Question for Climate Skeptics

[GIGObuster]

[quote=“Aji_de_Gallina, post:60, topic:610727”]

So, is it our own personal statement that the result of one station is good enough for all south America?

BEST showed that the extrapolation was very good.

@Aji_de_Gallina

It’s your own link. Do I need to link to your own link?
You didn’t read, did you? You simply searched you pet site with a couple of keywords.
I don’t claim, Kevin E. Trenberth does.
So, instead of answering my quote you produce another, with a different topic. This is a common tactic of yours

Meh, as pointed even there what you got was the spin the posters did, as most pointed after it was not convincing spin. As you are showing here you are not even aware that deniers also have the freedom to post there.

@Aji_de_Gallina

This means: I can’t answer your points.

Nope, yours remain silly, cite the science that supports your say so’s, as what you say is not reliable at all.

@Aji_de_Gallina

You don’t get to change MY point or decide that waht you said didn’t happen.

Of course, so can you find then good support of what you claim, what it is clear that so far what you claim to be disputes are not really much.

@Aji_de_Gallina

Ají: Water access and vaccination are more important than GW
GIGO: Even Lomborg gave up on that last one.
Ají: Lomborg said in 2009 and 2011 that water, vitamins, micronutrients, and education are much. much better investments than GW (return of $170 vs $3 from a $10 investment)
[You try to counter with]
GIGO: He says 100 billion could solve GW.

And I did not exclude his other work, “The point here is that the idea of helping the poor and taxing carbon are not ideas that exclude each other.” It is not my problem that you are attempting to claim I did not do that when it is in the quote. The point stands, regarding climate change Lomborg recognizes that it is a serious problem and our emissions need to be taxed. It is only in your imagination that I do not support also doing something to help the poor more directly at the same time.

Besides, accepting that he is a valid voice on this already undermines your basic premise, he already accepts it is our emissions who are also a problem for this world. All your efforts to dismiss the evidence are really moot once one notices what Lomborg does say regarding human CO2. (the beef many researches have with him is that he has a knack of minimizing the problem, but it does remain a problem for him nevertheless.

[SenorBeef]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But the claim isn’t merely that 2011 was cooler than 1998; it’s that 2011 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 and 2002 and 2001 and 2000 and 1999 were as cool as – or, by a statistically significant difference, cooler than – 1998. Are we in for another decade of that holding true? Another two decades? Another three?

Let’s say I made the following amounts of money over this time period:

1995 20k
1996 25k
1997 23k
1998 45k (let’s say I got an unusually lucrative contract)
1999 29k
2000 27k
2001 33k
2002 36k

You’re essentially saying that because 2001, 2002, etc. are lower than 98, I’m not making more money over time. 1998 is an abberation, yet you are treating it like it’s the only reference point. It’s blatantly because you think that number supports your point so you focus on it. By why is 1998 more significant than 97 or 99? Or, more importantly, the general trend?

You’ll have unusally hot years and unusually cold years just as a part of the normal variation - it’s the overall trend that’s significant.

[septimus]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

… 2011 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 and 2002 and 2001 and 2000 and 1999 were as cool as – or, by a statistically significant difference, cooler than – 1998.

If I were in BBQ Pit, I might call you stubborn.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, every year from 1977 to 2011 was warmer than 1976; that’s 35 consecutive years. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

And, BTW, did you appreciate that useful semantic device (“every year from 1977 to 2011”) to avoid explicit mention of 35 different years? Try it! It will save you typing and make your posts easier to read.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@tomndebb

I am not sure what you are arguing, here.

If 1998 was an anomalous spike, then we can throw it out and compare the years 1999 through 2011 among each other

But it’s not an anomalous spike. Sure, it cooled down for years after '98, in '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 – but it returned to the '98 level in '05 before cooling back down again in '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 before returning to that same level in '10 before then cooling back down again in '11.

That’s why we shouldn’t “throw it out”'; the whole point is that there’s no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in '98 and '05 and '10, sure as every year in between and since has been cooler.

