Yes, let's teach the controversy.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

It’s not hard to check the GISS data, and realize why you are a fuckhead, and GISS shows no warming for over a decade.

It won’t matter what you say, it won’t change the GISS data. You fuckhead idiot.

Statisticians reject global cooling

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

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.”

Indeed as other expert reported what you are doing is dishonest, might as as well stamp it in your forehead.

You are not going to be able to find a researcher for GISS agreeing with what you are saying, they always clarify that it is misleading to look just at the small recent trend.

[GIGObuster]

More from the recent review of what the scientists are reporting:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/

The Met Office, part of the UK Defence Ministry, explained, it’s absurd to look at a cherry-picked “trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina)”:

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

[Voyager]

@FXMastermind

I think they reason they are not taught, in any form, is that it would make new scientists skeptical and a bit careful about believing just anything that come down the pike at them.

Unless by new scientist you mean anyone who has had a rocks for jocks class, anyone in a respectable PhD program sees plenty of current controversies. And has probably taken at least one seminar examining papers on both sides.

[FXMastermind]

I was talking about all the past controversies, where the dissenting voices were right. Of course there are plenty of current controversies. Climate science is full of them.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@GIGObuster

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-see-the-dramatic-new-data-for-yourself

Scientific American is a liberal commie brainwashing magazine. They can’t be trusted.

Neither can NPR. They are Obama kenyan communist spies.

[FXMastermind]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-see-the-dramatic-new-data-for-yourself

Global snow is not declining. In fact, in the NH fall and winter snow is trending up. Damn commies, always wanting to brainwash everyone.

[FXMastermind]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases.

But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared.

What they can’t bring themselves to say yet, is that the decade from 2002-2012 shows slight global cooling. Trend that is. It’s not like the global temperatures dropped that much, except for that one year.

And the goddamn winters.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-see-the-dramatic-new-data-for-yourself

Global snow is not declining. In fact, in the NH fall and winter snow is trending up. Damn commies, always wanting to brainwash everyone.

Yea, about that, you before claimed that Scientific American was the bees knees, it does not take much for you to throw them under the bus.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Climate change: The case of the missing heat | Nature

What they can’t bring themselves to say yet, is that the decade from 2002-2012 shows slight global cooling. Trend that is. It’s not like the global temperatures dropped that much, except for that one year.

And the goddamn winters.

Your delusion involves denying that scientists like Latif warned about casual observers like you.

Has Global Warming Paused?

To the casual observer, the lack of warming at the Earth’s surface, contrasted to climate scientists’ insistence that the planet is still warming, might seem like a conundrum.

As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth’s surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
“Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap … is warming the oceans,” Willis said.

So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

Rather, the oceans should be the primary barometer of global climate change.

And they are certainly changing. Sea levels are going up “like gangbusters,” Willis said.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change physical science draft report, released in late September, said it is a near certainty that rates of sea-level rise – pushed up largely because warmer water expands – have accelerated over the last two centuries.

The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled, from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate for the 20th century to a 0.125-inch-per-year average rate.

To Willis and other scientists, this is a clear signal that global warming continues.

“Sea levels are still rising; the ice sheets are still melting; the oceans are still getting more acidic,” Willis said. “All of that stuff is still going on just as it has, unabated.”

Right-wing media run with Mail article falsely suggesting climate expert...

Latif predicts “nothing that would constitute a little ice age or an ice age.” Appearing on Russia Today on January 11, Latif stated, “I don’t think” we will see decades of global cooling, noting, “There are of course natural climate fluctuations which could warm or cool the Earth. However, they ride on top of the long-term warming trend and at best they can offset the warming trend. And so the net result may be a kind of pause of halt of global warming, maybe a slight cooling, but nothing that would constitute a little ice age or an ice age.”

Latif: “They just make these things up.” Joe Romm of ClimateProgress.org wrote in a January 11 post that Latif stated of media reports on his research, “I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up”:

[elucidator]

FX:

Your citation discusses a phenomenon within the parameters of global warming, it accepts global warming as a fact and discusses various theories as to why expected warming has not met modeled predictions.

It does not, however, negate, dismiss, or otherwise debunk global warming. As made plain by the last sentence of the piece, to wit: “…And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.”

If, in the future, you read your cites before you offer them, even when your lips are tired, this sort of embarrassing lapse may not occur again. Just a thought.

[FXMastermind]

@elucidator

It does not, however, negate, dismiss, or otherwise debunk global warming.

We all know that. Doesn’t change the joke a bit.

[Cheshire_Human]

@Drunky_Smurf

Scientific American is a liberal commie brainwashing magazine. They can’t be trusted.

Neither can NPR. They are Obama kenyan communist spies.

Please! It’s ‘Obama kenyan communist MUSLIM spies’.

[Voyager]

@FXMastermind

I was talking about all the past controversies, where the dissenting voices were right. Of course there are plenty of current controversies. Climate science is full of them.

No one teaches plate tectonics? I’m not a geologist, so I don’t know - but I somehow doubt that controversy isn’t taught.
Does relativity count? I know that gets taught. Evolution? What other examples of the dissenters being right are you thinking of?

[Trinopus]

@Voyager

No one teaches plate tectonics? . . .

