Originally Posted by Nomander
As I said, simply "You mean this don't you?" would have sufficed. Or, if they continue to use it, but it has no bearing on the content of their discussion, then I don't see the point unless you are interested in playing hall monitor or enjoy pointing out such pointless corrections to serve some ego boost. /shrug
In the end, quibbling over that issue is stupid because it avoids dealing with the main issue. That is, the position of AGW, its support, and the validity of it which if you haven't been paying attention has been called into question many times now because of their inability to defend their position without constantly moving the goal post or living in make believe with hind casts (which most are wrong as well) to which they claim validate their forecasts.
Well, in my case the argument is that the article given is simply a subtle attempt to again build the case for AGW. I already explained why, pointed out the details of such and well... crickets... /shrug
I believe the OP was claiming that any disaster scenario, oddity, or the like is simply fodder for the AGW position.
Look, you talk as if everything is objective and attempt to display yourself as being "neutral", but you then use snide insults like "denier" and the like which are nothing short of an obvious tell tale of a solid bias (and emotional one at that). So please excuse me if your continued attempts to display everything as balanced simply comes off to me as your spitting all over the place as you speak.
As I said, the basis of the article cites research as support to "suggest" its "might", "could", etc... when those positions are highly contested, many of which have severe problems with their methods and collections. So using them as a supporting factor in an additional issue to which understanding is limited is not being objective, it is attempting to push a bias.
NASA is known for its bias, its poor behavior concerning interaction with critical assessments of its work and one of its leads is a raving political activist and lunatic. So please excuse me if I don't view their obvious attempt at building a loose correlation for AGW support as a scientific and objective approach, especially when it is stacking assumptions upon assumptions.
They can show a downward trend over 30 years. Whoopie da do! What conclusions can you draw from such? We have showed gain and loss as well. How does this support it? Hmm? Frankly, they have no idea what is truly going on. Each year they miss their predictions by quite a bit. Each year they continue to predict record losses and for the last 3 years now they have been made to look silly doing such.
The arctic pole is up and down. It had some record gains, some losses, and its moving along. This year, it didn't surpass 2007 and the two years before that, there was steady growth above 2007. We will see what next year holds.
Also, I notice we don't mention the Antarctic which has for the last 2-3 years showed a far above the 30 year average growth.
In the end, all of this garbage about how this eludes to this and it "could" be that and "might" be this using a bunch of other "might be" research is simply pushing for a political agenda to which btw, these administrations have been caught with their pants down concerning.
Lets see that research can we? Go ahead and provide that verifiable and validated support for such a claim? I will bet you a shiny penny that we will find contested issues with all of that "validated" research as well. We don't need to look at those details, just trust in the all mighty NASA to be correct, maybe sacrifice a sheep to ole Hansen for effect too.
No you can not infer anything. Look, correlation is not validation for causation, EVER. yet this is the principals to which they are trying to build their case. Each area they evaluate they can not fully explain, so they bumble around with the numbers until it looks to fit what they think and then they point over to something else and go "oh lookie, that might match up!" Hence the constant screw ups with their predictions, the constant "unexpected" occurrences in the climate.
As I said, NASA holds an AGW position and the basis of the assumptions they make in this article uses that foundation to which is also assumptions that have not been validated properly. It is simply picking out a bunch of things that look like they fit together and just jamming together claiming that the correlation proves the causation. Its sloppy.
I agree this is a poor response, but don't act shocked, for the last decade we have watched AGW proponents as well as the researchers and administrations respond in such vile and despicable ways to anyone who simply asked for verification and validation or dared to question at such a wide level, that it is natural people are going to take a generalized view of anyone supporting AGW.
This is the bed they made for themselves. You can't play dirty politics, condemn people, ignore policy and law, insult, block opposing research, legislate draconian policies, and threaten people for years and then expect them to turn around and be polite. Climate science did this to itself and a lot of people are extremely angry at the arrogance, the incompetence and dirty politics in the field. Personally, I think they are going easy on them as they are lucky they didn't end up with people showing up with torches and pitchforks.
Even with all of their folly, they are still arrogant in their position. You yourself still use "denier". I have seen your past arguments on the topic, your arguments are strong AGW support and arrogant in their demeanor. Did you expect people to smile and be nice?
I have spent hundreds of pages trying to discuss the exact science of the issue here only to have the arrogant twits out there come in and thumb their nose while they insulted with childish words and infantile arguments and accusations. I have ignored the insults and stuck to the facts, only to be called names while they pointed to administration summaries and demanded appeals to authority. So please do not act as if you are the lone person here simply trying to discuss the issue scientifically. The fact is, you claim these are opinions, but then you fail to accept that the entire AGW hypothesis has not been validated to the extent to which they continue to make assumptions on the effects of climate, also an "opinion".
If you want to start a discussion, we need to go back to the basics, and cover that before you demand we accept assumptions upon assumptions to explain more assumptions as evidence.
We need to evaluate the surface data records, the collection methods, the satellite data and how they adjust all of these to conform to their current positions. We need to evaluate how they do their research, what they are doing with the research, what methods they are using to come to these conclusions. We need to understand what is being backed by models and how those models achieve their results, what they are actually doing, if they are correct or if they are simply making large assumptions as to it being correct.
You see, when you go on about how all of the other things they mention show support, I have contest with all of those other things so you need to provide the evidence of those so we can discuss them and see why my complaint about them using that as evidence to support this is really just one big garbage assumption that might as well be as accurate as throwing darts blind folded at a weather map.
Sure, provide the research of all that "validated" claims and we will go over it in detail and show why your current attempt to give this article any weight is simply hot air.
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
