Support NeoGAF

[scar tissue]

Should air the episode alongside Ancient Aliens. Pseudoscience does not belong on a science channel

Spoiler

Kidding. Climate change is real and it's gonna fuck things up

 

[andycapps]

Man, this whole time I thought we were talking about Richard Attenborough. I have no clue who David Attenborough is. Should have still included that segment, but I assume he has more resonance in the UK.

 

[PJV3]

You smarmy git.

The sponge was over kill, i have settled for a packet of garibaldi biscuits instead. And no more slagging off Sir David Frederick Attenborough CBE FRS etc, he's a national institution over here. His brother is a bit of a let down though.

 

[nelsonroyale]

"I don't want to watch it because I might be convinced!"

 

[shuyin_]

Spoiler

Kidding. Climate change is real and it's gonna fuck things up

Spoiler

but in a few thousand years, the ice age will fuck things up more... i say we pollute more so we bring up the temperature

 

[marrec]

Spoiler

but in a few thousand years, the ice age will fuck things up more... i say we pollute more so we bring up the temperature

You don't know how the climate works do you?

Maybe you should watch the seventh episode of... wait, nevermind.

 

[Jakabok]

I'm sure I saw an interview with Attenborough in which he himself stated that he had been skeptical of global warming until recently?

 

[Something Wicked]

Umm...

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...lobal-warming/

Wow, a neurologist explaining the psychology of the AGW debate, but not the actual scientific processes of AGW! How enlightening!

...A little life observation for everyone- chemistry and physics tend not to be the strongest areas for most MDs. Med schools do not require students to take quantum chemistry or thermodynamics.

Your position is that the data is inaccurate. If that is true, multiple sets and sources of data are inaccurate in the same way, since the data sets agree. How is that not a logical consequence of your statement?

Like many climate scientists, you're extrapolating things in a manner you should not.

A) Data sets do not exactly 100% agree

B) If we're talking about ice core data and on the ground temperature readings, then such data sets have generally been to describe two different periods anyway. Ice core data being used to describe pre-mid/late 1800s, while ground temperature readings for post-mid/late 1800s. Satellite data (by far the most accurate method of describing "global mean temperatures)" only goes back to around 1980. There are degrees of error for each method (including satellites particularly before the 1990s). The percent error is greater than the claims of "a few degrees increase", which implies either that the claims are wrong or that there is not enough data to make such claims yet.

 

[KHarvey16]

Wow, a neurologist explaining the psychology of the AGW debate, but not the actual scientific processes of AGW! How enlightening!

...A little life observation for everyone- chemistry and physics tend not to be the strongest areas for most MDs. Med schools do not require students to take quantum chemistry or thermodynamics.




Like many climate scientists, you're extrapolating things in a manner you should not.

A) Data sets do not exactly 100% agree

B) If we're talking about ice core data and on the ground temperature readings, then such data sets have generally been to describe two different periods anyway. Ice core data being used to describe pre-mid/late 1800s, while ground temperature readings for post-mid/late 1800s. Satellite data (by far the most accurate method of describing "global mean temperatures)" only goes back to around 1980. There are degrees of error for each method (including satellites particularly before the 1990s). The percent error is greater than the claims of "a few degrees increase", which implies either that the claims are wrong or that there is not enough data to make such claims yet.

So in your world we only have satellite or ice core data? You don't really know what you're talking about here, huh?

 

[marrec]

Wow, a neurologist explaining the psychology of the AGW debate, but not the actual scientific processes of AGW! How enlightening!

...A little life observation for everyone- chemistry and physics tend not to be the strongest areas for most MDs. Med schools do not require students to take quantum chemistry or thermodynamics.

It's like you didn't even read what I posted, but that'd be silly.

This is the way science is supposed to work – people can argue vehemently about how to interpret the data, with renewed vigor as each new piece of data comes out. But in the end everyone should be basing their opinions on the evidence, or should at least be able to agree that the evidence will ultimately determine the outcome of controversy.

The article is about a consensus study done by an independant group that looks at the evidence for land temperatures rising by .9c in the last 60 years. This independant group found that even with inferior methods of measuring average global temperature data in the past, the data shown is consistent with the scientific consensus. You're point was originally that data in the past can't be trusted because of magical inaccuracies, this study shows that the data is not innacurate.

