Global temperature has not increased since 1998

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by TheAlphaPaul

The very next sentence:

"But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years."

Good point - everyone knows that experts' predictions are just as accurate as recorded data.

[MuskyMelon]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

I've seriously looked into it. You save 30% right off heating and cooling bills right off the top because of the shape.

If you ever get one, make sure to send some pics

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

How incredibly like you to not show the slightest interest in seeking understanding on the issue.

jack, I'd be careful if I were you. It would be a stretch to consider your myopia "understanding."

Let's not point fingers.

Sometimes admitting one doesn't know, indicates wisdom. It sure as hell trumps your aggressive ignorance.

Get back to me when we "understand" global warming or religion.

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by MuskyMelon

Sounds like the earth must have spun 90 degrees, the poles are now the equator, and the equator the poles

If the earth spun 90 degrees, it would just be 6 hours later, and everyone's SCN's would be seriously ****ed up. Are you talking about a 90 degree shift in the earth's orbital plane relative to the plane perpendicular to its axis?

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

jack, I'd be careful if I were you. It would be a stretch to consider your myopia "understanding."

Let's not point fingers.

Sometimes admitting one doesn't know, indicates wisdom. It sure as hell trumps your aggressive ignorance.

Get back to me when we "understand" global warming or religion.

Science helps us understand GW/GCC. Science is open to continual refinement of our understanding of issues as new information becomes available. One who requires a standard of "perfect knowledge" as a prerequisite to giving serious consideration to what current knowledge tells us, and at what degree of certainty, suggests that that person is distinctly unwise.

Religion is not explained by science.

What's odd is how scientific study and scientific method re: GW/GCC is demonized in this country by the political right. There s/b no differentiating correlation between science study and political affiliation.

you =

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Science helps us understand GW/GCC. Science is open to continual refinement of our understanding of issues as new information becomes available. One who requires a standard of "perfect knowledge" as a prerequisite to giving serious consideration to what current knowledge tells us, and at what degree of certainty, suggests that that person is distinctly unwise.

Religion is not explained by science.

What's odd is how scientific study and scientific method re: GW/GCC is demonized in this country by the political right. There s/b no differentiating correlation between science study and political affiliation.

you =

Interesting post. While I agree that "perfect knowledge" shouldn't be needed to form an opinion, I think we are a long way from "usable knowledge" regarding weather patterns.

I laugh out loud when global warming conferences are cancelled due to cold.

You might be surprised to learn that I used to be pretty sure that global warming was not only happening but man-made. Then I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton.

That opened my eyes. Have you read it? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Interesting post. While I agree that "perfect knowledge" shouldn't be needed to form an opinion, I think we are a long way from "usable knowledge" regarding weather patterns.

I laugh out loud when global warming conferences are cancelled due to cold.

I hope you understand GW/GCC != Weather Patterns.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

You might be surprised to learn that I used to be pretty sure that global warming was not only happening but man-made. Then I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton.

That opened my eyes. Have you read it? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

No I haven't read it, but you know it's fiction, right? "State of Fear" has been discussed on this board many, many times. Do a "Crichton" search. Here's a couple of analysis pieces re: the book.

RealClimate - Part 1

RealClimate - Part 2

George Will Response

... there are many other analysis pieces, and from other sources, if you'll just do the search.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Cym Jim

If the earth spun 90 degrees, it would just be 6 hours later, and everyone's SCN's would be seriously ****ed up. Are you talking about a 90 degree shift in the earth's orbital plane relative to the plane perpendicular to its axis?

I hear a whooshing sound like I heard when you told Mike I don't live in castles. A whooshing sound that occurs when something passes over some peoples heads.

[MuskyMelon]

Originally Posted by Cym Jim

If the earth spun 90 degrees, it would just be 6 hours later, and everyone's SCN's would be seriously ****ed up. Are you talking about a 90 degree shift in the earth's orbital plane relative to the plane perpendicular to its axis?