That’s what’s wrong with SenorBeef’s analogy:

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Let’s say I made the following amounts of money over this time period:

1995 20k
1996 25k
1997 23k
1998 45k (let’s say I got an unusually lucrative contract)
1999 29k
2000 27k
2001 33k
2002 36k

You’re essentially saying that because 2001, 2002, etc. are lower than 98, I’m not making more money over time. 1998 is an abberation, yet you are treating it like it’s the only reference point. It’s blatantly because you think that number supports your point so you focus on it. By why is 1998 more significant than 97 or 99? Or, more importantly, the general trend?
[/QUOTE]

The key is to keep on with that parallel: mention that he soon had another 45k year, followed by a decrease, followed by another 45k year, followed by a decrease. As that keeps happening, it becomes clearer that the 45k year isn’t some kind of special aberration; it’s simply a number that keeps cropping up, only to be followed by decreases.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
All the chatter about “moved goalposts” looks more like a personal feud than an actual contribution to this thread.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. Who, in this thread, first made an accusation about moving the goalposts? I’ll respond to a false claim with a true one, but I sure didn’t bring it up.

[QUOTE=septimus]
As I mentioned in a previous thread, every year from 1977 to 2011 was warmer than 1976; that’s 35 consecutive years. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?
[/QUOTE]

Of course; anyone who makes a falsifiable prediction should then have it judged by whatever standard they’ve stipulated. So if someone says their prediction will be falsified if fifteen – or ten or twenty or whatever – years go by without any warming, that goose should be held to it; if someone else makes a prediction will be falsified by what’s happend since '76, we should likewise hold said gander to said terms.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Who is saying that there is a statically significant difference, cooler than 1998?
[/QUOTE]

Again, check with the UN’s WMO: there’s “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998” because any “difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.” Every other year has been cooler, by more than the margin of uncertainty; if they hadn’t been cooler by such a margin, they would’ve been included in that “no statistically significant difference” grouping.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

The key is to keep on with that parallel: mention that he soon had another 45k year, followed by a decrease, followed by another 45k year, followed by a decrease. As that keeps happening, it becomes clearer that the 45k year isn’t some kind of special aberration; it’s simply a number that keeps cropping up, only to be followed by decreases.

And as pointed out before, this works only by ignoring the previous years.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I agree. Who, in this thread, first made an accusation about moving the goalposts? I’ll respond to a false claim with a true one, but I sure didn’t bring it up.

It is not an accusation this is what you are saying by insisting that the previous years should be ignored on the way to make a reheated baloney point.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Of course; anyone who makes a falsifiable prediction should then have it judged by whatever standard they’ve stipulated. So if someone says their prediction will be falsified if fifteen – or ten or twenty or whatever – years go by without any warming, that goose should be held to it; if someone else makes a prediction will be falsified by what’s happend since '76, we should likewise hold said gander to said terms.

And here it is, you are indeed telling others that the past tests should be ignored, lets wait more years. Indeed moving the goal posts.

And this BTW does not deny that the test is an ongoing matter, what we are getting from all this time is that there was no falsification of this so far, the tacit recommendation to wait longer for a falsification is not a recommendable thing.

Statisticians reject global cooling

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson, author of the book “Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis.”

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Again, check with the UN’s WMO: there’s “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998” because any “difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.” Every other year has been cooler, by more than the margin of uncertainty; if they hadn’t been cooler by such a margin, they would’ve been included in that “no statistically significant difference” grouping.

And as it was pointed before there is nothing there saying that they are referring to a cooling. The context of all the papers in the UN site you got that is that the earth is warming and this is made more clear by checking with the makers of the paper what they meant by making the comparison between 2010, 2005 and 1998.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37323&Cr=global+warming&Cr1

“The 2010 data **confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” **said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”

So, once again, no one that you are mentioning has supported this idea of a “cooler than 1998?” significant trend. And that is because the only way you can make this trend to exist is to ignore the past several decades of the test of this.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And as pointed out before, this works only by ignoring the previous years.

And as pointed out before – jeez, maybe tomdebb is really on to something, here – I’m simply going with the falsification criteria put in front of me: if you, or anyone else, wants to make a claim that stands or falls regardless of the previous years, that’s your call all the way; I merely respond in kind.

I agree. Who, in this thread, first made an accusation about moving the goalposts? I’ll respond to a false claim with a true one, but I sure didn’t bring it up.

It is not an accusation this is what you are saying by insisting that the previous years should be ignored on the way to make a reheated baloney point.

