SamFisher, Don't want to comment on these graphs? Listen I do not want to pick a fight with you here. You have called me names and thrown insults after insults and I have refrained from doing the same. I actually agree with Rhadathmus on his post directed to me here. Now I agree with him and I was not ignoring any scientific methodologies. If you saw my reply to him I was making a point on how people who support AGW so blindly behave this way. You take such a strong view that Global Warming exists that you ignore all possibility that the contrary may be true. From all the recent developments from the IPCC admitting to skewing graphs and data, to the IPCC admitting that their has been no signs of warming the last 15 years to all the scientists that are now starting to question their very own models. From all these things do you not question yourself and think just maybe there might be a possibility these theories are wrong and flawed? Now I am not advocating one view or the other here or saying anything is absolute. It is clear what my views are but I will keep an open mind that I could be wrong. But just to say the science is settled and done is just being blind to the whole scientific process especially with all the recent developments. Now after your own questions and inquiry it is your right to choose to believe in what you wish and that is fine but please refrain from making such bold statements and to the personal attacks and name calling you so often employ on here. Thanks
Not really, I think first, you need to comment on the last time I quoted you first with respect to your embarrassing "petition" - or are you to busy bio-engineering your latest joint venture with Nintendo? . Then I can tell you what I think about GW Denialists selecting data points and posting un-peer reviewed materials vs. the actual scientific consensus (or actually you could use the search function).
Okay that is fine and I see you have resorted to the condescending tone again. I really don't understand your anger and your hatred towards anyone who disagrees with you. Well whatever it is I would recommend you just lighten up a bit. Also what is your beef with my venture with Nintendo? Yes I am working on something with in the video game industry and if all testing goes well I will definitely market it on this forum probably in the hangout discussion. Even if it doesn't go well I will reveal what it is.
sam, the question is really quite simple, can you point me to the either the data underlying the graphs, or the software (and attendant code) that produced them? if not, just say so and i promise to leave you alone.
also I do not understand what you want me to comment on my petition link. Do you not agree that there are scientists who disagree with your view? If you do then you clearly need to open your eyes. I have made some very valid points on the topic but you choose to focus on nit picking and not address any issues. This has been your pattern and I guess what you do.
LOL - so you don't know how to figure out where the data comes from, but you need to be able to analyze the source code of the computer program in order to figure out what your beliefs in global warming are? Can you tell me what Jeff Id's background in climate science is? I know that he is your new god. I would like to know why you have adopted him (I know the answer but since we are asking stupid questions indulge me).
Yes. It is listed on the graphic. Who is Jeff Id and why did you adopt his view over that of the overwhelming scientific consensus?
there are only rough plots on a graph in the graphic. where is the actual data that provided those rough plots?
I'm asking you a simple question so that we can compare and contrast our views and the bases for them. You are all up with getting some computer source code that you don't know how to use or evaluate. I'm simply asking what you believe, then we can get into where it comes from.
i'm just asking if you could provide us with the actual data that formed the basis for your pretty little picture- can you? and wrt AGW, my thoughts don't matter, since the things that we as a society would do to help combat it (if it were indeed occurring), are largely things we should be doing anyway, such as developing alternative sources of energy (nuclear, solar, wind, etc).
Why don't those graphs go beyond about 2007? Compare his trend to the actual 13 month trend from Dr. Spencer. Me thinks that graph is garbage. I'd also like to point out that Dr. Spencer is one of the heroes of the Denier crowd. 26.Jeff Id said November 18, 2009 at 4:11 pm #22, I agree it’s a meaningless article but why have RC and Tamino done multiple posts to demonstrate it and say cooling isn’t real. That you’ve simply created a piece of code that makes pretty plots but is statistically meaningless. It is equally as meaningful as the stats that claim cooling over the last decade haven’t happened. I just get a sense that we won’t be seeing the headline, “Jeff Id proves Global Warming is a hoax” soon. How would I disprove something I believe in? Hmm...whatever.
I first probably learned about GW in junior high, IIRC, we watched an episode of NOVA on it. Since then, the basis of what I ahve to come to believe is based generally on following what appears to me to be the scientific consensus, but the IPCC report(s) are a good place to start. But what are they? Indulge me even though they are meaningless.
the point i've been trying to make is the IPCC reports are no longer a good place to start, as the data therein can no longer be trusted. of course, you won't read that in your sunday (NY) times, but the Times of London and the bbc have been all over the story.
What is a good place to start? Where do you get your information? I am not asking you what is NOT true. I am asking you what is true.
Politically, Anthropogenic Global Warming is highly debated. Scientifically, Anthropogenic Global Warming is the accepted hypothesis. Similarly: Politically, dinosaurs and humans living together is highly debated. Scientifically, dinosaurs never living with humans is the accepted hypothesis.
Yup - the Jesus Horse analogy is actually the best one here. The role of the Denialists is not unlike that of ID people in the evolution debate. Basically, they try to poke a minute hole in the larger picture or find a single gray area, and then declare all of the science to be a fraud....while failing to offer any (or, in basso's case, offering several mutually exclusive) explanations in response. This strategy intentionally fails to realize that even the most accepted, hallowed parts of scientific theory (gravity, etc) are not 100 percent able to explain natural phenomenon. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be accepted. That might be ok as a political rhetorical game, but it's not science (which is probably why "Jeff Id" is not a real scientist . . . despite his muse-like status).
