U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:32 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,355,055 times
Reputation: 7618

Advertisements

I wonder what the GW crowd has to say about the latest findings:

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

Quote:
The amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea - which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace - reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites. The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began.
Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record ? The Register

I guess the GW crowd will now say the satellites are reporting erroneous data....
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:33 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,723,466 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
Ok, I'll make a graph with "HOOMANS' on the x-axis and "GLOBAL WHATEVER" on the y-axis and single line with a positive slope. I'll say it came from Watt-Up-Bro!, so you'll have to believe it.

We seriously can't make this any simpler to understand.
You are amusing. You were the same poster who made these accusations about my graphs I supplied concerning sea ice, but were too ignorant to realize they were directly from the reporting agencies.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
29,527 posts, read 29,712,046 times
Reputation: 11990

Watts Up with Sea Ice? - YouTube
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:37 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,723,466 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
There's no single study that does this, just a linkage between many studies. That's how scientific theories are formed.

The human fingerprint in global warming

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

"Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning."

Believe me, it hurts to copy and paste from a website rather than from scientific studies themselves. But you've gotta do what you've gotta do.

For my next trick, I'll link to a single study that proves gravity!

No offense, but I would pick someone other than Cook's site to use for your arguments. Cook manipulates his posts in moderation, changing not only his responses after the fact (when he says something stupid), but also modifying the replies of others to bolster his own position (including scientists who have come to his site to defend their work). He has been caught doing this several times and denies it even in the face of direct evidence.

Not really a good icon for your position.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:38 PM
 
Location: WA
4,247 posts, read 7,477,979 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
You are amusing. You were the same poster who made these accusations about my graphs I supplied concerning sea ice, but were too ignorant to realize they were directly from the reporting agencies.
I did realize that they were copied and pasted from a scientists's website and reinterpreted by a non-scientist who thinks he knows more about climate science than climate scientists. It's fairly easy to find the source code for the links.

You also linked heavily to Watt-up-bro-dog, and I pointed that out as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:39 PM
 
Location: WA
4,247 posts, read 7,477,979 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
No offense, but I would pick someone other than Cook's site to use for your arguments. Cook manipulates his posts in moderation, changing not only his responses after the fact (when he says something stupid), but also modifying the replies of others to bolster his own position (including scientists who have come to his site to defend their work).

Not really a good icon for your position.
I agree, but we linked to articles from the journal Science and she didn't think that was a credible source of information.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:42 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,723,466 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
*chuckle*

Try to keep up.

Final 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Summary – Sea Ice News #30 | Watts Up With That?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:57 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,723,466 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
I did realize that they were copied and pasted from a scientists's website and reinterpreted by a non-scientist who thinks he knows more about climate science than climate scientists. It's fairly easy to find the source code for the links.

You also linked heavily to Watt-up-bro-dog, and I pointed that out as well.

Not from a scientist website, rather from the reporting agency. Data is data. Now certainly one can spin it many ways, but notice my evaluations were not of assumptive direction of the data, rather the observational results of it.

Having it interpreted is merely asking for the opinion of what the data means as it pertains to future events and that is something that even they are unable to properly establish (the models have failed consistently).

I link to watts because his reference pages are simply a long list of data to the reporting agencies. It is nice to be able to see all of the data in one nice picture.

For instance, sea ice:

Sea Ice Reference Page | Watts Up With That?

Note there is no commentary, no "interpretations", simply the data cited from their original sources. You can see the same for many types of data. It really is a nice culmination of straight information.

I read watts because many bring their work to his site to have it openly audited by the public, not only from those on the skeptical side, but AGW supporters as well. Not only that, but many researchers have nothing but good things to say about Watt's site.

I also read climate audit (used to Read RC, but their antics became just ridiculous with their moderation making it as bad as Cooks site).


Point is, if you have a problem with what I provide, you are free to object to it and show me what is wrong with it. I have no problems with you making a valid objection to something that is weak or missing, or assumptive in something I provide, but to dismiss it without proper reason is silly.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:04 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,723,466 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
I agree, but we linked to articles from the journal Science and she didn't think that was a credible source of information.
The poster said they did not prove the position, merely asserted to it.

I am vaguely familiar with that research, I think it was discussed pretty heavily during the time it was released, but I am sketchy on the details. Point is, to this date, there is no research that proves the position of CAGW. Those positions rely heavily on modeled assumptions, which is not evidence of anything. I think that was the posters point.

Though as I said, it was pay walled, so maybe they were assuming that was the case (if there was definitive evidence, it would be a big topic in the sites I read).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:23 PM
 
Location: WA
4,247 posts, read 7,477,979 times
Reputation: 2352
Is "it reads like the Drudge Report" a proper reason it seems silly to me?

I like the pic of James Hansen looking quite proud to be arrested during a protest with the caption "An Embarrassing image for NASA". Really? NASA's embarrassed that a retired employee is engaging in activism?

Also: "This paper marks, in my opinion, the death of credibility for Nature on global warming" Uh huh.

I know Matt Ridley is a fan of the site. Matt Ridley also believes in AGW.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Not from a scientist website, rather from the reporting agency. Data is data. Now certainly one can spin it many ways, but notice my evaluations were not of assumptive direction of the data, rather the observational results of it.

Having it interpreted is merely asking for the opinion of what the data means as it pertains to future events and that is something that even they are unable to properly establish (the models have failed consistently).

I link to watts because his reference pages are simply a long list of data to the reporting agencies. It is nice to be able to see all of the data in one nice picture.

For instance, sea ice:

Sea Ice Reference Page | Watts Up With That?

Note there is no commentary, no "interpretations", simply the data cited from their original sources. You can see the same for many types of data. It really is a nice culmination of straight information.

I read watts because many bring their work to his site to have it openly audited by the public, not only from those on the skeptical side, but AGW supporters as well. Not only that, but many researchers have nothing but good things to say about Watt's site.

I also read climate audit (used to Read RC, but their antics became just ridiculous with their moderation making it as bad as Cooks site).


Point is, if you have a problem with what I provide, you are free to object to it and show me what is wrong with it. I have no problems with you making a valid objection to something that is weak or missing, or assumptive in something I provide, but to dismiss it without proper reason is silly.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top