I’m not the one insisting we ignore 'em; I’ve asked for your criterion of choice, and when you supplied one that happens to ignore the previous years, I obliged. If you’d like to supply a criterion that doesn’t ignore the previous years, I won’t insist otherwise.

And here it is, you are indeed telling others that the past tests should be ignored, lets wait more years. Indeed moving the goal posts.

I’m telling others that the guy making a prediction can set whatever goalposts he likes, at which point I’ll amiably play along. I’m not the one originating the tests; I’m the one who merely agrees when a new test is proposed. If not for you moving the goalposts, I’d never have anything new to agree with.

And this BTW does not deny that the test is an ongoing matter, what we are getting from all this time is that there was no falsification of this so far, the tacit recommendation to wait longer for a falsification is not a recommendable thing.

I don’t know where you’re getting this “tacit recommendation” thing; I merely agree with what you just said there, that the test is an ongoing matter with no falsification so far. Why do you assume I’m going a step further with something tacit?

And as it was pointed before there is nothing there saying that they are referring to a cooling.

And as was pointed out, all of the other years are (a) cooler, and (b) cooler by more than the aforementioned margin of uncertainty, indicating a “statistically significant difference between global temperatures”. If you can’t read it right, I can’t help you.

So, once again, no one that you are mentioning has supported this idea of a “cooler than 1998?” significant trend.

Once again, they support the idea that (a) none of the years were warmer than 1998, and that (b) only the years 2005 and 2010 had “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures” compared to 1998; every other year had a “statistically significant difference” by dint of being that much cooler.

[BobLibDem]

This site handles the silly obsession over 1998 pretty well. The graph shows quite effectively how trendlines are what’s important, not the annual spikes or dips caused by weather. If one states that unless each and every year is warmer than the previous, then global warming is unproven, he would be quite silly indeed.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@BobLibDem

This site handles the silly obsession over 1998 pretty well. The graph shows quite effectively how trendlines are what’s important, not the annual spikes or dips caused by weather. If one states that unless each and every year is warmer than the previous, then global warming is unproven, he would be quite silly indeed.

I’m certainly glad I’m not that guy.

But put yourself in my shoes: imagine you’re talking with someone who states that global warming would be disproven if we ever get 10 or 15 or 20 years without warming. Possibly you disagree with the guy, and would choose an entirely different criterion; possibly you think he’s silly to suggest so foolish a test; but, given that it’s his test, wouldn’t it be relevant to reply by pointing out what’s happened since '98?

I appreciate that you believe trendlines – rather than annual spikes or dips – are important; if you’d like to make a falsifiable prediction that doesn’t have a thing to do with '98, I’ll treat it accordingly. But if, say, you explain that We’ll See A New Record High Within the Next Two Decades, Or My Theory Is False – well, shucks, how else should I react to that, if not to say Well, Everything So Far Has Been Cooler Than '98 and '05 and '10 every year from here on out?

(Unless, of course, you turn out to be right, at which point I’ll say, Yep, Your Prediction Came True.)

[BobLibDem]

Again, you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that scientific measurements have outliers. The theory doesn’t hinge on any single year topping 1998, it depends on an upward trajectory. Look at your 401k- if you have $100,000 on Jan 1 and $200,000 on Dec 31, any reasonable person would conclude that you made some money over the year. Whether you had $50,000 or $250,000 on July 1 is irrelevant.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@BobLibDem

Again, you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that scientific measurements have outliers. The theory doesn’t hinge on any single year topping 1998

Your theory apparently doesn’t, and I respect that. But every person who predicts “global warming” may well have something different in mind – such that Never Again Having A Year That Tops '98 may well falsify claims by some folks while being entirely irrelevant to the claims made by others.

Again, I’m genuinely curious: what, hypothetically, has to happen in years to come to falsify your prediction? It may well be a claim that holds the '98-'05-'10 mark irrelevant. Or it may be a claim that holds it entirely relevant.

it depends on an upward trajectory. Look at your 401k- if you have $100,000 on Jan 1 and $200,000 on Dec 31, any reasonable person would conclude that you made some money over the year. Whether you had $50,000 or $250,000 on July 1 is irrelevant.