The earth is round fool, it could spin in any direction in the make believe G.W. world.

[MuskyMelon]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

I hear a whooshing sound like I heard when you told Mike I don't live in castles. A whooshing sound that occurs when something passes over some peoples heads.

You should close the doors on your dome and do some thinking....

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

I hope you understand GW/GCC != Weather Patterns.

No I haven't read it, but you know it's fiction, right? "State of Fear" has been discussed on this board many, many times. Do a "Crichton" search. Here's a couple of analysis pieces re: the book.

RealClimate - Part 1

RealClimate - Part 2

George Will Response

... there are many other analysis pieces, and from other sources, if you'll just do the search.

jack, it's actually a fictional story within a nonfictional context. He spends most of the time showing trends, graphs, and tendencies of various groups towards hysteria.

You'll find the trends very interesting. I was angry at how mislead most lay people are.

I've asked you to consider other viewpoints. I suggest picking this book up.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by TheAlphaPaul

The very next sentence:

"But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years."

Did these experts predict in 1998 that there would be no global temperature increase in the next 10 years

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

jack, it's actually a fictional story within a nonfictional context. He spends most of the time showing trends, graphs, and tendencies of various groups towards hysteria.

You'll find the trends very interesting. I was angry at how mislead most lay people are. (<= )

I've asked you to consider other viewpoints. I suggest picking this book up.

So you didn't read the analysis of the scientific arguments presented in Crichton's book? ... You didn't do a WH search to browse the several discussions re: State of Fear? What a surprise.

Yes, I'm well aware of the book's premise and its inclusion of scientific data. But the value of scientific data is degraded when, for instance, one factor like CO2 levels is argued relative to climate while ignoring other known "forcing factors", or local weather is presented as representing global trends, or expert testimony is cherry-picked and presented out of context, or fiction like the "70s ice age scare" is represented as truth, and on and on .... Jeebus, poly, Crichton demonstrated the same confusion as you did re: the very basic difference between "weather" and "climate".

... and you want me to "consider other viewpoints" while ignoring their faulty foundation, and suggest that I invest time by "picking the book up", regardless???

How about focusing on how the spectrum of presented arguments stand up to the scrutiny of well qualified individuals, and go from there ...

[IndoSpartan]

Are we in the Cascadian Disturbance or not?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

So you didn't read the analysis of the scientific arguments presented in Crichton's book? ... You didn't do a WH search to browse the several discussions re: State of Fear? What a surprise.

Yes, I'm well aware of the book's premise and its inclusion of scientific data. But the value of scientific data is degraded when, for instance, one factor like CO2 levels is argued relative to climate while ignoring other known "forcing factors", or local weather is presented as representing global trends, or expert testimony is cherry-picked and presented out of context, or fiction like the "70s ice age scare" is represented as truth, and on and on .... Jeebus, poly, Crichton demonstrated the same confusion as you did re: the very basic difference between "weather" and "climate".

... and you want me to "consider other viewpoints" while ignoring their faulty foundation, and suggest that I invest time by "picking the book up", regardless???

How about focusing on how the spectrum of presented arguments stand up to the scrutiny of well qualified individuals, and go from there ...

Why do you bother to post? What do you get out of this board?

It's obvious you have no interest nor respect for any other viewpoints. It appears that your primary motive is to prove anyone who disagrees with you "wrong." Worse, your go to move is to immediately attack the motives and credibility of anyone who disagrees with you.

Just look at your response to the book: State of Fear. You admit that you haven't read it. Instead of reading it and forming your own opinion, you offer up someone else's interpretation that seems to fit your preconceived notions.

What a shallow and lonely existence you must lead.

I take a much more balanced view. With all due respect, it's also the more enlighted approach.