The reason I linked you to NeuroLogica is because Steven Novella usually says it better than anyone else.

Instead of agreeing that the evidence should determine the outcome of the controversy, you're throwing all evidence out that disagrees with you and limiting science to what you see as 'accurate'.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

A) Data sets do not exactly 100% agree

no such thing as 100% agreement in science.

 

[shuyin_]

You don't know how the climate works do you?

If you weren't trying to look smart, you would've seen i was only kidding. But amaze me, how does the climate work?

Also in relation to what did you make the claim... you don't think we're in the interglacial period?

 

[chaostrophy]

Why is this surprising? Every backwards, primitive country has its silly social taboos that the civilized world tries to respect.

 

[marrec]

If you weren't trying to look smart, you would've seen i was only kidding. But amaze me, how does climate work?

Also in relation to what did you make the claim... you don't think we're in the interglacial period?

Funny thing about global warming is we're in the middle of an interglacial period....so an ice age will most definitely follow. I say we start warming up the planet

Spoiler

but in a few thousand years, the ice age will fuck things up more... i say we pollute more so we bring up the temperature

You're kidding by pushing a non-valid point in multiple posts? You mean you're trolling. Looking for a response to your obviously rediculous points.

I never claimed to know how climate works, I'm an electrical engineer, not a climatologist. How about instead of telling you how climate works, I explain to you that warming the planet up because 'we're in the interglacial period' is not a good idea. Long term warming can have drastic effects on climate in the short-term and may even accelerate the glacial cycle, causing an Ice Age prematurely.

So can you stop posting nonsense now?

 

[shuyin_]

I never claimed to know how climate works, I'm an electrical engineer, not a climatologist.

So you don't know how climate works, but that doesn't stop you from telling me i don't know how the climate works, as if you know what the heck you're talking about.... Right.... Is this gamefaqs?

How about instead of telling you how climate works, I explain to you that warming the planet up because 'we're in the interglacial period' is not a good idea. Long term warming can have drastic effects on climate in the short-term and may even accelerate the glacial cycle, causing an Ice Age prematurely.

So can you stop posting nonsense now?

Joke dude... was it not obvious? I say "let's pollute the planet because there's an ice age in x thousand years anyway" and you don't get it's a joke?
You seem to take things a bit too serious and that might affect your mental sanity I suggest getting laid and stop taking

Spoiler

obvious

jokes too seriously on internet forums

edit: sorry if i sound too harsh, but i like to believe the joke was obvious and i see you kind of were offended by it :/

 

[Something Wicked]

So in your world we only have satellite or ice core data? You don't really know what you're talking about here, huh?

Yeah... wow... your reading comprehension... is... yikes...

You would not happen to be a climate science student? If so, I suggest you change your major. By 2020, the job market for climate scientists will be a mere fraction of what it is today. The general public of many countries are going to become extremely angry when they find out how much money has been spent on federal AGW study grants and how far off the predictions have been.

The article is about a consensus study done by an independant group that looks at the evidence for land temperatures rising by .9c in the last 60 years. This independant group found that even with inferior methods of measuring average global temperature data in the past, the data shown is consistent with the scientific consensus. You're point was originally that data in the past can't be trusted because of magical inaccuracies, this study shows that the data is not innacurate.

That "independent group" cannot change the actual temperatures previously recorded, but can just compile or "average" the data differently. It's not so much the temperature sensors were measuring incorrectly, but making the claim that the temperature that sensor records is the same temperature throughout the weather station and even for miles and miles around the station- is what I'm saying is inaccurate.

Now, when the claim is the global temperature will rise by "a few degrees", but the temperature at each weather station can differ by "a few degrees" as well, then one's percent error is extremely high. No different method of compiling the data previously recorded can change that.

 

[marrec]

So you don't know how climate works, but that doesn't stop you from telling me i don't know how the climate works, as if you know what the heck you're talking about.... Right.... Is this gamefaqs?