I agree. But if you have that $200,000 on Dec 31, and I claim you’ll get richer in the long term, what exactly am I saying? What exactly would prove my prediction wrong? If you’re still at $200K a year later, or down at $190K a decade later, can I simply keep saying I’m not yet wrong?

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’m not the one insisting we ignore 'em; I’ve asked for your criterion of choice, and when you supplied one that happens to ignore the previous years, I obliged. If you’d like to supply a criterion that doesn’t ignore the previous years, I won’t insist otherwise.

This is like demanding to continuing to look for the drying capacity of Velspar paint after the tests were made to check for its effectiveness.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

And as was pointed out, all of the other years are (a) cooler, and (b) cooler by more than the aforementioned margin of uncertainty, indicating a “statistically significant difference between global temperatures”. If you can’t read it right, I can’t help you.

Once again, they support the idea that (a) none of the years were warmer than 1998, and that (b) only the years 2005 and 2010 had “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures” compared to 1998; every other year had a “statistically significant difference” by dint of being that much cooler.

This idea has no good support whatsoever, if it had there should be no problem at all to find good support for it; so, cites or keep watching paint dry if you insist.

[Buck_Godot]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Your theory apparently doesn’t, and I respect that. But every person who predicts “global warming” may well have something different in mind – such that Never Again Having A Year That Tops '98 may well falsify claims by some folks while being entirely irrelevant to the claims made by others.

Again, I’m genuinely curious: what, hypothetically, has to happen in years to come to falsify your prediction? It may well be a claim that holds the '98-'05-'10 mark irrelevant. Or it may be a claim that holds it entirely relevant.

I agree. But if you have that $200,000 on Dec 31, and I claim you’ll get richer in the long term, what exactly am I saying? What exactly would prove my prediction wrong? If you’re still at $200K a year later, or down at $190K a decade later, can I simply keep saying I’m not yet wrong?

Have you taken any classes in statistics? No respectable statistician with an understanding of time series analysis would look at the data presented by BobLibDem and claim that the increasing trend has stopped since 1998. The problem of determining whether there is an upward trend in a time series relatively straight forward. For a given data set you can compute the trend and calculate a confidence interval for the average increase over time (although more complicated models might be appropriate). Although I haven’t analyzed the data I would imagine the the 95% confidence interval would indicate proof of a positive trend. This result would be falsified if there was enough data showing no increase in temperature that the confidence interval of the amount of increase included 0. I am sure that 50 years of no increase would do it. 12 years of slow increase after a massive outlier year won’t. There are no goal posts being moved, its just that statisticians don’t cherry pick their data, and use mathematically correct ways to analyze their data rather than saying “Well this summer aint nothing compared to the heat wave of '98”

[GIGObuster]

And everyone can notice how deftly TOWP ignored the “word of god” from the UN secretary, this idea to ignore what the makers of the notice really meant by comparing the years is really silly, it is not only by context that one can deduce easily that the point of comparing the tree warmest years was because they are clustered in the last years, **so **the decade remains the warmest on record, it continues to confirm the AGW theory.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Buck_Godot

This result would be falsified if there was enough data showing no increase in temperature that the confidence interval of the amount of increase included 0. I am sure that 50 years of no increase would do it. 12 years of slow increase after a massive outlier year won’t.

I can get behind that, though I wouldn’t mind hearing a little more specificity about the range between 12 years and 50.

There are no goal posts being moved, its just that statisticians don’t cherry pick their data, and use mathematically correct ways to analyze their data rather than saying “Well this summer aint nothing compared to the heat wave of '98”

No, that’s a reference to something else (as tomndebb noted). When I first asked GIGO for a falsifiable prediction about warming, he staked his position on not seeing 15-20 years without warming; I have no idea why he did that, it may well have been an incredibly foolish criterion, but as time passed I dutifully pointed out that each year since '98 brought us closer to so falsifying that prediction.

GIGO then moved the goalposts by making a new and different prediction: a mere lack of warming wouldn’t falsify it, only a specified amount of cooling would suffice. I again have no idea what motivated him to choose that test from among all others; I merely noted that it was his. GIGO later moved the goalposts to yet another criterion: he’s now predicting at least a tenth of a degree of warming per decade, such that anything less will falsify it.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And everyone can notice how deftly TOWP ignored the “word of god” from the UN secretary
[/QUOTE]

You supplied a falsification criterion, and as such I’m interested in checking it against the UN’s factual data; I’m not interested in the UN’s conclusions – until and unless I hear a criterion like “it’ll be falsified if the ‘word of god’ from the UN secretary says so.”

