July 2016 Hottest on Record.

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by Hellmanns

Really? If my house was on fire while I was in the bathroom, even a small fire, I would smell smoke first. I do realize " where there is smoke, there is fire". There simply ain't no smoke in this global warming thing that I see!

Well, if you can't see the smoke, it must not exist, even if you can't see it because you're covering your eyes.

Originally Posted by Hellmanns

Every single "observation" has been refuted, or discredited due to flat out lying, or fudging the numbers in favor of global warming.

This is untrue, but unfortunately people will believe what they want to be true, not what the preponderance of the evidence shows.

Originally Posted by Hellmanns

Let's face it, I've heard the argument. The discrepancy is over a meer third of a degree, that is still up in the air as to if it actually happened in the last 120 years or not!

Even if it were true that we're only talking a third of a degree (it's not), it would still be significant, as small global temperature changes have big effects, and even a third of a degree in a little over a century (which, to those who know something about climate, is basically an eyeblink) is actually a rather tectonic change. Unfortunately, it's not true that we're talking about a mere third of a degree. The situation is much more serious than that, and the only refutation being offered is that basically all reputable scientists all over the world who study climate are somehow invested in fooling the world about the temperature of the earth... for no apparent credible reason.

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by dmforcier

Well, since it's all obvious, why are you carrying on so?

I have this faint hope that someone who hasn't already dug their heels in about the issue might actually benefit from seeing the strange arguments for climate change denial challenged on a basic rational level.

A more interesting question is, why are you lashing out so personally on this?

[Hellmanns]

Originally Posted by gorbelly

Well, if you can't see the smoke, it must not exist, even if you can't see it because you're covering your eyes.



This is untrue, but unfortunately people will believe what they want to be true, not what the preponderance of the evidence shows.



Even if it were true that we're only talking a third of a degree (it's not), it would still be significant, as small global temperature changes have big effects, and even a third of a degree in a little over a century (which, to those who know something about climate, is basically an eyeblink) is actually a rather tectonic change. Unfortunately, it's not true that we're talking about a mere third of a degree. The situation is much more serious than that, and the only refutation being offered is that basically all reputable scientists all over the world who study climate are somehow invested in fooling the world about the temperature of the earth... for no apparent credible reason.

The consensus of global warming is collapsing, thanks in part to, John Cook rigging the numbers, and "cooking the books" if you will. It's always been about the $$$.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
https://youtu.be/oY-LVhNM5fA

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by Hellmanns

The consensus of global warming is collapsing, thanks in part to, John Cook rigging the numbers, and "cooking the books" if you will. It's always been about the $$$.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
https://youtu.be/oY-LVhNM5fA

LOL. If only you only had to refute one person's analysis, your argument would be golden.

Unfortunately, Cook is not the only person finding an overwhelming consensus. Anyone can quibble about the exact numbers, but the fact remains that those who claim a dataset that shows any significant scientific disagreement include:

1) studies that do not specifically mention that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, which is basically akin to a study on the efficacy of high-intensity cardio training not mentioning that regular exercise is beneficial to health, i.e., there's no reason to state what is obvious and overwhelmingly accepted

2) studies from scientists whose field is not climate related (usually geologists who work for mining/extraction industries... hm....), which is basically like asking an orthopedist to diagnose and treat your prostate problems

3) studies from scientists who are technically climate scientists but who are not actively involved in research, which is like asking a doctor who has been working as a coroner for the past two decades how the latest in stem cell therapy might help cure your paralysis

In fact, there's usually only two studies actually conducted by climate scientists actively conducting research that people can actually point to as dissenting from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. Of course, science is not about consensus. It's about who's correct. Are these dissenters correct? Well, one study claims it's cosmic rays! Too bad that even models accounting for affects of cosmic radiation still show unmistakable warming even without any potential contributions from cosmic rays. The other study claims a cooling cycle based on post WWII data... which does not account for the cooling effects of massive air pollution. I mean, I suppose if we just reverse all our progress in cleaning up the air, we could die in huge numbers from pollution-related diseases instead of from the consequences of climate change.

The idea that scientists are faking things for "$$$" is frankly quite funny. Scientists' salaries aren't particularly large, and even without anthropogenic climate change, climate is important enough to human wellbeing and the peace and productivity of our societies that humanity would gladly employ many climate researchers.

People who claim the consensus is "falling apart" grossly mischaracterize both what a consensus is and what "falling apart" means, and they generally don't understand how science works or how human beings in any specialized field communicate with one another.

Basically, climate change denial is about the unreasonable demand that people be allowed to stick their heads in the sand unless scientists can prove that they're 100% accurate and 100% certain--not just overwhelmingly certain about general projections due to overwhelming evidence for them. This is basically like demanding that modern medicine be able to predict with total accuracy when you will develop COPD, emphysema, or lung cancer before you will agree to believe that smoking is bad for you and try to stop.

