Yes it is. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anthropogenic+Global+Warming 53,800 articles. Basso, let me point to Hwang Woo-Suk. Early last decade his research team made lots of advances in human cloning. Turned out, there was a ton of fraud, and he was forced to resign. Does Woo-Suk's fraud revelation make all the other research on human cloning invalidated?
No, that's "Jeff Id's" point. Since I don't know who "Jeff Id" is or what he does, your attempt to use the "appeal-to-authority" argument is not going to succeed here for reasons that you will find obvious. Anyway what do you believe? I would like to find out where you stand on this. YOu have proposed several theories in the past - one of them must appeal to you.
Actually you have and you do since you are copy pasting his demand for IPCC software source code. That's why I'm asking YOU for your original thoughts on this. What YOU believe. Thus far the only thing you have said is that your beliefs are irrelevant. That's probably true. But we have to know what they are first. You have shared in the past, you just need to clarify your message.
Exactly right. Here is a picture of what the Earth is widely believed to have looked like around the time it was first formed. As you can see, it was covered with molten lava. Since that time, has the Earth warmed or cooled? The answer is obvious. The long-term trend is clearly towards cooling. Case closed. Debate over. End thread.
Uh. This is the weirdest post you've made yet. Your claims only serve to illustrate your own methods, not mine or the rest of the science crowd. The only one making absolutes is you - that was the point of my last post. Seriously - reread your words above in light of the post you're responding to. It's like an exact affirmation of my original complaint. Sheesh. No statistically significant warming. p=.05 - that's 2 sigma. Not enough for the rigor of physics, but to say "no warming" is misleading. Once again you shoot yourself in the foot and hypocritically demonstrate the exact ideology you whine about above. Is almost like you're not even sure what you've written moments before. Odd. wooooo. This has been so beaten to death that I refuse to re-discuss. You're wrong, and again you're prognosticating a certainty that was never claimed. As B-Bob succinctly put it - it's a question of odds - that are weighed heavily in favor of being concerned and acting appropriately. Yes, they are the minority. Random dudes signing a petition means nothing. The only people dismissing the opposition are those from the "denialist" crowd, since they have nothing else to stand on. No data, no facts - just little barbs placed against the actual science. I'm not complaining though, as such barbs allow the science to be tested and reformed as needed. What is irritating is ignorant people latching on to erroneous or blatantly false denialist assertions. Those who vomit such opinions are, as you say, dismissed. For good reason. *cough* mojoman *cough*
Very interesting article from Dr. Spencer today. Here's some snippets. www.drroyspencer.com There has been a lot of criticism lately of the two most publicized surface temperature datsets: those from Phil Jones (CRU) and Jim Hansen (GISS)... I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91. One significant difference is that my temperature anomalies are, on average, magnified by 1.36 compared to Jones. My first suspicion is that Jones has relatively more tropical than high-latitude area in his averages, which would mute the signal. I did not have time to verify this. Of course, an increasing urban heat island effect could still be contaminating both datasets, resulting in a spurious warming trend. Also, when I include years before 1986 in the analysis, the warming trends might start to diverge. But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986. Also note that December 2009 was, indeed, a cool month in my analysis.
The one where you asked for the software code. Tell me basso - is the earth warming or cooling? I say warming. What say you?
If this is anything close to what the Earth was like in its early days, then the long term trend as measured from that time to the current day has clearly been towards global cooling.
Thanks for this contribution. Can you please share more? Since satellite data shows that we are absorbing more solar radiation than the radiation we reflect plus what we emit back to space, where is the excess energy going? Serious question, like all of my earlier completely unanswered questions.
Taken together with other comments you have made on this topic, your comment above brings to mind a phrase that I first heard uttered by Clint Eastwood in a "Dirty Harry" movie: "You are a legend in your own mind." There are obviously a lot of unanswered questions with regards to the functioning of the Earth's climate. Just because such a question remains unresolved, it does not follow that everyone (or anyone) should therefore defer to you on the topic, or to any of the AGW alarmist "experts," such as Phil Jones (CRU-Climategate), Michael Mann (Hockey Stick) or Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of the IPCC), either. The people who are proactively promoting the AGW agenda are not trustworthy and their comments should be regarded accordingly. And with regards to you Bob, your answers to these types of questions are frequently as biased and one-sided as they come. It is important that newer readers and posters on this board be made aware of that. Everyone should especially keep an eye out for Bob's intolerance of any posters or views that disagree with his own on this topic. Once you start to notice that, the rest of his bias and one-sidedness on this topic becomes apparent very quickly. People who pay attention are much less likely to be duped.
yeeeaaahhhh... that's my MO: intolerance on the old BBS. So a simple question about energy input and energy output becomes an unfounded ad hom attack. Sweet. Speaking of snickers, I do really like analyzing the earth's climate before there was even an atmosphere (see "lava world" images above.) That's a great idea. In fact, if we analyze global warming before there was an earth, we can go back to a point where the universe was about 1 million degrees Kelvin! Think how much cooling we've seen in 13 billion years: the universe is now just under three degrees Kelvin. Think about that next time some "alarmist" with all of his "data" gets up in your interwebz grill and tries to tell you something.
Asking a question that you are unable to answer does not equal intolerance of posters who disagree. He used information you provided, and asked a reasonable question based on the results. You are starting to appear paranoid, and unable to engage in thoughtful debate on the subject. You post the same stuff over and over. You post stuff that you admit is irrelevant in terms of the debate over AGW, in fact this whole thread was started on such a basis. Yet when someone who only posts about the type of logic you are using, or the facts themselves asks questions, you refuse to answer, and now accuse him of intolerance. If that's how you feel you need to debate then go ahead, but please drop the guise that you are interested in a logical and earnest discussion of the facts and evidence. When people attempt to engage you in that you deride them and attack them as irrational AGW alarmists and don't discuss their evidence which is every bit as credible if not more credible than your own. Sometimes they use your own evidence to ask you questions as in this example and you still attack.
