The climate witch trials

[westwall]

How's that climate denial working out for people now?

Just fine. This is called Summer, dummy.

 

[forkup]

It was hotter in the 1930’s than today. What were the CO2 levels then as compared to now?

Says who? Not NOAA Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[westwall]

Says who? Not NOAA Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

That's because they are lying. It is now very hard to find the historical temperature data as the AGW fraudsters bury them.

 

[forkup]

Look up Climate Change and East Anglia. Otherwise, it’s a worthy debate. You provided some valid sources. But, should one be punished for challenging it? That’s disturbing.

I'm guessing you mean Climategate?
Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies . By the way ever heard of the Piltdown man? In 1912 an amateur archeologist faked the remains of an early human. Does that fact negate what we know about early humans you think? I don't think so. It doesn't stop those that disbelieve that we descend from apes to bring it up. This is kind of the same. Only here there is no proof that this university faked their findings. Just people misinterpreting e-mails that where literally hacked.

And what exactly do you think is worthy of debating? What exactly do you think you can challenge? It's a debate mainly fought in places like this. The basic science by now is well established and easily verifiable.

As for punishment. Can you please define it? Criminal, professional, political, social? These are not the same.

 

[forkup]

That's because they are lying. It is now very hard to find the historical temperature data as the AGW fraudsters bury them.

I see. Then that's what is considered unfalsifiable evidence in science and as such absolutely worthless. "I know something is true I just can't prove it", doesn't work in any profession that relies on facts.

 

[westwall]

I see. Then that's what is considered unfalsifiable evidence in science and as such absolutely worthless. "I know something is true I just can't prove it", doesn't work in any profession that relies on facts.

What is not falsifiable are climatology studies. Trenberth famously asserted that climatology studies need not even be repeatable! A basic refutation of the scientific method, which means you are now a PSEUDO SCIENCE, on a par with palm reading and phrenology.

 

[bripat9643]

A debate implies both sides using reason to further their viewpoint. I however see very little reason within those denying climate change.

I have the VAST majority of climatologists, not to mention the MEASURABLE data one can look at. You have a vague claim that climate change believers falsify data.

Using the popularity of an idea as an argument to support it is a logical fallacy. I thought you said you used reason?

Talk to any random old time smoke eater. Ask them about the fire season and how it has changed. Look at data from NASA, NOAA. Look at sea levels, average temperatures, CO2 levels over time. They are being measured.

The theory that global warming caused the fires is an example of post hoc , ergo propter hoc - a logical fallacy.

Sea levels haven't changes. Temperatures measured by satellite haven't changed.

 

[bripat9643]

Says who? Not NOAA Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

That's homogenized data - fake, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm guessing you mean Climategate?
Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies . By the way ever heard of the Piltdown man? In 1912 an amateur archeologist faked the remains of an early human. Does that fact negate what we know about early humans you think? I don't think so. It doesn't stop those that disbelieve that we descend from apes to bring it up. This is kind of the same. Only here there is no proof that this university faked their findings. Just people misinterpreting e-mails that where literally hacked.

And what exactly do you think is worthy of debating? What exactly do you think you can challenge? It's a debate mainly fought in places like this. The basic science by now is well established and easily verifiable.

As for punishment. Can you please define it? Criminal, professional, political, social? These are not the same.

You are so gullible. Climategate was an actual scandal. The climate wizards were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

 

[forkup]

Using the popularity of an idea as an argument to support it is a logical fallacy. I thought you said you used reason?



The theory that global warming caused the fires is an example of post hoc , ergo propter hoc - a logical fallacy.

Sea levels haven't changes. Temperatures measured by satellite haven't changed.

Using the popularity of an idea as an argument to support it is a logical fallacy. I thought you said you used reason?

I do that's why I used measurable data and sourced the places you can get it.

The theory that global warming caused the fires

I didn't say that. I said that a smoke eater will attest to the fact that fire season is now longer. If you want to call it a fallacy you should call it anecdotal. Which would be true if it would be localized.

Sea levels haven't changes.

Sea Level | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Temperatures measured by satellite haven't changed.

These striking visuals show how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth

After the hottest year ever, these dramatic satellite images show what consecutive years or warming are doing to the planet.

www.weforum.org

Same locations.

Sea Surface Temperature

climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Nasa using MODIR on NASA's aqua satellite.

 

[forkup]

You are so gullible. Climategate was an actual scandal. The climate wizards were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Gullible is stating stuff that is so easily refuted it took me 3 seconds to google it.