[Urbanheirlooms]

Originally Posted by Gardeneer

GLOBAL temperatures are measured across the globe and averaged out. So you can have locations that might seem to indicate that there is no warming.
Also, as pointed out before, Climate Change is not just temperatures. There can be drought in some place and flooding somewhere else. Another thing is the frequency of these extremes that seems to be on the rise.

I think both sides of the scientific aspects have been well documented on this thread, so I will avoid discussing it. In regards to the frequency of these extremes and catastrophic events, I am not convinced that this is the case. I do feel that over the past 30 years there have been a change in the media coverage. We now have numerous 24 hour a day news channels, Internet and several hundred channels available. Every time a creek floods, there will be numerous news groups covering it and trying to sensationalizing it. The Weather Channel is the worst in regards to sensationalizing events.

NASA's focus seemed to change about 7 years ago from space exploration to exclusively trying to prove climate change is an issue. I do not feel that change was made do to less interest in space exploration, but politics alone.

[Hellmanns]

Originally Posted by gorbelly

LOL. If only you only had to refute one person's analysis, your argument would be golden.

Unfortunately, Cook is not the only person finding an overwhelming consensus. Anyone can quibble about the exact numbers, but the fact remains that those who claim a dataset that shows any significant scientific disagreement include:

1) studies that do not specifically mention that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, which is basically akin to a study on the efficacy of high-intensity cardio training not mentioning that regular exercise is beneficial to health, i.e., there's no reason to state what is obvious and overwhelmingly accepted

2) studies from scientists whose field is not climate related (usually geologists who work for mining/extraction industries... hm....), which is basically like asking an orthopedist to diagnose and treat your prostate problems

3) studies from scientists who are technically climate scientists but who are not actively involved in research, which is like asking a doctor who has been working as a coroner for the past two decades how the latest in stem cell therapy might help cure your paralysis

In fact, there's usually only two studies actually conducted by climate scientists actively conducting research that people can actually point to as dissenting from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. Of course, science is not about consensus. It's about who's correct. Are these dissenters correct? Well, one study claims it's cosmic rays! Too bad that even models accounting for affects of cosmic radiation still show unmistakable warming even without any potential contributions from cosmic rays. The other study claims a cooling cycle based on post WWII data... which does not account for the cooling effects of massive air pollution. I mean, I suppose if we just reverse all our progress in cleaning up the air, we could die in huge numbers from pollution-related diseases instead of from the consequences of climate change.

The idea that scientists are faking things for "$$$" is frankly quite funny. Scientists' salaries aren't particularly large, and even without anthropogenic climate change, climate is important enough to human wellbeing and the peace and productivity of our societies that humanity would gladly employ many climate researchers.

People who claim the consensus is "falling apart" grossly mischaracterize both what a consensus is and what "falling apart" means, and they generally don't understand how science works or how human beings in any specialized field communicate with one another.

Basically, climate change denial is about the unreasonable demand that people be allowed to stick their heads in the sand unless scientists can prove that they're 100% accurate and 100% certain--not just overwhelmingly certain about general projections due to overwhelming evidence for them. This is basically like demanding that modern medicine be able to predict with total accuracy when you will develop COPD, emphysema, or lung cancer before you will agree to believe that smoking is bad for you and try to stop.

Gorbelly, you have been great to debate, and are very knowledgeable, and thorough. But, I find what, Cook did to be egregiously, reprehensible, and the last straw in my book.

I'll never change your mind, nor will you change mine. So I've come to the "consensus" that life is to short for this.

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by Hellmanns

Gorbelly, you have been great to debate, and are very knowledgeable, and thorough. But, I find what, Cook did to be egregiously, reprehensible, and the last straw in my book.

I'll never change your mind, nor will you change mine. So I've come to the "consensus" that life is to short for this.

I have enjoyed the debate as well. I would just end on the note that even if one representative of a point of view is faulty (Cook's study is not and is grossly misrepresented by those who want to deny anthropogenic climate change) that would not invalidate the entire point of view. Because I could easily turn it around and point out that the Watts site you're so fond of is full of outright lies. Egregious, outright lies. Such as the very ironic one in which Watts claims that Cook is wrong and 66% of papers do not agree with anthropogenic climate change... when Watts basically added the tiny number of papers that take a stand against anthropogenic climate change and added them to the number of papers that do not state an opinion on it and then claim that all of these people oppose a theory of anthropogenic climate change.

By your standards, Watts invalidates your entire point of view.

Unfortunately, my opposition to your point of view is based not on personality games but on the fact that almost all the claims from climate change deniers are demonstrably silly.

[Lee]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by Lee

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Is it your belief that this has never occurred to the near-entirety of actual scientists working on researching climate and that their work does not incorporate robust efforts to determine that there is solid evidence for causality?

[dmforcier]

Nope.

[Mischka]

And they all lived happily ever after.

*The End*