How to lie statistically?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.

All I do is ask questions.

I think that's why I'm ignored.

Heresy!

Maybe if you directed questions to people, they would answer them?

a reply to: Greven

It is embarrassing, really.

Greven, go spend time discussing with those who at least may listen. I was doing this 10 years ago here. We did have some interesting discussions then. Still mostly useless of course (:

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Would any of you AWG supporters care to place some sort of time frame on when the oceans will begin rising or when the global temperatures will be noticeably elevated/lowered due to man made climate change?

I keep on seeing all of these time predictions of when the world is going to end from this boogeyman but unfortunately all of those time frames are solidly in the past.

Since a lot of you seem to present yourselves as authorities on this subject, would you care in giving us non believers a time frame?

Uh... temperature and sea level have been rising already. It's all in the data - even UAH data, which shows this:
1970s Mean : -0.284583
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017).

a reply to: burdman30ott6

*yawn*

In the end this all boils down to carbon tax credit and how global climate change is a conspiracy to "steal mah money!"

Eventually it'll devolve into that argument once the "mankind does have an impact on the climate" argument can't be ignored. It's the inevitable fall-back position.

The "man-made global warming lie" is just a pseudo-cover for the underlying carbon taxing issue. Why not just make a thread about how you don't want mankind to invent/invest in newer technologies and industries that are cleaner and more sustainable ... all because of how "sin taxes" on older, dirtier forms of energy will impact your pocket book?

Why do the whole song and dance about how the scientists lie when we all really know what the true issue is?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Your point? CO2 isn't one of those greenhouse gases. Water vapor, however, is.

How does water vapor exist in the atmosphere of a frozen planet?

IE: what made the Earth not freezing such that water vapor could exist?

Water has multiple forms which depend on not just temperatures, but also pressure. For example, Gliese 436 b is postulated to be made up of solid water... AKA "Ice" that is at a surface temperature of 712K. In Earth's case, the planet is not entirely dependent on the sun for it's heating, with the core generating some serious heat. That heat does result in evaporation.

Oh okay, so a non-answer. Very minute amounts of heat escape to the surface from the core save for areas with volcanic activity.

How do you explain the infrared absorption of CO2 when it is examined via spectroscopy?

originally posted by: Kettu
Why do the whole song and dance about how the scientists lie when we all really know what the true issue is?

Love your style.

Would save an awful lot of time all round, I think D:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.

Bingo. Mankind has an inate need to be ruled by someone or something. That need has been manipulated by theistic religions for thousands of years and now, in an era where atheism is the "in" thing, it is manipulated by psuedo science and fear mongering to generate the cult of AGW. This thread has certainly shown what we're dealing with, as actual facts are brushed aside by those utterly unwilling to watch their god laid bare for all to see.

You've literally ignored multiple real facts I've posted then have the gall to say this bull#.

God willing, humanity won't perish for the foolhardiness on display here.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Greven
There are of course others, but the combined emissions are already in excess of the increase.

Where does the rest go and if only one year's worth of consumption equates to the alleged overall increase (with a surplus) why isn't this astronomically higher from the previous century's cumulative number?

There's a thing called the carbon cycle. It's a reason you see fluctuations in CO2 - the overall amount of CO2 in the carbon cycle exceeds our annual emissions by a large amount. However, prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 had been relatively stable on an annual average.

This also shows up in oxygen levels... which are also declining because we're burning so much carbon (which combines it with oxygen):

Some of this excess is being absorbed by the oceans, others by plants that are growing better (see the 'greening Earth' thing skeptics like to tout).

Going a bit off-topic here - but it's a good point about dropping oxygen levels. Which would lead to less oxygen to our brains - see any signs???

Some excerpts from an article I'm reading. . . .


"1.Many of the adjustments are quite necessary, such as time of observation adjustments, adjustments for changing equipment, and adjustments for changing site locations and/or urbanization. However, all of these adjustments are educated guesses. Some, like the time of observation adjustment, probably are decent guesses. Some, like site location adjustments, are terrible (as demonstrated at surfacestations.org).

Anthony Watt does this analysis from USHCN raw all the way through to the GISS adjusted number (the USHCN adjusts the number, and then the GISS adds their own adjustments on top of these adjustments). The result: 100%+ of the 20th century global warming signal comes from the adjustments. There is actually a cooling signal in the raw data:

A few weeks ago, Gavin Schmidt of NASAcame out with a fairly petulant response to critics who found an error in NASA's GISS temperature database. Most of us spent little time criticizing this particular error, but instead criticized Schmidts unhealthy distaste for criticism and the general sloppiness and lack of transparency in the NOAA and GISS temperature adjustment and averaging process.

I don't want to re-plow old ground, but I can't resist highlighting one irony. Here is Gavin Schmidt in his recent post on RealClimate:


"It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring."


www.climate-skeptic.com...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.

All I do is ask questions.

I think that's why I'm ignored.

Heresy!

Maybe if you directed questions to people, they would answer them?

I am. I'm posting them on a site where people read.

Didn't realize I had to personally address.

But anyway, doing some great reading on variances.

a reply to: thesaneone

I am on a cell phone, I've linked the information countless times on here only for it to get drowned in an echo chamber of ignorance, chicken little, and Al Gore jabs.

NOAA is a good start for C02 data, but according to the echo chamber NOAA, NASA, and pretty much all of the scientific world are not to be trusted; while right wing opinion pieces that are funded by fossil fuel interest got it right.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Going a bit off-topic here - but it's a good point about dropping oxygen levels. Which would lead to less oxygen to our brains - see any signs???

haha D:

a reply to: DBCowboy

Hm. Source seems like it's an Exxon-biased/oil industry shill.

Do some digging into that website/source/scientist.

originally posted by: Kettu
Why do the whole song and dance about how the scientists lie when we all really know what the true issue is?

The true issue that these scientists are told to lie or they don't get their funding? That issue? Or the issue of this being the only way that globalization can proceed without uprisings from developed countries? Which issue are you bringing to the table?

a reply to: Greven

You not liking the answer because it doesn't coddle your narrative doesn't make it a "non-answer," friend.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hm. Source seems like it's an Exxon-biased/oil industry shill.

Do some digging into that website/source/scientist.

Then show me a variance study done by NOAA or NASA.

It seems as though there are people who just accept what they are told.

I ask questions.

a reply to: Kettu

In the end this all boils down to carbon tax credit and how global climate change is a conspiracy to "steal mah money!"

Please explain to us how money solves the problem aside from being used as a punitive mechanism (a "sin" tax) to punish people into not doing whatever it is you don't want them to do.

And when you have that sort of tax activity, the money always goes somewhere. In that case, what's it being used for?

And when the "sin" tax works, and you successfully "punish" people into avoiding that behavior, what happens to the projects being funded with that money? Do they end or do you search for new ways to come up with that revenue?

I will, of course, refer you to the NW states who raised their gas taxes sky high to combat global warming by getting people to drive less. When it worked, they started looking for new ways to tax people instead of learning how to make do with less revenue.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

You not liking the answer because it doesn't coddle your narrative doesn't make it a "non-answer," friend.

Nice non-response again.

Pop quiz: what does this chart show about CO2?

a reply to: DBCowboy

The guy who runs that site is Anthony Watts, and he's paid by the Heartland Institute that has ties to polluting industries:

Antony Watts - Sourcewatch

Oh he's just a blogger and has ZERO education qualifications other than being a weatherman on TV. Green screens and maps a climate change expert does not one make.

Sorry, close but no carrot.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

But your scientists are paid for by the Heartland Institute so that's OK? The same "Institute" that has ties to Koch Brothers oil industry money?

Heartland Institute