Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[ParadigmShifter]

If the weather stations used BOLD CAPS, or even better, crayons, it would carry MUCH MORE weight.

 

[choxorn]

If the weather stations used BOLD CAPS, or even better, crayons, it would carry MUCH MORE weight.

Ah, but using RIDICULOUSLY HUGE FONTS makes it carry even more weight!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because I'm just about the only one in here (besides Berzerker) who knows how to really figure the issue out.

http://kikkerkont.web-log.nl/photos/uncategorized/hahaha.jpg
http://sperone.free.fr/images/extraz/PICS15/hahaha.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2047343495_d9c22d4cb8.jpg
http://www.babybente.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hahaha.JPG
http://static.zoom.nl/EB9220B86912FD3AB54EBB363BFF1F76-hahaha--wat-een-mop___.jpg

 

[uppi]

I have to say, BasketCase makes quite a convincing argument for the existence of human-caused Global Warming.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You're not seeing it because you're not reading my posts. I already explained why. I'm not gonna spell it out for you again.

No, no you didn't. You did not explain why too many data points are needed and you did not explain why an average based on enough data points is wrong. You just talked about how it should be done your way without exposition and that it is needed to make you feel better.

Those weather stations cover every conceivable biome on Earth. Here's also another interesting fact: climate data can be collected from places that aren't weather stations! I could do some digging up on sources and find hundreds more measurement points to add to the weather stations of the world.

I find it amusing how you complained about weather stations being near cities and then ask for more weather stations near cities in another post.

And I said very clearly that I ignored that claim.

Why bring it up then?

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes.

By all means, spill the beans.

 

[Dragonlord]

Dear God, I've said it a million times. READ MY GODDAMN POSTS. I'm not a denialist, for Christ's sake, I'm an undecidedist. [/B]

I've yet to see a post from you where you argue in favor of AGW - but for several years now, whenever a thread about it pops up, there you are as spokesman of the doubters.
You've argued that the Earth isn't warming at all, you've argued that the warming is possibly preventing an ice age, you've argued that scientists are wrong all the time - citing some articles about a coming Ice Age from the 70s - and now you are arguing that we don't have good enough sensor coverage.
See, some of us do read your goddamn posts (your words, not mine) and even remember them.
If you don't like the label denialist, fine - but your posting history speaks for itself.

On the policy angle, I don't really know what to think. I tend to be of the opinion that reductions in CO2 emissions should come without measureably impacting the economic well-being of people who depend on energy production (essentially everyone). Policy issues are where I want to see the global warming debate going - the science is hard to dispute, but what we should do, if anything, is much more up in the air, if you'll pardon the pun.

Finally, please ignore the people who sling the "denialist" label around. Name-calling doesn't mean anything, and it's just an annoying distraction from the main issue.

If that last is aimed at me - I certainly don't "sling the denialist label" around. I had only seen it as a description, not a "name" (as in slur).

As to the main issue - I totally agree with you, as a matter of fact. In fact, I made that very point in previous threads - we should be concentrating on what measures shoud be taken, not STILL arguing about whether AGW is happening. For most people, that question has long since been answered - but some people will never be convinced, no matter what. As you say, the science is hard to dispute - but some people still manage it anyway.
It just get's my goat when our intelligence is again and again insulted with specious slanted arguments.

 

[Abegweit]

So tell me, why is the Sahara so dry.

Interesting that you should bring that up. For eighty per cent of the last inter-glacial period, the global temperature was warmer than it is now, primarily up until about 2000BC. During that period, there were lakes in the Sahara. Warmer is wetter. It's basic physics.

 

[Abegweit]

It's hard to say that the "environmentalists were right", because the mainstream environmentalist organisations still don't have a way of increasing their credibility. On AGW, yeah, that prediction was correct (you can tell something was up, since governments started believing the data 20 years ago).

Really? So you think that governments pushing for more government is somehow evidence of anything other than the iron law that government always pushes for more government? And uses any excuse it can find to do push it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I thought that was Salt N Pepa


Link to video.

 

[choxorn]

Interesting that you should bring that up. For eighty per cent of the last inter-glacial period, the global temperature was warmer than it is now, primarily up until about 2000BC. During that period, there were lakes in the Sahara.

That was because of a slight shift in the axial tilt that occurs once every 20,000 years or so, causing monsoon rains to switch between not going that far North and going that far North. For the past 5000 years, we've been in one of the periods in which monsoons obviously haven't been occuring in the Sahara desert.

Warmer is wetter. It's basic physics.

