watch just the part you like of a 2-hour debate. Or that I’m going to watch a 2-hour debate right now simply to answer you.
Maybe you should only answer by saying that all the time. That really works.
Is it misleading to say that a temperature increase in the 30’s was mostly cause by natural forces and not by CO2? It’s not ignoring the 70’s increase, it’s comparing.
Are you saying you can’t analyse or even comment on the data without even saying it’s false or not?
You need context, I’ll give you context, sweetie pie. [random number alert] If between 1905 and 1920 the temperature increased 34° and between 1975 and 1990 the temeprature increased 34°, wouldn’t it be interesting to compare what caused them both in the context were AGW say that CO2 is driving the present increase and early in the 20th century there wasn’t that much more that pre-industrial revolution levels?
[/QUOTE]
The use of passive makes it sound like you can order me to do something or you are some international expert I have to bow in front of, dude, you’re an anonymous guy on an anonymous board, nothing more than that.
I never said that the adjustments were no the right thing to do, I’m simply wondering.
You couldn’t resist on the ad hominen. Where in the nternet I found the chart is irrelevant for real discussion and only serves you to dodge again. I’ll see if I can be bothered to find those same chart in a place you won’t be able to chiken away from.
Bye, bye, princess.
Of course, care to reply to the Pat Michaels question? Is he wrong? And Why?
Do you even have a clue who to quote to get support about your say so’s?
What part of “The answer is that not only I would accept it” did you do not understand?
What part of “start at minute 16 for the important part (saying that you could ignore the rest before)” do you do not understand?
What it is clearly to all is that you just assume your opponent is using the same rotten tactics that you are using.
While you pretend the images with no context are the end of it all, the reality is that if they are finally offered we may find the original scientific source or the stupid reasoning of the deniers that made the article. In any case, the evidence was already presented that scientists do not go adjusting data just for shits and giggles.
The images you posted omitted the warming that appeared during the 70’s, you just had a beef when I pointed that out, and clearly the denier source that cropped the images had the intention to mislead others.
Time to show the Gallina how ignorant is he once again:
This was replied before and with sources, you seem to have good memory about what a denier says with cropped graphs, but not a good one for what the scientists said before.
What was the reason for the changes in temperature before the evidence mounted that humans began to change it in the 70’s?
The old reason many deniers still insist is driving the current warming, solar activity.
I see, “just asking questions”, as even skeptics that drink one every time a denier resorts to that tactic can tell you, you are not impressing even the serious skeptics. Northern Colorado Skeptics in the Pub: Asking Questions
Bulls-eye, can I call it or not? What you are demonstrating to all is that your brain is at least smart enough to not bring the context where you got the images. And if you consider the request to post the link to where you got the images to mean that I consider myself “some international expert” it is not me who has a problem.
If you bother to search you will see that I’m on the record already criticizing many of the cap and trade solutions proposed; however, you seem to have evidence that the thieves were related to the scientists.
The reality is that wealth and power are driving most of the attacks to the science and the attempts to subvert democracy by getting people in power that will delay for years what needs to be done.
I guess you can be a denier and a believer at the same time. Just deny the parts you don’t like and believe the ones you do.
Don’t be so naive. The reality is wealth and power drive EVERYTHING. The big disctinction with scientists personally in this regard, is they expect other people’s wealth to be supplied in the form of government grants among other things. Look at what all that ethanol research and subsidy got us and it’s just one small slice of the GW pie. :rolleyes:
I’d really like to be more supportive of this science if it wasn’t so intricately entwined with the politics. The fact that big money is at stake makes it all the more suspect. Manipulation going on? Hell yes - ALL kinds. Data “adjustments” maybe, who knows, don’t care.
You say conspiracy, I say opportunity. Opportunity for corruption, market manipulation and scamming. Lots of different fundamentally unrelated people running around doing that all on their own in the name of GW.
What it is clear is that you don’t see a difference between opportunity and conspiracy, in this case you have a peculiar definition of opportunity, do you have a good example of this “oportunity” made by the scientists?
Well, there are all those endorsement deals, movie and book contracts, royalties (‘scientists’ get a cut every time ‘Global Warming’, or own of the other trade marked names are used in print), that sort of thing. Not to mention those vast grants they get that are unavailable to the poor schmucks working for corporations on research to prove GW and AGW is all a hoax or a opium dream.
Plus, let’s not forget the Global Warming groupies…
The obvious (to me) answer to the OP’s original question:
Is both b) and c). BOTH sides promote their agenda for political goals. Neither can claim anything definite in the bigger scheme of things at this time.
Whether it’s an anomaly to be concerned about makes for good, worthwile scientific study. Politically motivated alarmist calls to action? Not so much. Tree rings are good too.
That’s just my now after this thread more (mis)informed opinion. Not entertaining other questions at this time. The believers can go cyberbully someone else for awhile now after I’ve been duly informed of my low knowledge level, worthless input and bad personal hygiene.
