Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26561 - 26580 of total 28513 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:17pm PT

In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.

Nice argument. I am sure that the same argument could be used to show that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for consensus in most areas were a scientific consensus exist.

It is just that it really isn't that common to write down everything known in the abstract of a research paper. I guess that very few abstract for papers in physics state that Newtons laws works on low speeds on earth.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:23pm PT
Let's hope you know that a tiny amount of temp change in the oceans represents a huge amount of energy that can impact the atmosphere.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
Sketch, you are not even funny. Do you really believe that you have a point when you seem to think that the fact that the temperature change is small is more important than the change in energy?
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
You really are on a ROLL and I am spewing all over from laughing sooooo hard.


HadSST 2 are the Global Sea Surface Temps MORONO.


And amazing how they are FLAT since 1998.


The ONLY REPORTING entity that indicates anything of a RECORD is NOAA/NASA which share the same data collectors as do the UK's Met Office (HadCRUT).


Let's hope you know that a tiny amount of temp change in the oceans represents a huge amount of energy that can impact the atmosphere.

What complete DUMBASS you are MONO. Look up Kelvin Waves and how they can produce some extreme SST's in the Pacific from the IO. Something of which have been occurring on a regular basis this year beginning back in Feb.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:29pm PT
HADSST2 MONORAMA...

You try and focus... NOW!


Now, lets try and do this again.... HadSTTs combined with HADCRUT 3 and 4, still come no where near what NASA/NOAA are coming up with as far as SURFACE and SST's individually.

Focused enough NOW.


NASA/NOAA combine the two in order to make it appear as if the WARMING is in the Atmosphere. When they in FACT are NOT. SST's are IN the ocean not in the Air.

Amazing trick that they do to make it appear like something it is not.

Nice try MONORAMA!


raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
Interesting that hadsst3 had its highest value recently and that hadsst2 recently had the highest value except for 1998. So it might not only be noaa, nasa that has measured high temperatures.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
Recently, as in 2007 & 2010. 2014 is not close to 2007, PHOOLE!

raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
One new trend seems to be to plot as many plots as possibly in one graph...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 24, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
Did you really not grasp this was the study I was talking about?

There are several studies on AWG agreement in the scientific community. Do I need to cite a partial list for you?


I've read that Cook study. Nowhere does it back up the BS on the blog that you quoted. In fact, it says this in the Conclusion:

The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Furthermore, I posted a more recent survey that backs up this conclusion.


So again I ask you to show where the Cook study backs up the claim made in the anti-science blog you so love.

FYI The study backs up the 99.7% claim.

Or did you just make that part up?
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
Nice try Phoolle. You all are doing a stand up job at CYAing.


Way toooooooooooooooooo funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!



raymond phule

climber

Oct 24, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
Interesting that hadsst3 had its highest value recently and that hadsst2 recently had the highest value except for 1998. So it might not only be noaa, nasa that has measured high temperatures.


Might NOT be? Where could that be PHOOOOOOOOOOLE?


raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:44pm PT
The chief, if you plotted one data set in one graph you might be able to see the details in the data set.

The last sample in hadsst2 is higher than all other samples except maybe 1998.

The highest value in the hadsst3 dataset is from one or two months ago.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
Can Sketch or someone else try to explain to me what the chief is trying to say with his graphs?
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:47pm PT
TWO MONTHS ago which make that AUGUST. NASA and NOAA go back to last MONTH, SEPT.

One month is going to make a difference is the data from HadCRUT now. OK.


LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!


Why didn't you post the other data MONORAMA??

Gee, I wonder why.


raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:49pm PT
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your own data show that you were wrong and now are ju just rambling about something.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
WOW!

You really are a bigazz PHOOOOLE!

raymond phule

climber

Oct 24, 2014 - 02:49pm PT
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your own data show that you were wrong and now are ju just rambling about something.



Please show where MY OWN DATA proves me wrong...







monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
Those are not yearly averages, Chief.

Again, comparing apples to oranges.

Hadcrut4 has 2010 as the highest year temp, even though 1998 has a higher spike.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:56pm PT
Post up UK MET's Office Yearly AVG up to date in comparison to NASA/NOAA MONORAMA.


Prove me WRONG.


Also, NOAA and NASA SURFACE TEMPS for AUG and SEPT 2014 are not RECORD SETTER's MONO.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 24, 2014 - 02:58pm PT
Prove you wrong to you?

LOL!
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 24, 2014 - 03:00pm PT
You can't... because they do NOT come anywhere near one another. That is why you won't do so.


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!



AZZHAT MONORAMA.


97% Consensus of .5% of ALL 11K PP'd CC Papers reviewed in the "Study" indicate that HUMAN's are the PRIMARY Cause of the current CC.


More SHEEP feeding BULLSHET.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 24, 2014 - 03:00pm PT
Sketch is full of crap, the Cook study does not support what Legates et al (2013) claim.

Here's a look at the Legates paper (posted on Sketch's favorite anti-science blog):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/


What does Legates find? Word games, that's what:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

Yes, because the papers did not include the precise work "dangerous," they were thrown out of consideration by Legates.


Word games, that's what you get out of the deniers. Because that's all they can fight with, they cannot use scientific fact.

But get this, the Cook study finds:

Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'.

Got any more lies for us Sketch?
Messages 26561 - 26580 of total 28513 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews