I am learning a great deal about logical fallacies and rhetoric from you. You are truly a master of these techniques, though you may be projecting a bit when you suggest that NASA is a propaganda machine.
Well, I chose 1999 since this was the year referenced in the article. You didn't mention it, but you have also changed the data set to one without global coverage. You have also picked an old version of that data set that had even worse coverage than it does now! As it turns out, much of the heat over the last decade has accumulated in the the gaps of the HADCRU3 data set. So what you have done is shown that if you ignore the heat --> cooling!
Curiously, the satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy at UAH shows an even greater trend after 1999 - so according to the satellite data warming has actually accelerated! http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
What we've got is a steady but slow upward trend with a noisy natural variability wave transposed on top of it. Most of this natural variability is caused by the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and the ocean. When the ocean absorbs energy (La Nina) the atmospheric temperatures drop below the trend. They jump above the trend when the ocean releases energy into the atmosphere (El Nino). If you pick a sufficiently short time span you could find many periods of cooling (even in a data set with global coverage) just by playing these humps and valleys. This doesn't really show anything useful though.
Was I being too subtle? Maybe I should have written: Your "argument" is less than compelling? You do recognize that you haven't put forward an argument? Perhaps you can see that asserting the same thing over and over is not persuasive?
On the subject of propaganda, I'll note you are willing to state that breathing contributes to atmospheric CO2, but you are not willing to admit that you believe it. Why would you say something that you know is not true?
Here is the abstract of the survery that NASA cited:
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
This is in very close agreement with more recent research that surveyed the literature rather than polling scientists:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.... Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
Phantomfive sees hidden agendas and propaganda (from NASA no less), but it is really not clear why. Even the literature that he cited is in broad agreement.
It's NASA buddy. They don't have a hidden agenda 21. By the way, you stated earlier that in order to cut down on CO2 emissions we would need to stop breathing. Do you really think breathing contributes to atmospheric CO2? I can't believe you could be so naive on a subject you are so vocal on. Perhaps you are projecting when you suspect NASA of propaganda?
Not just an effect, but 97% believe temperature rise is primarily driven by C02. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) All climate scientists understand that CO2 has some effect on global temperatures. None are unaware of basic radiative physics, but about 3% think recent warming may have been predominately caused by other factors.
The results have been replicated many times over. Most recently last month in this paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10... . Interestingly, this paper also found that media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate.
Jane Q doesn't believe in the free market. Doesn't like the facts so dismisses them.
"Reinsurers and insurers lose money when they misjudge risks that come back to bite them. To reduce their own risk profiles, the insurers have to become expert at matching the premiums to the estimated risk. Charging too little for, say, flood risk in a region that is becoming flood-prone is bad business. Equally, charging too much for premiums on natural catastrophes that are not on the rise, like earthquakes, is bad business because it scares away potential insurance buyers." - http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Also doesn't like the facts about Sept-11 or Obama's birth certificate, so dismisses them (but don't call him a birther or truther!). No point in arguing. no contrary fact is ever considered - just dismissed.
I concede that no one could win an argument with you. You reject all data that shows you are wrong. What would be the point in 'arguing' with a person who is not rational?
Which part is made up? You referenced a web blog and said that it was scientific literature. The birther and truther quotes are all cited. You are a conspiracy theorist and you do reject the science. So what was made up and why would you have any problem with the Lewendowsky study linking conspiracy ideation to science denial?
Right, You read it on a conspiracy theory page that you mistook for scientific literature. Anyhoodle. You must have some thoughts on Lewendowsky? I feel like you could have written that paper.
So your theory is that time of day affects the temperature 2000 meters below sea level? You is crazy. You feed your brain with garbage and literally believe every conspiracy theory from 911 trutherism to birther theories about Obama. There is literally no evidence that would dissuade you from any of your pet conspiracies. (and by literally I don't mean figuratively). Why do conversations with deniers always end up with crazy?
Out of curiosity... Lewendowsky published a paper showing that conspiracy theorists are more likely to reject science. You seem to be a paragon for this theory. I'd like to know - what do you think of it?
This may depend on which province you live in. We certainly don't have $7 daycare where I live. Closer to $45. I believe in Quebec it is covered entirely by the province.
Slashdot Mirror
The hottest year on record was 2010 - so we're 4 years in and 11 to go on your 15 years with 0 trend: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
I am learning a great deal about logical fallacies and rhetoric from you. You are truly a master of these techniques, though you may be projecting a bit when you suggest that NASA is a propaganda machine.
Well, I chose 1999 since this was the year referenced in the article. You didn't mention it, but you have also changed the data set to one without global coverage. You have also picked an old version of that data set that had even worse coverage than it does now! As it turns out, much of the heat over the last decade has accumulated in the the gaps of the HADCRU3 data set. So what you have done is shown that if you ignore the heat --> cooling!
Here is the trend from 2001 using a data set with near global coverate: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Curiously, the satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy at UAH shows an even greater trend after 1999 - so according to the satellite data warming has actually accelerated! http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
What we've got is a steady but slow upward trend with a noisy natural variability wave transposed on top of it. Most of this natural variability is caused by the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and the ocean. When the ocean absorbs energy (La Nina) the atmospheric temperatures drop below the trend. They jump above the trend when the ocean releases energy into the atmosphere (El Nino). If you pick a sufficiently short time span you could find many periods of cooling (even in a data set with global coverage) just by playing these humps and valleys. This doesn't really show anything useful though.
Was I being too subtle? Maybe I should have written: Your "argument" is less than compelling? You do recognize that you haven't put forward an argument? Perhaps you can see that asserting the same thing over and over is not persuasive?
On the subject of propaganda, I'll note you are willing to state that breathing contributes to atmospheric CO2, but you are not willing to admit that you believe it. Why would you say something that you know is not true?
What argument?
Your argument is less than compelling.
Here is the abstract of the survery that NASA cited:
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
This is in very close agreement with more recent research that surveyed the literature rather than polling scientists:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. ... Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
Phantomfive sees hidden agendas and propaganda (from NASA no less), but it is really not clear why. Even the literature that he cited is in broad agreement.
Propaganda requires an agenda. NASAs only agenda is science outreach... unless you think they have some hidden agenda?
This is compared to the paleo-climate record including the medieval warm period. In that case 3% sounds about right.
It's NASA buddy. They don't have a hidden agenda 21. By the way, you stated earlier that in order to cut down on CO2 emissions we would need to stop breathing. Do you really think breathing contributes to atmospheric CO2? I can't believe you could be so naive on a subject you are so vocal on. Perhaps you are projecting when you suspect NASA of propaganda?
Not on this thread. Maybe you could just provide the link?
I linked to NASA... Please don't go down the conspiracy theory path... Are NASA in on it?
Sure, but you'd need to cite a survey for that statement to have any relevance.
Do you really believe that breathing contributes to atmospheric C02? (not unless you've been eating coal...)
Most scientists accept that there's been some warming.
Really? You could find a scientist who denies that there's been warming? We have so much evidence of this it would be almost inconceivable...
How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question,
Most studies put this between 80% and 120% caused by CO2.
Not just an effect, but 97% believe temperature rise is primarily driven by C02. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) All climate scientists understand that CO2 has some effect on global temperatures. None are unaware of basic radiative physics, but about 3% think recent warming may have been predominately caused by other factors.
The results have been replicated many times over. Most recently last month in this paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10... . Interestingly, this paper also found that media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate.
Jane Q doesn't believe in the free market. Doesn't like the facts so dismisses them.
"Reinsurers and insurers lose money when they misjudge risks that come back to bite them. To reduce their own risk profiles, the insurers have to become expert at matching the premiums to the estimated risk. Charging too little for, say, flood risk in a region that is becoming flood-prone is bad business. Equally, charging too much for premiums on natural catastrophes that are not on the rise, like earthquakes, is bad business because it scares away potential insurance buyers." - http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Also doesn't like the facts about Sept-11 or Obama's birth certificate, so dismisses them (but don't call him a birther or truther!). No point in arguing. no contrary fact is ever considered - just dismissed.
I concede that no one could win an argument with you. You reject all data that shows you are wrong. What would be the point in 'arguing' with a person who is not rational?
Which part is made up? You referenced a web blog and said that it was scientific literature. The birther and truther quotes are all cited. You are a conspiracy theorist and you do reject the science. So what was made up and why would you have any problem with the Lewendowsky study linking conspiracy ideation to science denial?
Right, You read it on a conspiracy theory page that you mistook for scientific literature. Anyhoodle. You must have some thoughts on Lewendowsky? I feel like you could have written that paper.
Well, we agree about carbon trading...
So your theory is that time of day affects the temperature 2000 meters below sea level? You is crazy. You feed your brain with garbage and literally believe every conspiracy theory from 911 trutherism to birther theories about Obama. There is literally no evidence that would dissuade you from any of your pet conspiracies. (and by literally I don't mean figuratively). Why do conversations with deniers always end up with crazy?
Out of curiosity... Lewendowsky published a paper showing that conspiracy theorists are more likely to reject science. You seem to be a paragon for this theory. I'd like to know - what do you think of it?
Well documented at the conspiracy sites you visit? Certainly not in the scientific literature.
This may depend on which province you live in. We certainly don't have $7 daycare where I live. Closer to $45. I believe in Quebec it is covered entirely by the province.