What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
So show me specifically what Roy Spencer says that is anything like what you have been saying about all the data being manipulated for political purposes, etc.
Click to expand...
…the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet. (Roy Spencer, 2014)

Oops.
 
StudentMI said:
Yeah but weren’t your experts the ones who at one time claimed there was no warming? Serious question.
Click to expand...
No one has really questioned whether the earth has warmed since the mid 1800s. That was, after all, the end of a little ice age. The real questions have been (a) how much, and (b) why. The NY Times reported in 1989 that NOAA found no temperature increase since 1895. That was before the data was “updated”. So it’s legitimate to question the amount of warming that has actually occurred given that it is based on changes that no one except the people who made them can revue. So, it is way too vague to speak generically of “no warming”.
 
phaster said:
interesting the random trivia that I’ve leaned in the course of this thread,… anyway since you (and perhaps many others) don’t believe Snopes is credible, so what about a word from time magazine itself who categorically deny they published something deniers tout as fact!!!
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

…the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming.
Click to expand...
A shame I didn’t check in and see this sooner I don’t believe I ever said I took my information from a 1977 Time magazine You have devastatingly and soundly debunked…something I never said 😃

I spent two or three years in public schools being taught by the public schools and being told by those around me that there was a coming ice age.
Click to expand...
 
We’re now approaching 2,000 responses. What good is this thread actually accomplishing? Sorry to say, I see a lot of snarkiness on this ‘Catholic’ forum and I come here less and less to learn anything about my faith because of it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I did not cite them or anyone else in that list as experts in climate science. They were not claiming anything about climate science. They were reporting on literature statistics - something far different than making claims about how to interpret raw scientific data which is what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Well, actually the Cook, et al, paper was all about interpreting what the papers claimed about the extent of warming based upon very loose “interpretive” criteria, i.e., “implicit endorsement.” That was the source of the “consensus of 97% of scientists” claim. In other words, the interpretation of science papers was core to their survey of papers.

Yet, what Robson was doing was taking the actual Estimate of Climate Sensitivity numbers provided by the thirteen papers, so there wasn’t any “interpretation” of data necessary, just transcribing the sensitivity numbers provided in the papers.

So, according to you, Robson was “giving out misinformation about CO2” merely by citing actual data, while Cook was not, even though he was reading into the papers he cited some obtuse – “implicit” – sense of what the authors were “suggesting” about warming. Speaking of “interpreting.”

What is truly bizarre, however, is that you – a non-expert – have convinced yourself that you are capable of judging the “…so-called information presented by Robson” to be a “non-experts analysis of something that requires expertise to analyze,” while you accept a far more interpretively subjective analysis done by “non-experts” like Cook, et al, to be convincing even though you claim to be unqualified to properly evaluate either one.

At least be consistent in applying your critique.
 
Last edited:
Poet said:
40.png
phaster:
interesting the random trivia that I’ve leaned in the course of this thread,… anyway since you (and perhaps many others) don’t believe Snopes is credible, so what about a word from time magazine itself who categorically deny they published something deniers tout as fact!!!
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

…the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming.
Click to expand...
A shame I didn’t check in and see this sooner I don’t believe I ever said I took my information from a 1977 Time magazine You have devastatingly and soundly debunked…something I never said 😃

I spent two or three years in public schools being taught by the public schools and being told by those around me that there was a coming ice age.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
phaster said:
40.png
Poet:
I don’t believe there’s a ‘climate change’ crisis for several reasons.
  1. In the 70s there was a ‘coming ice age’ hysteria which never panned out, which then abruptly and inexplicably switched from ‘we’re all going to freeze to death’ to ‘we’re all going to burn up’ in ‘global warming’ which, when people noted the curious change, then got switched to the enigmatic 'climate change.
  2. As a historian,…
Click to expand...
1970s revisionist history?!
Click to expand...
The question might well be asked if @phaster was actually alive in the 1970s and experienced first hand what was being taught in the public school system? If not, on what basis is the claim of “revisionist history” being made by him. Perhaps he can help us out.

Full disclosure: I was alive, and kicking, and working towards my first degree in arts and sciences in the early 1970s.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
The question might well be asked if @phaster was actually alive in the 1970s and experienced first hand what was being taught in the public school system? If not, on what basis is the claim of “revisionist history” being made by him. Perhaps he can help us out.

Full disclosure: I was alive, and kicking, and working towards my first degree in arts and sciences in the early 1970s.
Click to expand...
A very good question.

I was in late elementary school in the late 70s. I lived in a southern state that had a whopping 2" of snow one year. T-shirts were created saying “I survived the blizzard of 197-” and it was part of the evidence given to us to support what we were being told in schools: that there was a coming ice age.

I could not care less what Time did or did not say. I was there and I remember it clearly.
HarryStotle said:
“revisionist history.”

Apparently those scientists no longer exist nor count as scientists.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly what communist USSR was doing: simply erasing, deleting, shredding all evidence of anyone who fell into disfavor. This should scare everyone. And it’s sad to think that we should all start taking screen shots of this stuff.

I did my own research 30 years ago on a subject and learned how much the media lies to us and tells us only what certain people want us to hear and believe.
 
To be fair that was more of an ad hominem. It wouldn’t pass in a debate class. One of the sad things about modern society is that people don’t even take the time to read an ‘opposing’ viewpoint. They ‘know’ the sources are biased to the left or right and just dismiss them out of hand.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
And it is not what Ender did by citing a genuine scientist, but ignoring his conclusions
Click to expand...
You need to be a bit more careful with your charges. I was addressing one specific point, and I cited that scientist addressing that one point. I even mentioned that there were other considerations, so the fact that you brought up other considerations (a) does not refute that one specific point, nor (b) in any way means that I ignored his conclusions.
There you go, rejecting expert analysis just because it doesn’t fit your beliefs. You can’t say you are relying on experts and then go and override them whenever you see fit.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not accurate. Nowhere did I say I rejected their analysis. What I did was to raise a legitimate concern, one that you have not addressed, or even recognized as reasonable. The fact, however, that no one outside of their agency can analyze their adjustments is, as Dr. Spencer, said, not science. One of the bigger problems with science today is that so many results are not reproducible by other scientists, and what the NCDC has done is to create adjustments that are not reproducible by design.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Ad hominem attack. As I said, it is not just their opinion. They give their supporting reasons. If you disagree with those reasons, argue against them, not the character of the fact-finders.
Click to expand...
This is very true, and it applies to not just the “character” of the fact-finders but to their expertise as well. Something you should consider the next time you simply dismiss an argument because the person making it isn’t an approved climate scientist.
 
i am not going to try to read 1800 responses. I believe global warming started thousands of years ago. There was a PBS Nova program within the last two months which showed that there is a long-term natural carbon cycle. Humans are contributing to the RATE of global warming, but only riding on top of the long-term trend.

Look at the Sahara on the continent of Africa. The desert has been advancing for thousands of years, with ocean levels rising at the same time. Methane and nitrogen compounds make things worse in the atmosphere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top