I read State of Fear. Instead of being blinded by my former prejudices and beliefs (I believed the Global Warming Theory to be virtually unassailable), I read it and thought about it. This opened my eyes. I then began to seek out the opinions of others who didn't swallow convential thinking regarding global warming.

I read the links you sent. I found the responses afterward to be quite interesting.

We simply don't understand all the variables associated with climate changes. To imply that we do, is ridiculous.

I'm going to repeat: I don't know. But, in contrast to you, I'm willing to think about both sides of the argument.

To anyone (not jack, sadly) who is interested, not every scientist is as quick to dismiss State of Fear. I offer S. Fred Singer: Review of "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton | cooler heads

Here are his credentials (from the link above):

Atmospheric and space physicist S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and serves as president of the non-profit Science & Environmental Policy Project .<SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project > He has held a number of academic posts and federal positions, including as Director of the US Weather Satellite Service and as Chief Scientist of the US Department of Transportation. He has received many civic and professional honors and holds degrees in Electrical Engineering and a D.Sc. from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. His most recent book is "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate."

[Polynikes]

Here are a few more voices of support for State of Fear.

1. Science Verifies Crichton's State of Fear Assertions - by James M. Taylor - The Heartland Institute. By: James M. Taylor: managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

2. Michael Crichton Is Right! - by Joseph L. Bast - The Heartland Institute. By: Joseph L. Bast: President of the Heartland Institute.

jack, (and anyone like him), please deal with the information and refrain from attacking the messengers.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Here are a few more voices of support for State of Fear.

1. Science Verifies Crichton's State of Fear Assertions - by James M. Taylor - The Heartland Institute. By: James M. Taylor: managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

2. Michael Crichton Is Right! - by Joseph L. Bast - The Heartland Institute. By: Joseph L. Bast: President of the Heartland Institute.

jack, (and anyone like him), please deal with the information and refrain from attacking the messengers.

Regarding the analyses of SoF I linked (and there are many others): If you can't tell the difference between exposing "misrepresentation of the science", as shown by way of point-by-point example, and "attacking the messenger", you're seriously effed, polynikes.


Regarding Heartland Institute:
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...62-post47.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...84-post13.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...25-post27.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...638-post1.html

This messenger is well known industry front group that intentionally cherry-picks the data to support it positions ... unlike with Crichton, whose intent is not as clear, please do consider Heartland as a messenger both attacked and ignored.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

I offer S. Fred Singer:

And Fred Singer would have us believe tobacco isn't harmful.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

...
It's obvious you have no interest nor respect for any other viewpoints. ...

Respect for viewpoints based on misrepresented science?

Originally Posted by Polynikes

... I take a much more balanced view. With all due respect, it's also the more enlighted approach. ...

Yes, we must respect both sides of the scientific argument, both the side supported by the science and the one supported by misrepresenting the science. ... very enlightened, poly.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

... This opened my eyes. I then began to seek out the opinions of others who didn't swallow convential thinking regarding global warming. ... ..

Yet the motivations of those "others" remain a mystery to you. I wonder how much of your "unconventional thinking" is linked to your right/left, con/lib alignment. Again, that should not play a role in science.


The GCC science will evolve and refine as more knowledge is gained thru scientific method. Unfortunately for your "new enlightened view", as we gain knowledge, the science more strongly asserts the anthropogenic contribution to GW/GCC.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Regarding the analyses of SoF I linked (and there are many others): If you can't tell the difference between exposing "misrepresentation of the science", as shown by way of point-by-point example, and "attacking the messenger", you're seriously effed, polynikes.


Regarding Heartland Institute:
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...62-post47.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...84-post13.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...25-post27.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...638-post1.html

This messenger is well known industry front group that intentionally cherry-picks the data to support it positions ... unlike with Crichton, whose intent is not as clear, please do consider Heartland as a messenger both attacked and ignored.

I asked you not to attack the messenger. It shows you can't refute the information.

Second, EVERY SOURCE HAS BIAS. Let me repeat: EVERY SOURCE HAS BIAS.