Joke dude... was it not obvious? I say "let's pollute the planet because there's an ice age in x thousand years anyway" and you don't get it's a joke?
You seem to take things a bit too serious and that might affect your mental sanity I suggest getting laid and stop taking

Spoiler

obvious

jokes too seriously on internet forums

I can have a jolly old laugh as much as the next fellow, and indeed when I saw you first post the 'interglacial period' joke I did have a chuckle at how stupid it was. Then you posted it again. Then you, again, mentioned the interglacial peroid. It's as if you actually believe it. In fact, I'd take you venemous response above on my claim of you knowing nothing of how climates actually work as a defense of your crazy 'joke' ideas.

At the very least you are a terrible comedian. At worst you are ignorant of very basic scientific facts. Either way, I can have a jolly old laugh at your expense. *har har*

 

[Dash27]

Stuff like this is why I laugh at the global warming crowd. Oh if only that were the case. I believe the earth is warming, that man has some impact. Why cant they grasp that the government asking for more money to regulate something as incredibly complex, vague and poorly understood as climate change is a fail waiting to happen. Even if they knew what to do the money would go to whatever congressmans buddy running the next Solyndra.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yeah... wow... your reading comprehension... is... yikes...

You would not happen to be a climate science student? If so, I suggest you change your major. By 2020, the job market for climate scientists will be a mere fraction of what it is today. The general public of many countries are going to become extremely angry when they find out how much money has been spent on federal AGW study grants and how far off the predictions have been.

Why do all of the various methods we use to determine past temperatures agree in general? If ice cores are wrong, why do they agree with tree rings? Explain to me how all of these methods fit in the same narrative if they're all wrong and inaccurate.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Your position is not.

 

[marrec]

That "independent group" cannot change the actual temperatures previously recorded, but can just compile or "average" the data differently. It's not so much the temperature sensors were measuring incorrectly, but making the claim that the temperature that sensor records is the same temperature throughout the weather station and even for miles and miles around the station- is what I'm saying is inaccurate.

Now, when the claim is the global temperature will rise by "a few degrees", but the temperature at each weather station can differ by "a few degrees" as well, then one's percent error is extremely high. No different method of compiling the data previously recorded can change that.

They weren't simply averaging, they were looking for obvious innacuracies to remove from the scientific records. They went in trying to find holes in previous studies to disprove a rise in temperature and came out agreeing with the consensus. They also looked for any poorly sited temperature sites to remove from the data.

I assume you feel the group wasn't independent enough? Richard Muller, who was on the team who undertook the study, is a known Climate Change skeptic. When presenting the information, he made sure everyone knew that this study doesn't say anything about WHY the temperature is rising, just that it is, in fact, rising.

Despite the fact that Muller's research was funded by the billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, whose business stands to benefit from continued global warming skepticism (i.e., if people continue their fossil fuel use unabated by concerns over global warming), Muller's detailed research of some 1.6 billion temperature records from more than 39,000 temperature-reporting stations worldwide led him to conclude that the "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures that he had once criticized was accurate after all.

You can't get any more independent than a Climate Study funded by the Koch brothers and headed up by Randy Muller finding that the Hockey Stick graph is an accurate representation of global temperatures over the last 60 years.

 

[KHarvey16]

Stuff like this is why I laugh at the global warming crowd. Oh if only that were the case. I believe the earth is warming, that man has some impact. Why cant they grasp that the government asking for more money to regulate something as incredibly complex, vague and poorly understood as climate change is a fail waiting to happen. Even if they knew what to do the money would go to whatever congressmans buddy running the next Solyndra.

Climate change isn't vague or poorly understood. Don't be fooled by those doing their best to obfuscate and muddy the debate.

 

[trickstar]

WHY THE FUCK ARE HIS PANTS UNDER HIS BALLS

WHY DOES HE HAVE A BELT ANYWAY IF HE'S GONNA WEAR THEM LIKE THAT

HOW THE FUCK DOES HE WALK TO BEGIN WITH

 

[shuyin_]

I can have a jolly old laugh as much as the next fellow, and indeed when I saw you first post the 'interglacial period' joke I did have a chuckle at how stupid it was.