 

[bripat9643]

Gullible is stating stuff that is so easily refuted it took me 3 seconds to google it.

You posted more fallacies. You didn't refute anything.

 

[forkup]

What is not falsifiable are climatology studies. Trenberth famously asserted that climatology studies need not even be repeatable! A basic refutation of the scientific method, which means you are now a PSEUDO SCIENCE, on a par with palm reading and phrenology.

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.141

Trenberth was talking from a political standpoint not a scientific one. But it is telling that you take one statement from one scientist. A statement that then is peer-reviewed (something that you ignore or are unaware off) and then use this one statement to call all climatology studies pseudo-science.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Climate at a Glance | Global Time Series | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Historical and spatial comparisons of local, county, state, regional, national, and global meteorological data to determine trends and patterns

www.ncei.noaa.gov

These averages are achieved by thermometer huts placed around the globe were actual people do actual measurements. I don't need to appeal to any authority to see that the trends are up.

Unless of course you want to claim thermometers lie.

No...but thermometer readers do.

Interesting factoid: in the rural Soviet Union, people reported colder temperatures than actually occurred. This happened because, in the Soviet Union, fuel (coal, usually) was rationed out based on, among other factors, temperature. Therefore, the reporters had an incentive to "adjust" the readings downward.

 

[forkup]

No...but thermometer readers do.

Interesting factoid: in the rural Soviet Union, people reported colder temperatures than actually occurred. This happened because, in the Soviet Union, fuel (coal, usually) was rationed out based on, among other factors, temperature. Therefore, the reporters had an incentive to "adjust" the readings downward.

Oh. So, in the Soviet Union they used to lie. (Colder so it will have an adverse effect on the actual averages if you want to prove global warming) therefor you can't rely on the people who have done these measurements for about 150 years? Or is it that you believe there's a global conspiracy among those taking temperature readings for centuries?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh. So, in the Soviet Union they used to lie. (Colder so it will have an adverse effect on the actual averages if you want to prove global warming) therefor you can't rely on the people who have done these measurements for about 150 years? Or is it that you believe there's a global conspiracy among those taking temperature readings for centuries?

I apologize, I credited you with a much higher degree of critical thinking ability than you actually possess. I guess I need to now lead you by the nose: the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in temperatures not being reported lower than they actually were. This change has resulted in a "warming" trend.

 

[bripat9643]

I do that's why I used measurable data and sourced the places you can get it.

You used data that measures the popularity of a theory among scientists, so it's still a falacy.

I didn't say that. I said that a smoke eater will attest to the fact that fire season is now longer. If you want to call it a fallacy you should call it anecdotal. Which would be true if it would be localized.

In other words, global warming caused the longer fire season. You just can't post on this subject without spouting fallacies, can you?

Sea Level | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

These striking visuals show how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth

After the hottest year ever, these dramatic satellite images show what consecutive years or warming are doing to the planet.

www.weforum.org

Same locations.

Sea Surface Temperature

climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Nasa using MODIR on NASA's aqua satellite.

Only the last inch is satellite data, and that is so compressed that it's impossible to glean any info from the data.

 

[forkup]

I apologize, I credited you with a much higher degree of critical thinking ability than you actually possess. I guess I need to now lead you by the nose: the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in temperatures not being reported lower than they actually were. This change has resulted in a "warming" trend.

The measurements started before the Soviet Union and are continuing by now thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Your logic would result in a higher baseline before the Communists came to power and a stagnation in global temperatures after 1991. Neither is seen in the measurements. Not to mention the idea that the results in a single nation can have such a significant effect on global temperatures is ridiculous.

How's that for critical thinking?

 

[forkup]

You used data that measures the popularity of a theory among scientists, so it's still a falacy.

In other words, global warming caused the longer fire season. You just can't post on this subject without spouting fallacies, can you?

Only the last inch is satellite data, and that is so compressed that it's impossible to glean any info from the data.

I used the temperature data as it is reported. I don't need a scientist to explain to me that an average 1-degree celcius increase signals higher temperatures.

 

[bripat9643]

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.141

Trenberth was talking from a political standpoint not a scientific one. But it is telling that you take one statement from one scientist. A statement that then is peer-reviewed (something that you ignore or are unaware off) and then use this one statement to call all climatology studies pseudo-science.

I don't know what your cite was supposed to prove, but it doesn't even refer to the information we're discussing. Trenberth was talking from a scientific standpoint.