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

GIGO then moved the goalposts by making a new and different prediction: a mere lack of warming wouldn’t falsify it, only a specified amount of cooling would suffice. I again have no idea what motivated him to choose that test from among all others; I merely noted that it was his. GIGO later moved the goalposts to yet another criterion: he’s now predicting at least a tenth of a degree of warming per decade, such that anything less will falsify it.

And this only works by ignoring that I said I was humoring you, this is indeed a pattern, you are ignoring what it does not fit on your narrative, this is not really a sincere debate. (This is made worse by the fact that this is already on the record)

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You supplied a falsification criterion, and as such I’m interested in checking it against the UN’s factual data; I’m not interested in the UN’s conclusions – until and unless I hear a criterion like “it’ll be falsified if the ‘word of god’ from the UN secretary says so.”

As mentioned before, we (and a doper before got this concession from you and me BTW) are going for the predictions made by the IPCC, of course once one is aware that the UN papers that you used to get that out of context say so of the hottest years (no cooling there once again) are part of the past and current IPCC reports, this point of yours is even more sillier.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And this only works by ignoring that I said I was humoring you

With the first prediction, or the second? Either way, you’d be better off just sticking to truthfully representing your position in the future.

As mentioned before, we (and a doper before got this concession from you and me BTW) are going for the predictions made by the IPCC, of course once one is aware that the UN papers that you used to get that out of context say so of the hottest years (no cooling there once again) are part of the past and current IPCC reports, this point of yours is even more sillier.

It indeed took another doper to get you to agree to the IPCC prediction; that’s your third prediction, the one I mentioned above – and it’ll be proven true or false by the data, not by ‘word of god’ statements. If the facts go one way and the ‘word of god’ goes the other, the prediction you’re currently on board with is pegged solely to the former.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

With the first prediction, or the second? Either way, you’d be better off just sticking to truthfully representing your position in the future.

It indeed took another doper to get you to agree to the IPCC prediction; that’s your third prediction, the one I mentioned above – and it’ll be proven true or false by the data, not by ‘word of god’ statements. If the facts go one way and the ‘word of god’ goes the other, the prediction you’re currently on board with is pegged solely to the former.

And so, you go back to watch the paint dry, I’m happy with that.

The point stands, what you demand has already demonstrated to be unlikely to come by, the best thing to do therefore is to do something regarding this issue now.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And so, you go back to watch the paint dry, I’m happy with that.

The point stands, what you demand has already demonstrated to be unlikely to come by, the best thing to do therefore is to do something regarding this issue now.

But I agree wholeheartedly that we should do something; I’ve already said so, right on page one of this very thread, when LG Butts posted that link to the Defense Science Board’s recommendations and I promptly replied that I’m in favor of the type of strategy mentioned. I’ll copy-and-paste that reply here, if you need.

[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
From that link, their first recommendation is “developing a robust climate information system”: “Currently, no coherent, integrated climate information system capable of generating reliable, sustained, and actionable climate data and projections exists.” (Their remaining recommendations involve (a) water security, and (b) roles of the national security community, guidance and DOD organization, and combatant command roles.)

“There remain many uncertainties in basic climate process understanding that present barriers to specifying an optimal, sustained information system with confidence,” they write; I’m inclined to agree with them; they also mention that “the uncertainties about continued changes and populations’ abilities to adjust to those changes have led this report to a hedge strategy that recognizes the wide range of potential scenarios about the scope and rate of change. It focuses on climate related actions that will be beneficial to national and international security, regardless of the rate of climate change. This report places particularly strong emphasis on the need for programs and activities that provide better and more credible information to decision makers.”

I’m generally in favor of said Hedge Strategy and said Particular Emphasis, and – as they explicitly lack actionable climate data and projections – this is no exception.
[/QUOTE]

So what’s the problem?

[Buck_Godot]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I can get behind that, though I wouldn’t mind hearing a little more specificity about the range between 12 years and 50.