Funny thing is, that part is not stupid at all, simply because it is true so i guess the joke's on you
According to scientists, we are in an interglacial period called the Holocene.

Maybe you should've laugh at the 'let's pollute the planet' part, don't you think?

At the very least you are a terrible comedian. At worst you are ignorant of very basic scientific facts. Either way, I can have a jolly old laugh at your expense. *har har*

I'm not sure who's more ignorant of us two, given the above
Not to mention you're the one lobbying for climate change (and i'm not saying it's not happening) even though you admitted you have no idea how it works. Take a minute to consider your position.. har har har

You may or may not be right about rising temperature. But you are too aggressive in imposing your point of view. Not to mention your reaction to my joke posts :/

 

[BorkBork]

I went to a talk last night by Paul Hawken, author of Natural Capitalism, the Ecology of Commerce, Blessed Unrest etc. He proposed that we think differently about the whole issue.

A skeptical view is a good thing, and everyone should be skeptical. Only that a climate skeptic should be someone who is actually skeptical that the earth's climate will be remain the same given the measured increase in CO2 level.

 

[Mudkips]

Your position is that the data is inaccurate. If that is true, multiple sets and sources of data are inaccurate in the same way, since the data sets agree. How is that not a logical consequence of your statement?

Because that's not what happens. Old data sets are "adjusted" (tampered with) to conform to "expected" (desired) results.

We have very little data about global temperatures over recent history, and what we do have is far from consistent (with regards to calibration, time, and location) or accurate.
We have virtually no direct data for the vast majority of the planet for any period more than a hundred years ago.

 

[Sky Chief]

Stuff like this is why I laugh at the global warming crowd. Oh if only that were the case. I believe the earth is warming, that man has some impact. Why cant they grasp that the government asking for more money to regulate something as incredibly complex, vague and poorly understood as climate change is a fail waiting to happen. Even if they knew what to do the money would go to whatever congressmans buddy running the next Solyndra.

Completely agree, world governments have already proved that they are terrible at micromanaging complex systems like the economy, just imagine the destruction they are capable of causing by micromanaging the environment as well.

 

[KHarvey16]

Because that's not what happens. Old data sets are "adjusted" (tampered with) to conform to "expected" (desired) results.

We have very little data about global temperatures over recent history, and what we do have is far from consistent (with regards to calibration, time, and location) or accurate.
We have virtually no direct data for the vast majority of the planet for any period more than a hundred years ago.

No it isn't. The data has been reviewed and confirmed as valid by numerous independent groups. If you disagree with them, take one data set and demonstrate to me how it was tampered with to produce expected results. Just one.

Oh, I forgot, they're all in it for that sweet climatology money!

 

[marrec]

Because that's not what happens. Old data sets are "adjusted" (tampered with) to conform to "expected" (desired) results.

We have very little data about global temperatures over recent history, and what we do have is far from consistent (with regards to calibration, time, and location) or accurate.
We have virtually no direct data for the vast majority of the planet for any period more than a hundred years ago.

This is factually innacurate.

 

[marrec]

Funny thing is, that part is not stupid at all, simply because it is true so i guess the joke's on you
According to scientists, we are in an interglacial period called the Holocene.

Maybe you should've laugh at the 'let's pollute the planet' part, don't you think?

You may or may not be right about rising temperature. But you are too aggressive in imposing your point of view. Not to mention your reaction to my joke posts :/

I'm not disagreeing that we are in between glacial cycles. I'm apprehensive of your 'it was just a joke' approach because of how many times you repeated the joke.

I don't have to be right about rising temperatures, science shows that temperatures are rising in a manner consistent with previous findings. Yes, I'm aggressive in my reactions to climate change skeptics because they usually are so terribly uninformed it has to be intentional. It's hard to break down the wall of intentional ignorance.

Edit: Durnit, I wish I could merge these two posts.

 

[Mudkips]

No it isn't. The data has been reviewed and confirmed as valid by numerous independent groups. If you disagree with them, take one data set and demonstrate to me how it was tampered with to produce expected results. Just one.

Oh, I forgot, they're all in it for that sweet climatology money!

What it always reviewed is the statistical analysis of the data. And there are dissenting opinions on that. The data itself is presumed to be valid in the vast majority of such reports.