Well, of course, they certainly do. The best geology courses explain why Wegener’s “Continental Drift” theory was rejected. This is not a case where the “dissenting voice was wright.” He wasn’t. Wegener’s theory was entirely wrong, and was correctly rejected.

FXMastermind is wrong in using this as an example of “the outcast dissenter being justified in the end.” It took a completely different interpretation of continental movement to bypass the objections raised.

(Wegener said that the continents moved over the ocean floors. This was rejected when it was demonstrated that the ocean floors are too stiff to permit this kind of travel. Plate Tectonics says that the whole plate – continent and ocean floor together – moves. And this idea was confirmed by observations. Very quickly, too!)

[GIGObuster]

@Trinopus

Well, of course, they certainly do. The best geology courses explain why Wegener’s “Continental Drift” theory was rejected. This is not a case where the “dissenting voice was wright.” He wasn’t. Wegener’s theory was entirely wrong, and was correctly rejected.

FXMastermind is wrong in using this as an example of “the outcast dissenter being justified in the end.” It took a completely different interpretation of continental movement to bypass the objections raised.

(Wegener said that the continents moved over the ocean floors. This was rejected when it was demonstrated that the ocean floors are too stiff to permit this kind of travel. Plate Tectonics says that the whole plate – continent and ocean floor together – moves. And this idea was confirmed by observations. Very quickly, too!)

FXMastermind is wrong indeed, he is like a typical pseudo-scientist that abuse the Galileo gambit.

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-galileo-fallacy-and-denigration-of-scientific-consensus/

A recent example is that promoted by British playwright Richard Bean “who reckons climate change science is junk, the findings alarmist, data frequently tortured into submission and the mainstream media not in a position to confront the complexity of the issue and question whether it’s really happening” (see Herald article Beyond belief). He said in his interview:

“Orthodoxy closes off thinking and if you can’t express an opinion or question an idea, well, Galileo is the perfect example of what happens.

“He declared that not everything revolves around the Earth and paid the price for his beliefs [he was tried by the Inquisition as a heretic, threatened with torture, was forced to recant and spent the rest of his life under house arrest] while human thinking and endeavour were held back.”

But this is wrong on 2 counts:

It relies on the fact of being in the minority, of opposing the consensus, as being “proof” of correctness.
It implies that because the user of the fallacy is in the minority and opposing the consensus then the user is correct. In  other words – “bugger the evidence, I must be right because I am coming out against the consensus.”

It’s a favourite argument used by creationists, by climate change contrarians/deniers/ pseudosceptics (see the egregiously named Galileo Movement in Australia) and, as I have found lately, anti-fluoridationists. A way of claiming superiority while at the same time discounting, even denigrating, the wealth of scientific knowledge with which the user disagrees.

FX is so wrong that he even has to go to deny what groups of skeptics that for a living check what is science and what is pseudoscience conclude.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature

[BrainGlutton]

@Drunky_Smurf

Scientific American is a liberal commie brainwashing magazine. They can’t be trusted.

Neither can NPR. They are Obama kenyan communist spies.

You’re really a deep-cover liberal, aren’t you, Drunky?

[FXMastermind]

@Trinopus

Well, of course, they certainly do. The best geology courses explain why Wegener’s “Continental Drift” theory was rejected. This is not a case where the “dissenting voice was wright.” He wasn’t. Wegener’s theory was entirely wrong, and was correctly rejected.

Nonsense claim, and even Wikipedia (which is pretty good on this one) clearly shows your errors. Continental drift - Wikipedia

Among us scientists he is credited and honored, not dismissed.

Some truly revolutionary scientific theories may take years or decades to win general acceptance among scientists. This is certainly true of plate tectonics, one of the most important and far-ranging geological theories of all time; when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance, with immense consequences for geology, geophysics, oceanography, and paleontology. And the man who first proposed this theory was a brilliant interdisciplinary scientist, Alfred Wegener.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

Fight ignorance, don’t spread it.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

FXMastermind is wrong indeed, he is like a typical pseudo-scientist that abuse the Galileo gambit.

If you are going to keep being a fuckhead, I am going to keep bitchslapping you.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

If you are going to keep being a fuckhead, I am going to keep bitchslapping you.

Wegener is credited for being mostly correct in his overall view, but it is clear that his mechanism was not accepted. BTW I told you before about why Plass was more on the money and more recognized than Wegener because Plass also proposed the mechanisms that turned to be more on the money that the ones Wegener proposed, of course confronted with that you told everyone that Plass was not recognized, never mind that Scientific America called him the father of the modern greenhouse gas theory.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate

For this and other articles, Plass is often referred to as the father of modern greenhouse-gas theory.

Of course since you insisted that what Plass did was simplistic (when Wegener had no access to modern tools and computers) and that we should not look at the one that did indeed propose a theory (that you also claimed was not made) that continues to be accepted the conclusion is that you are bitchapping yourself and remains a willful ignorant.

So please go ahead and continue to show to all your capacity of believing so many contradictory things and how you fight with yourself, it is not my problem but yours.

[Knorf]

As merely an observer to this thread, the only clear “fuckhead” here is you, FXMastermind. You’re a pompous idiot with terrible reading skills and an arrogance that is as breathtaking as it is farcical. You’re not “bitchslapping” anyone, but rather revealing to anyone who can read that you’re an imbecile.