ClimateGate

No I am not going to talk to you about anything as long as you dare to disregard blatant facts that I provide you evidence for. I might as well be talking to a wall. So please make up your mind: Do you understand that the graph clearly demonstrate that the earth is warming up? Yes or no? If not please falsify that graph data.

 

Let's see for falsification:
1. A lot of data from suspected defect machines is still put in the graph
2. There is no information about which sensors surroundings have changed into an urban area

I don't have the exact numbers for these two, so i don't know how big the influence of them was.

And also Rebel Head, that is one of the most annoying positions you can take in any debate. You can stall every discussion by saying that at one point the evidence will be disproven, with no time machine to check it out, we're kinda stuck.

 

[citation needed] please.

 

well, for the second one i can't give you a citation, since the data isn't there.

For the first one, you can see on the nasa site(at least i thought it was nasa), that they are filtering broken sensors by disregarding any data that is not within a certain range of the common temperature in that period. What they don't do however, is filter out sensors which consistently give values just around this range. Also, aren't there a lot heavier sudden spikes downwards in temperature then upwards(a heatwave is 5 degrees warmer, while unexpected cold is 15 degrees colder then the average in that time period), which would be filtered out?

Can't give you any big guys mentioning this as i never really followed the climate discussion, just looked on the site of the organization that made the graph to see how they made it.

 

I am skeptical that the methods used to acquire that data can pose any accuracy. Why don't you tell me how it is done, and then maybe I can decide if its "blatant" fact or not.

 

Oh well that's not going to cut it, sorry. If you have some good links on the sensor placement I wouldnt mind seeing that but speculations is not going to make me change my mind about widely accepted fact which is usually contested by people who also believe that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. (not that I would mean you)

@rebelhand: it took me about 5 seconds in google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...United_States_land_surface_temperature_record. Read it to find out how did they get the data.

 

Well there you have it, you don't even know if its true, you're just putting your faith in it because it has been widely accepted. That is okay, so long as you understand that the data on that graph might one day change drastically when we learn more. As I have said, things in the past that were once widely accepted have now been disregarded as they are false. Going to go a little off topic here, but I do believe 9/11 was controlled demolition just so you know. I am no expert in engineering, and physics, but I have heard the story of a fireman who is a family friend of mine that survived the wreckage while inside the second tower. Him, and his associates with him heard what sounded like bombs going off right before and during the collapse. They aren't alone, there many testimonies saying similar things.

 

No I am not putting faith in absolutely anything. I despise faith. I believe it because the data that I found seems to be in agreement with the theory that the earth is warming up. The fact that the overwhelming majority of educated people in this area seems to be in agreement with me is just a cherry top but is in no way my primary motivation for believing this.
And if you want another 9/11 rant feel free to create another topic, not here.

 

Your "facts" are so because they agree with whatever you were already thinking?
Great show of credibility right there

 

No they are facts because they are facts. These are the measured temperatures over the past century. They are not facts because I agree with them. I agree with them because they are facts.

 

Youreally shoul read the Chrichton speach if you havn't yet.

@Rebel Head
If you want to disscuss 9/11 take it to the appropiate topic. Also, personal anecdotes are pretty meaningless, try and find more conrete sources of evidence.

@ijffdrie
I think you have made the most interesting point so far regarding cold extremes being more extreme than warm extremes. I would be interested to know if you can find any additional information on the topic.

 

Please stop asking me to read it. I read part of it and if you don't invest that bit of time into actually telling me what the point of his speech is and what point are you trying to do I see no reason why I should invest my time into reading every single thing you link here.
In short - no I will not respond to it.

 

I have only asked you twice, and the second time only because it seems relevant to one of your prefered arguments. For the record I don't link things very often, I am not someone who tries to overwhelm people with links and information, I just thought it was interesting and relevant to the disscussion. More importnatly he doesn't just make one point, he makes several, all meant to provide a perspective, just telling you his points doesn't show you the perspective. Here is a list I think were in there though.

You got two of them right in your earlier comment, science and politics are a bad combination, and scientific consensus shouldn't mean jack. He makes a few others as well, one being that the path of the global warming debate is eerily similar to some of the political science he mentioned earlier, and hopefully I can summarize his fourth in a quote:

He also made a point in a different speech about our track record when screwing with the enviroment. But I wasn't going to bring it up yet.

Finally, I have two goals in this thread, to keep it on topic and to keep it civil. Getting mouthy with me doesn't achieve either. That goes for everyone involved, Rebel I didn't catach it earlier, but personal attacks are strictly forbidden here and considering you have already burned whatever slack you may have had, I wouldn't continue if you want to stick around.

 

But I simply don't care. This is the enormous arrogance that everyone seems to take when talking about global warming issue. You keep dragging in your personal opinions and you want to turn this into a political debate.
That's why I am steering clear out of this. I am interested in the science behind this which is perfectly sound. Unless you actually have evidence that the earth is not warming up but in fact cooling as Rebel Head claims then please keep your silly conspiracy theories to yourself or at least don't claim that they have the authority to challenge the standing explenation of out changing climate. You misunderstand the entire point of scientific inquiry.

 

Your calling me arrogant? Pot calling the kettly black? You don't have a clue what my position on global warming is, in fact if I remember correctly with the exception of my 2 or 3 most recent I have been arguing on your side. All I did was offer a perspective that I find to be interesting, and you imdieately think I am some conspiracy theorist nut job that doesn't understand the scientific process. Pull your head out of your ***. In your last few posts you havn't made any arguments and just claimed your intellectual superiority while telling everyone else to get lost. If that is your position that's fine but it doesn't make it right.

P.S. On a different note I am guessing you missed the part where the speech I provided a link to was given by a rather well respected author at Cal-Tech but that doesn't mean anything does it?

 

I could care less what your position is. And why would you expect me to provide any arguments when I already presented one and nobody - even after several pages - was able to refute it? Hello guys? The graph is still there!

 

I would say these are all interesting question about your graph. As for me personally I am not disputing the graph, I never have which is obviously something you missed in your various tirades.

 

And I asked for the citations which - I was told - cannot be provided.

 

I notice that graph is from a Wikipedia link, which I've always been told isn't the best site to look for scientific facts, however that has nothing to do with the argument. I think the global climate dip from the 40s to the 80s does show something was going on during that time period, especially since gas emissions from factories were on the rise during that time but didn't seem to have a raise on the global temperature average, not to mention that cars were become extremely popular during that period due to the creation of suburb neighborhoods brought on by increased cash savings after WWII.

Ijffdrie's arguments do have credit. Some faulty ones were likely to have been missed, while some perfectly working ones may have been considered faulty. Considering that populations have been increasing on average, it is likely that some locations of the machines did become urbanized. This would affect the yearly readings because due to asphalt, concrete, and steel absorbing more heat than normal ground and losing it less quickly, urban centers are warmer than the countryside around them. So, a data site that becomes urbanized during its lifetime would produce higher readings after the urbanization, even if the world wide average was the same or even slightly decreased.

Also, since you are the one who presented the graph, it's logical that it would be your job to answer the questions people have on it. Your data becomes worthless to those you're arguing against if you can't answer the questions they have about it. That's like saying to an atheist that God exists, but if you can't prove it does or answer questions as to why you think something is proof, it won't affect their ideas, and is likely to make them be more confident against you. As the presenter, it's your job to convince the audience, not their job to convince you otherwise.

 

How about a citation by Ramses IJff, the guy who looked at the method and thought about it?

Looking and thinking is less valid if you don't look for other people who think first?