How about you show me the original data logs from the temperature monitoring stations/devices, as well as the methodology with which is was measured? The simple fact is that there is no consistent, reliable data set for global temperatures going back any non-trivial amount of time.

This is factually innacurate.

Again:
How about you show me the original data logs from the temperature monitoring stations/devices, as well as the methodology with which is was measured?

 

[shuyin_]

I'm not disagreeing that we are in between glacial cycles. I'm apprehensive of your 'it was just a joke' approach because of how many times you repeated the joke.

Because i posted it two times you thought i wasn't joking? Come one dude.. 'let's pollute the planet' didn't tip you off? Seriously?

Anyway, i still think you reacted aggressively, as if you were offended or something.

 

[KHarvey16]

What it always reviewed is the statistical analysis of the data. And there are dissenting opinions on that. The data itself is presumed to be valid in the vast majority of such reports.

How about you show me the original data logs from the temperature monitoring stations/devices, as well as the methodology with which is was measured? The simple fact is that there is no consistent, reliable data set for global temperatures going back any non-trivial amount of time.


Again:
How about you show me the original data logs from the temperature monitoring stations/devices, as well as the methodology with which is was measured?

Are you talking about instrumented data? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has all of the data they used: www.berkeleyearth.org.

 

[marrec]

Again:
How about you show me the original data logs from the temperature monitoring stations/devices, as well as the methodology with which is was measured?

I don't have to show you, independent studies have looked at the data, trying to find holes in it, and seen that it is accurate.

My reply to a similar post as yours.

They weren't simply averaging, they were looking for obvious innacuracies to remove from the scientific records. They went in trying to find holes in previous studies to disprove a rise in temperature and came out agreeing with the consensus. They also looked for any poorly sited temperature sites to remove from the data.

I assume you feel the group wasn't independent enough? Richard Muller, who was on the team who undertook the study, is a known Climate Change skeptic. When presenting the information, he made sure everyone knew that this study doesn't say anything about WHY the temperature is rising, just that it is, in fact, rising.

Despite the fact that Muller's research was funded by the billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, whose business stands to benefit from continued global warming skepticism (i.e., if people continue their fossil fuel use unabated by concerns over global warming), Muller's detailed research of some 1.6 billion temperature records from more than 39,000 temperature-reporting stations worldwide led him to conclude that the "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures that he had once criticized was accurate after all.

 

[Something Wicked]

You can't get any more independent than a Climate Study funded by the Koch brothers and headed up by Randy Muller finding that the Hockey Stick graph is an accurate representation of global temperatures over the last 60 years.

I remember the recent thread about that group's "findings" and that Mr. Muller also apparently runs a company consulting others on "carbon credits." One hell of a skeptic there! It's not my fault the idiot Koch brothers wasted their money on some idiot Berkeley money grubbing hack.

 

[Mudkips]

I don't have to show you, independent studies have looked at the data, trying to find holes in it, and seen that it is accurate.

So your evidence is "I don't have to show you evidence."?

Are you talking about instrumented data? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has all of the data they used: www.berkeleyearth.org.

"Instrumented data"? You mean data measured with an instrument? Gee, that covers pretty much all qunatitative data, now doesn't it?

As for the Berkley set: LOL

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 preexisting data archives.

It's just an amalgam of other data.

And double LOL

Alert! We mistakenly posted the wrong text data file (TMAX instead of TAVG). We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. The correct files (fixed Friday 10/21/11) are now in place and may be downloaded below.

Triple LOL

% ------------------------------------
% Flag Code, Flag Description
%
3: USSOD: Derived Value
4: USSOD: Estimated Value
5: USSOD: Value manually validated
9: USSOD: Trace Precipitation
11: USSOD: Expert system approved edited value
12: USSOD: UNKNOWN FLAG & !!
13: USSOD: UNKNOWN FLAG - !!
14: USSOD: Valid data element
15: USSOD: Valid data element (from unknown source)
16: USSOD: Invalid data element (subsequent value replacement)
18: USSOD: Validity unknown
19: USSOD: Non-numeric data value replaced by its deciphered numeric value
21: USSOD: Time shifted value
22: USSOD: Precipitation estimated from snowfall
23: USSOD: Transposed digits
24: USSOD: Changed units
25: USSOD: Adjusted TMAX or TMIN by a multiple of + or -10 degrees
27: USSOD: Moved decimal point
29: USSOD: Subjectively derived value

Bolding mine, and it goes on and on.