Let me prove my point. The author of your links is named: Michael Mann.

He's a Professor at Penn State. Law of averages: a democrat.

Proof? Of course: Here he is donating to john kerry's campaign: Michael Mann Donations -- Huffington Post (fourth name down).

Next, one could make the case that ALL OF HIS POSTS AND PAPERS ARE INVALID.

Why? One of his major "achievements" was the "hockeystick" graph. It showed global temperatures over time.

Only problem was that Mann appears to have FUDGED THE DATA. He is guilty of the scientific equivalent of HERESY.

The Week That Was

Mann et al. misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.

BOOM!!!

So, to sum up, everyone has a bias. Your "proof" was given by a guy who manipulates data, is a democrat and who has a political agenda.

Now, shall we discuss the information on hand, or are too much of an intellectual weakling to accept you may be full of crap?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Respect for viewpoints based on

Yet the motivations of those "others" remain a mystery to you. I wonder how much of your "unconventional thinking" is linked to your right/left, con/lib alignment. Again, that should not play a role in science.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately for you, your golden-boy, Michael Mann, appears to have his own political and scientific agenda.

Worse, he appears to be manipulating the facts to suit his theory.

Ouch. You do know that that cardinal scientific sin trumps by a factor of 10,000 which company one works for or where they receive donations.

Oh, I expect you to thoroughly vet each political candidate. If they have received donations from sources you view as "questionable" I expect you to disclose them. Further, I expect you to denounce those donations. Finally, I expect you to write/call them demanding they return them as proof of conflict of interest.

I have a sneaking hunch that you didn't do any of that during clinton/gore/kerry's run.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

And Fred Singer would have us believe tobacco isn't harmful.

Charles Lindbergh was an ardent supporter of the third reich. It didn't stop him from being a brilliant aviator.

Would you like to debate Global Warming?

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

I asked you not to attack the messenger. It shows you can't refute the information.

Second, EVERY SOURCE HAS BIAS. Let me repeat: EVERY SOURCE HAS BIAS.

Let me prove my point. The author of your links is named: Michael Mann.

He's a Professor at Penn State. Law of averages: a democrat.

Proof? Of course: Here he is donating to john kerry's campaign: Michael Mann Donations -- Huffington Post (fourth name down).

Next, one could make the case that ALL OF HIS POSTS AND PAPERS ARE INVALID.

Why? One of his major "achievements" was the "hockeystick" graph. It showed global temperatures over time.

Only problem was that Mann appears to have FUDGED THE DATA. He is guilty of the scientific equivalent of HERESY.

The Week That Was



BOOM!!!

So, to sum up, everyone has a bias. Your "proof" was given by a guy who manipulates data, is a democrat and who has a political agenda.

Now, shall we discuss the information on hand, or are too much of an intellectual weakling to accept you may be full of crap?

You continue to offer political connection BS while ignoring the science. If Mann's calculation is incorrect it needs to be corrected and then those corrections require a reevaluation of impact on scientific conclusions. This happens all of the time in the scientific process, moron.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

You continue to offer political connection BS while ignoring the science. If Mann's calculation is incorrect it needs to be corrected and then those corrections require a reevaluation of impact on scientific conclusions. This happens all of the time in the scientific process, moron.

Hey, jack-ass. You brought the political connection up. I showed you for the hypocrite you are. You use political hacks as your "proof" while railing against sources you view as politically questionable.

Finally, MANIPULATING DATA IS A FAR MORE SERIOUS OFFENSE THEN JUST BEING "WRONG" scientifically.

Your "proof" was willing to fudge data.

OUCH.

Now, would you care to discuss the information?

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Charles Lindbergh was an ardent supporter of the third reich. It didn't stop him from being a brilliant aviator.

Would you like to debate Global Warming?

Wow, terrible analogy.

You should be careful what you ask for, Green will destroy you.