Funny, too, because this is one topic where I don't agree with Manny.
Got it.On deciding to be irrelevant to you, Yonivore. It may bruise your ego to learn that is not a big step in either direction for me.
So, other than me, you're confident the rest of the forum -- both those for whom you deign relevance and those, like me, whom you do not -- will just take your assertion at face value?
No, no bruised ego.
Funny, too, because this is one topic where I don't agree with Manny.
But, do you think it's reasonable he won't support his assertions with sources?
He wasn't unreasonable with me when we discusses this.
I do think he's being unreasonable with you, but that's his choice. Much like when you choose the be unreasonable.
So, for you, reasonableness is personality driven.
How so?
Oh if certain people were to want to discuss it I would be more than happy to provide the proof to back up what I say. You're not certain people.
Recent "rates of change" are unremarkable.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/20...rature-change/
Recent rates of change for climate change will start to become negative, TBH. Winter is coming.
Recent, meaning the last 100 years.
Oh well then in that case I would say you're wrong.
I guess, if you think cherry-picked data, logical fallacies, and poor reasoning funny.
That link is simply more fodder for the OP. I counted about eight logical fallacies and a bunch of cherry-picked, misleading data.
It is a re-hash of all the types of things that makes me say that people like you are guilty of politically-driven pseudoscience.
Yet another emotionally appealing group of arguments that eschew logic and honest representations of data to make a case.
uh-huh.
(edit)
or if you prefer:
(crickets)
------------------------
Couldn't quite decide which to go with.
To be fair, the burden is on Manny, and he is being unreasonable.
At some point though, when you play games with people who essentially cheat, it becomes more than a little frustrating to stick to the rules. Can't say I blame him for giving y'all the finger.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-19-2011 at 11:28 AM.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...l_papers.shtml
Knock yourself out.
Interesting link.
It is obvious you didn't read the comments. The guy got pwned on his own blog.
I found the analysis somewhat spurious because of the way it joined older data with newer as if they were really comparable. They aren't, and that flawed starting assumption makes the conclusions drawn from it suspect.
Par for the course from skeptics, it seems.
(edit 1)
Was going to put this in a seperate post, but let's put it here.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post.
Again, par for the course.
edit 2:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-19-2011 at 11:30 AM.
"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "
"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."
Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics
"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL
You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.
Pretty generic RG. Which one is relevant to "rate of change"?
No !
I've encountered the same thing over all the Bush Hating.
Well put.
Now, back to Manny and the latest rebuttal to the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans
What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.
It's not that we don't play by the rules, it's that Manny won't even acknowledge there is a reasonable counter to his "consensus" that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. This is but one.
The other, longer running counterpoint is that Al Gore refuses to live like there's a crisis while he continues to tell us there is one.
And, speaking of unanswered questions. Exactly what is the the optimal temperature for earth?
Its tough to say. Perhaps you could try a bit of reading?
Yoni, the belief that the deep oceans are holding a lot of heat is not new in the least. You're analysis of that article is one of ignorance and shows your lack of familiarity on the subject. Perhaps you and Darrin could try reading up on the subject a bit more as opposed to cherry picking what you want?
Actuallly, more on the subject of warming oceans, the behavior of the Arctic this summer gives a good indicator of just how much more energy the oceans are beginning to hold. In 2007 when we had the lowest extent of sea ice, there was a confluence of conditions that only happen on average once every 2 decades or so. This year, when we for all intents and purposes tied that extent level we had no such conditions and we were losing ice even at times when the air temp was substantially cool to at the least prevent melt from occurring. The reason for this was the fact that the melt was occurring from the bottom due to oceanic heat content that was very high.
Although we did not reach the lowest extent of sea ice on record outside of one measuring system, we most certainly did - once again - set the record for lowest volume of sea ice which is the better measurement since we definitely do not live in a two dimensional world.
If it's not new, why are the scientists just now figuring out it could be the reason their global warming predictions were wrong?
It's not a hard question, Manny.
From the article...first paragraph;
Mystery? Wonder? Yeah, sounds like they've been onto this for quite awhile, Manny.The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.
Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly. …
AlGore acolytes are embarrassed the earth isn't heating up like their models predicted it would. Usually, in the world of science, empirical evidence contradicting a theory tends to refute it. Not so with the religion of Global Warming. Empirical evidence that contradicts their articles of faith just cause them to tinker with theory so as to make it harder to falsify.
This is just another hypothesis to provide another faulty assumption to plug into their already failed models.
I'm sorry since when do the scientists work for Reuters and write bylines? If you and others were smart enough to tell the difference between a scientific study and a news article it might do you some good.
Tell you what. Show me the place in the referenced study either of those 2 things are declared.
Thanks in advance!!!!
The specialists at Cherry Picking data are the alarmists.
Did you watch the video I posted? Here it is again:
10 days ago was the first I saw of it, but it highlights many points we 'deniers' have said over and over, and the excuses saying we were wrong are all very lame.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