Frthermore, how far back do you think this data goes?

 

[KHarvey16]

I remember the recent thread about that group's "findings" and that Mr. Muller also apparently runs a company consulting others on "carbon credits." One hell of a skeptic there! It's not my fault the idiot Koch brothers wasted their money on some idiot Berkeley money grubbing hack.

No one is surprised to see you resort to childish logical fallacies.

 

[KHarvey16]

"Instrumented data"? You mean data measured with an instrument? Gee, that covers pretty much all qunatitative data, now doesn't it?

As for the Berkley set: LOL


It's just an amalgam of other data.

And double LOL


Triple LOL


Bolding mine, and it goes on and on.

Frthermore, how far back do you think this data goes?

Instrumented meaning measured directly. In other words, a thermometer. We also have proxy measurements like tree rings and ice cores.

I looked twice, but I don't think I saw anything substantive in your post. Maybe try again?

 

[marrec]

So your evidence is "I don't have to show you evidence."?

I did show you evidence, you choose to remain ignorant.

It's a logical fallacy to say that because I cannot show you direct evidence, I am wrong. I'm not a climatologist. Never have I claimed to be. But I can look at the studies that have been done and the consensus that's been reached and come to the logical conclusion that global temperature is on the rise. Because I am reasonable.

 

[Orayn]

I did show you evidence, you choose to remain ignorant.

It's a logical fallacy to say that because I cannot show you direct evidence, I am wrong. I'm not a climatologist. Never have I claimed to be. But I can look at the studies that have been done and the consensus that's been reached and come to the logical conclusion that global temperature is on the rise. Because I am reasonable.

Evidence Mudkips doesn't like is invalid because NEENER NEENER NEENER.

 

[Mudkips]

Instrumented meaning measured directly. In other words, a thermometer. We also have proxy measurements like tree rings and ice cores.

I looked twice, but I don't think I saw anything substantive in your post. Maybe try again?

Tree rings, ice core samples, etc. are all "instrumented data".

You looked twice and missed the fact that the data set is an amalgam of other data sets produced using different methodologies, and the missed the data flag codes and descriptions that clearly indicate that data is manually tampered with, and missed the fact that the data set goes back a trivial amount of time?

Either you didn't read the post you responded to, or you have some reason to believe that those things don't matter. Care to elaborate?

I did show you evidence, you choose to remain ignorant.

It's a logical fallacy to say that because I cannot show you direct evidence, I am wrong. I'm not a climatologist. Never have I claimed to be. But I can look at the studies that have been done and the consensus that's been reached and come to the logical conclusion that global temperature is on the rise. Because I am reasonable.

You didn't show me evidence, actually.
I did not claim you were wrong.
Nor did I ever claim that the climate is not changing.

Show me where in this thread any of those things happened.

Evidence Mudkips doesn't like is invalid because NEENER NEENER NEENER.

No, it's invalid for drawing conclusions for the reasons I listed above, let alone for proposing absurd legislation, taxes and fines that will do nothing to help the environment. If you have better data, please show it.

 

[Something Wicked]

I did show you evidence, you choose to remain ignorant.

It's a logical fallacy to say that because I cannot show you direct evidence, I am wrong. I'm not a climatologist. Never have I claimed to be. But I can look at the studies that have been done and the consensus that's been reached and come to the logical conclusion that global temperature is on the rise. Because I am reasonable.

If you know so little of how the data is extracted and compiled, why do you so fervently believe in summaries these climatologists provide? Before throwing stones around, I think you're the one who needs further education on the subject.

 

[marrec]

You didn't show me evidence, actually.
I did not claim you were wrong.
Nor did I ever claim that the climate is not changing.

Show me where in this thread any of those things happened.

Because that's not what happens. Old data sets are "adjusted" (tampered with) to conform to "expected" (desired) results.