Well, then, colder must be drier, and as a life-long resident of the Pacific Northwest, I'll have to say that that's BS.

 

[Abegweit]

That was because of a slight shift in the axial tilt that occurs once every 20,000 years or so, causing monsoon rains to switch between not going that far North and going that far North. For the past 5000 years, we've been in one of the periods in which monsoons obviously haven't been occuring in the Sahara desert.

Reference please. By the by, there are no monsoon rains in Africa. Where did you get this crud from anyway? As I said, give us the reference.

Well, then, colder must be drier, and as a life-long resident of the Pacific Northwest, I'll have to say that that's BS.

I assure you that, if it got cold enough, the Pacific Northwest would be as dry as Antarctica. Basic physics. Warmists simply have no clue about basic physics.

 

[Bootstoots]

If that last is aimed at me - I certainly don't "sling the denialist label" around. I had only seen it as a description, not a "name" (as in slur).

The problem with words like "denialist" is that they're easy to dispute, and the resulting disputes don't have anything to do with the main issue. Basketcase's position isn't really that he believes that AGW is definitely not real. It appears to be more nuanced than that, and if you call him a denialist, he can just come back by refuting that and ignoring more substantial points against his position.

I'm a frequent lurker if an infrequent poster, and I've seen enough threads degenerate into pointless arguments about words that I wanted to make sure that didn't happen here.

 

[Bootstoots]

I assure you that, if it got cold enough, the Pacific Northwest would be as dry as Antarctica. Basic physics. Warmists simply have no clue about basic physics.

Uh, most of the scientists working on this have degrees in physics, and they do agree that AGW is happening.

You're right that warmer is wetter on average. However, a global temperature rise could still cause droughts in some localities. I'm not convinced that we know specifically what areas will become drier; parts of Africa and the American Southwest seem to be good bets, for what it's worth. The main issue is that monkeying with a variable in a complex system can have unpredictable effects, and we're so adapted to the status quo that any change in precipitation patterns could have disastrous consequences, especially for poor areas like sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[Abegweit]

Uh, most of the scientists working on this have degrees in physics, and they do agree that AGW is happening.

Your first error is your assumption that I could care anything about these people who have spent many years of their lives learning how to lie. It takes long training but eventually they bought the candy. After all, their careers depend on supporting the official lie. So, In short, I really don't care how many degrees they have and, in fact, I hold it against them.

You're right that warmer is wetter on average. However, a global temperature rise could still cause droughts in some localities. I'm not convinced that we know specifically what areas will become drier; parts of Africa and the American Southwest seem to be good bets, for what it's worth. The main issue is that monkeying with a variable in a complex system can have unpredictable effects, and we're so adapted to the status quo that any change in precipitation patterns could have disastrouIts consequences, especially for poor areas like sub-Saharan Africa.

Tiresome. Really tiresome statist nonsense. Warmer is wetter. Wetter is better. CO2 is plant food. Plant food is good. Yes it is possible that in a warmer wetter richer world, there might the odd loser.

But that it is NOT where the warmists come from at all. They assume, against all evidence and against common sense, that warmer is worser.

 

[Arwon]

"Warmist." "Statist."

Yes, clearly this is a scentific argument being made, not a political conspiracy theory.

 

[Abegweit]

"Warmist." "Statist."

Yes, clearly this is a scentific argument being made, not a political conspiracy theory.

Warmist=statist. Ever notice how the two always go together?

In other news, politics is a conspiracy. The whole point of politics is to impel the state to favour some special interest against the general public. (see Adam Smith on Guilds)

 

[Berzerker]

the sahara tends to expand and contract with the monsoons and they depend on the earth's tilt, larger tilt means the sun travels further north taking the relevant hadley cell further north with it.

and cooler climates tend to be drier, thats one way climatologists determine past climates - by the amount of dust and dirt in ice cores.

more dust means more deserts means cooler climates

 

[Abegweit]

the sahara tends to expand and contract with the monsoons and they depend on the earth's tilt, larger tilt means the sun travels further north taking the relevant hadley cell further north with it.

and cooler climates tend to be drier, thats one way climatologists determine past climates - by the amount of dust and dirt in ice cores.

more dust means more deserts means cooler climates

I already asked for a reference. This does not qualify.

And WTH does dust have to do with CO2 anyway? Why did you bring it up?

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't say dust had anything to do with co2, I said it was one way climatologists determine past climates - more dust means cooler climates and expanded deserts. And I gave you a reference - hadley cells. Go look it up yourself, I dont give a damn what you asked. And dont expect me cooperate with your needs, your attitude sucks.