Without having the raw current data in front of me as well as the data for the future years, I can’t state exactly how many years its going to take. 5 years would probably be enough if they showed a very strong steady cooling trend. It might take several decades if the data is simply flat. I can’t know until I have completed the analysis on the complete data, and since I am not an expert in time series I bow to others who are better equipped to handle this data such as those who are publishing the papers on climate change. Cutting to the chase: there exists a possible temperature data set involving cooling and or a steady state such that the vast majority of the scientific community would agree that global warming is not occurring. Therefore falsifiability does exist. The data we have now is not such a falsifying set, in fact it rejects the null hypothesis that there is no warming trend with a high degree of certainty.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, that’s a reference to something else (as tomndebb noted). When I first asked GIGO for a falsifiable prediction about warming, he staked his position on not seeing 15-20 years without warming; I have no idea why he did that, it may well have been an incredibly foolish criterion, but as time passed I dutifully pointed out that each year since '98 brought us closer to so falsifying that prediction.

GIGO then moved the goalposts by making a new and different prediction: a mere lack of warming wouldn’t falsify it, only a specified amount of cooling would suffice. I again have no idea what motivated him to choose that test from among all others; I merely noted that it was his. GIGO later moved the goalposts to yet another criterion: he’s now predicting at least a tenth of a degree of warming per decade, such that anything less will falsify it.

This brings us back to the original OP (which wasn’t actually about whether global warming was real) and my response in post 18. No offense to them meant, but I doubt that GIGO and tom are climate change experts, nor do I believe that they came up with their responses based on a careful analysis of the temperature change data. Therefore, in terms of determining the truth of global warming their falsification criteria carry very little weight as compared with the vast majority of the climate study experts. By the same token refuting their goal posts carries little weight in terms refuting the existence of climate change.

Claiming that GIGO moved tom’s irrelevant goal posts matters only if your goal is not the truth, but to win the debate. In which case congratulations! 2 points for Waldo for pointing out a goal post move. Unfortunately, the ice caps don’t read this message board.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

[quote=“GIGObuster, post:61, topic:610727”]

@Aji_de_Gallina

So, is it our own personal statement that the result of one station is good enough for all south America?

BEST showed that the extrapolation was very good.

So your answer is yes: **Your own personal statement **is that one weather station is good enough to track to the temperature of South America for 100 years, including the coastal deserts of the Pacific, the high andes, the amazonian Jungle, the Pampas, and Pataogina; they can all be described from one station.
I’m interested in your own opinion, because I can consult Skeptical Science any time I want without you needing to link to it.

Meh, as pointed even there what you got was the spin the posters did, as most pointed after it was not convincing spin. As you are showing here you are not even aware that deniers also have the freedom to post there.

Can you point to the specific spin?
Can you point the mistake/spin from Kevin E. Trenberth’s quote?
Because just saying “he’s a denier” or “it’s spin” doesn’t rall cut it.

Nope, yours remain silly, cite the science that supports your say so’s, as what you say is not reliable at all.

If your full-on scientific fact-based answer is saying “the rest is also wrong”, you gotta sue your science teachers.

Of course, so can you find then good support of what you claim, what it is clear that so far what you claim to be disputes are not really much.

Even if my point is that clouds are caused by my wife’s lipstick colour, you can’t say that I claimed that clouds are caused by unicorn manure,even if my own statement is wrong.

And I did not exclude his other work, “The point here is that the idea of helping the poor and taxing carbon are not ideas that exclude each other.” It is not my problem that you are attempting to claim I did not do that when it is in the quote. The point stands, regarding climate change Lomborg recognizes that it is a serious problem and our emissions need to be taxed. It is only in your imagination that I do not support also doing something to help the poor more directly at the same time.

Unless the english language has changed in the last couple of weeks, when someone says “Even Lomborg gave up on that last one”, it means “Lomborg no longer beleives that water access and micronutrient suplements are better ways of spending money”. Of course Lomborg accepts GW and think we have to fight it.

Besides, accepting that he is a valid voice on this already undermines your basic premise, he already accepts it is our emissions who are also a problem for this world. All your efforts to dismiss the evidence are really moot once one notices what Lomborg does say regarding human CO2. (the beef many researches have with him is that he has a knack of minimizing the problem, but it does remain a problem for him nevertheless.

Did you read my first post?
Or did you simply skim with “he’s a denier” glasses?