We have very little data about global temperatures over recent history, and what we do have is far from consistent (with regards to calibration, time, and location) or accurate.
We have virtually no direct data for the vast majority of the planet for any period more than a hundred years ago.

Let me ask you directly.

Do you agree with the scientific consesus that there is a 0.9 degree rise in global temperatures over the last 60 years?

If you know so little of how the data is extracted and compiled, why do you so fervently believe in summaries these climatologists provide? Before throwing stones around, I think you're the one who needs further education on the subject.

I ask you both the same question.

I'll put it even more simply, do you believe the 'Hockey Stick' graph is an accurate representation of global temperatures?

 

[KHarvey16]

Tree rings, ice core samples, etc. are all "instrumented data".

You looked twice and missed the fact that the data set is an amalgam of other data sets produced using different methodologies, and the missed the data flag codes and descriptions that clearly indicate that data is manually tampered, and missed the fact that the data set goes back a trivial amount of time?

Either you didn't read the post you responded to, or you have some reason to believe that those things don't matter. Care to elaborate?

You can imagine instrumented data to mean whatever you like. I'll use the definition those of us in reality have settled upon.

The Berkeley Surface Temperature study was conducted because Richard Muller was skeptical of the methodology used to derive the increase in instrumental temperature data over the past few decades. It uses raw data and applies its own methodology as detailed on the site you didn't read. The length of time this instrumental data covers is not trivial, unless of course it suggests something you don't want to believe, in which case I'm sure it must be deficient in some way.

Willful ignorance is shameful.

 

[Kosmo]

I can't believe everyone here is still on the climate change train - those in the know should be aware that the new meme is "biodiversity."

On instrumented data (ice cores, tree rings, etc). What do you think the margin of error is on something like that for both the extrapolated temperature and the time period over which it was said to have occurred? It seems hilarious to take instrumented data from the last 100 years that is gathered daily and try to compare that to data extrapolated back over 1000's of years and to make some assumption that the reported rate of change now is somehow able to be compared to those periods of time.

We know it was much warmer just 800 or so years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, which was preceded and followed by a cold period and now it may be getting slowly warmer - and we are to assume that a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in the last 130 years (+/- margin of error) is certainly abnormal?

It's laughable to draw that conclusion.

 

[Segnit]

The right side is on the high ground I see. Good.

Think of it this way: Is there anything wrong with trying to be on the safe side and at least try to steer towards a greener future? I don't think so.

On the other hand there is something wrong putting your hands up and saying "You know what? I've taken the economic and practical consideration into account and there is no way to make going greener worth a go".

That's just nonsense. There is no real argument for acting against going green but there is a real discussion about how much can be done and when.

 

[orion434]

Let me ask you directly.

Do you agree with the scientific consesus that there is a 0.9 degree rise in global temperatures over the last 60 years?

That is degree F correct?

 

[marrec]

That is degree F correct?

Celcius, 1.6F.

 

[Kosmo]

Celcius, 1.6F.

Source? NatGeo lists it as 1.4F (0.8C) since 1880.

 

[Something Wicked]

Let me ask you directly.

Do you agree with the scientific consesus that there is a 0.9 degree rise in global temperatures over the last 60 years?

I'm saying the current amount of data is not sufficient to make that very specific claim.

Also, I believe that "global average temperature" should not be a comprehensive meaningful statistic. If melting Arctic/Antarctic ice is the primary concern, then I would mostly care of the temperature recordings in the Arctic and Antarctica. And when it comes to ice sea, the claims of ice loss have been highly exaggerated or misinterpreted. Antarctica's ice has shifted from side of the continent to the other in the last few decades and the "reported Arctic sea ice loss" has been exaggerated, particularly by NASA's climate division, as one can see by their own satellite images.

 

[marrec]

Source? NatGeo lists it as 1.4F (0.8C) since 1880.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html

Muller says he listened to the sceptics and decided that an independent analysis was in order. He and his team decided to tackle the temperature record independently, on the basis of first principles. They say their results line up with previously published studies and suggest that the average global land temperature has risen by roughly 0.9 °C since the 1950s.