How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[Teallaura]

Did you even bother to read the Wiki page you're offering as your rebuttal? It specifically states and shows with data the so-called "hiatus" was an artifact of cherry picking data and that there was no overall pause in the ongoing warming trend at all.

You own The Lurch an apology.

No, because it wasn't a rebuttal but a definition - he indicated somehow didn't know what I was talking about (which I doubt - the hiatus is pretty dang well known) so I got him the link as clarification, not rebuttal.

I NEVER agreed to debate global whatsis and I was careful to stay on point of the question raised (why CO2 being a greenhouse gas isn't sufficient to quell public skepticism). I don't owe him an apology for his tangent.

[TheLurch]

You did too - and while cute, this isn't my argument and you know it.

I honestly did not. Because i know the data, and know there's been very significant warming within the last 15 years, i was completely mystified that someone would claim otherwise.

If you want to decide i'm a terrible person because you think i knew your inner state and acted as if i didn't, i obviously can't stop you. But if it were me, i'd be more upset at the people you say you trusted who told you that there wasn't warming, given that they've fed you information that's clearly false.

[HMS_Beagle]

No, because it wasn't a rebuttal but a definition - he indicated somehow didn't know what I was talking about (which I doubt - the hiatus is pretty dang well known) so I got him the link as clarification, not rebuttal.

From what you posted it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the so-called global warming "hiatus". That it was merely an AGW denier talking point not based on an accurate assessment of the data.

[Teallaura]

I honestly did not. Because i know the data, and know there's been very significant warming within the last 15 years, i was completely mystified that someone would claim otherwise.

If you want to decide i'm a terrible person because you think i knew your inner state and acted as if i didn't, i obviously can't stop you. But if it were me, i'd be more upset at the people you say you trusted who told you that there wasn't warming, given that they've fed you information that's clearly false.

[At some point, I'm gonna quit answering dogpiles.]

Sorry, after answering Beagle and spending some quality time with my bladder in another room, I realized that I probably wasn't totally fair on that. I've never known you to lie so if you say you didn't know, I accept it and apologize for doubting you.

As for the data itself, no, I'm aware of some of the issues with it and while not competent to argue it myself, I'd have to do far more work than I have time for before accepting it at face value. Toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube easily - and frankly, I come from a discipline where trusting data blindly is just dumb (that's the nature of the human sciences) so it's normal for me to want to see under the hood before writing the check (regardless of what Shuny thinks).

But, when I'm not so irritated, I will take a look.

[Teallaura]

From what you posted it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the so-called global warming "hiatus". That it was merely an AGW denier talking point not based on an accurate assessment of the data.

What should be obvious is that I wasn't debating it.

The whole thing is obviously a sham - the word 'denier' is proof of that. Any case that begins with an ad hom isn't worth considering.

See? I can hand wave, too!

[TheLurch]

But, when I'm not so irritated, I will take a look.

If you decide you have time to look into it, the 3 major source of temperature records are:
NASA GISS: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...noaaglobaltemp
and Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.org

The former two use very similar methods to handle discontinuities in the temperature record caused by things like changes in hardware or movement of weather stations. Berkeley Earth is interesting because it is completely different, and treats each discontinuity as an independent record.

[Teallaura]

If you decide you have time to look into it, the 3 major source of temperature records are:
NASA GISS: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...noaaglobaltemp
and Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.org

The former two use very similar methods to handle discontinuities in the temperature record caused by things like changes in hardware or movement of weather stations. Berkeley Earth is interesting because it is completely different, and treats each discontinuity as an independent record.

Okay, thanks.

Bookmarked!

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you never believed me before - heck, you are a large part of why I went from 'willing to listen but somewhat skeptical' to 'yeah, prove it skeptical'. You guys in Nat Sci don't really hash out the evidence; you just fling crap at whoever you don't like - that's what you taught me.

Heck, If i had that much power over you I would send you a voodoo doll. Ad Hominem and Ad Personem fallacy rolled in one.

[Teallaura]

Heck, If i had that much power over you I would send you a voodoo doll. Ad Hominem and Ad Personem fallacy rolled in one.

Nah, you were just the biggest jerk in the pile. By the by, the Strawberry wants his title back.

[shunyadragon]

Nah, you were just the biggest jerk in the pile. By the by, the Strawberry wants his title back.

I will stick with the ethical support of science, and not the acride rhetoric and personal attacks you resort to.

[Teallaura]

I will stick with the ethical support of science, and not the acride rhetoric and personal attacks you resort to.

From the guy who started out by attacking me and my religion with his very first post?! Not only are those imaginary ethics not working out for you, your memory is failing as well.

The real science is the methodology used to study the world. Anything beyond that is just delusional thinking that takes something pretty danged cool and dirties it.

[shunyadragon]

From the guy who started out by attacking me and my religion with his very first post?! Not only are those imaginary ethics not working out for you, your memory is failing as well.

The real science is the methodology used to study the world. Anything beyond that is just delusional thinking that takes something pretty danged cool and dirties it.

I will stick with the ethical support of science, and not the acride rhetoric and personal attacks you resort to.

[demi-conservative]

Again, it depends on what figure you want to look at. There's strong consensus on many figures. Whether that consensus is enough to act is a value judgement. I understand where you stand on that value judgement, and it's not my goal to talk you into a different position.

Consensus on what precisely? What range? A range of sea levels rise from 0.1cm to 100cm within the next 50 years will have consensus, because that's such a broad prediction.

I'm just trying to make sure people have a strong factual basis to use as a foundation for forming that judgement.

My strong factual basis is that accurate prediction of complex and chaotic systems is extremely difficult. You and others want radical changes to society, but in public there's no good justification for that change beyond 'there is 90%+ consensus that AGW is significant'. There is no similar consensus on whether AGW will have an overall negative impact.

[demi-conservative]

Unless we can get past 'is the world really warming' and 'are we the cause' there can be no mitigation, regardless of it's potential impact.

The political and business forces at play here are all using basic public ignorance to stall the impact to themselves in terms of $$$ or continued employment as politicians to muddy the waters. And unfortunately ignorance of science is a fairly useful partner, because here in the US we have a large evangelical base that has been thoroughly conditioned to both fear science and accept global conspiracy theories through the twin arms of organizations like AIG and ICR and 'end times escatology' that tries to find fitting maps of the symbology in Revelation to existing political and scientific advances.

And it doesn't help that there are a non trivial number of high visibility scientists out there campaigning vocally against these same religious beliefs rather than trying to create bridges between the scientific and religious communities.

Who cares, when China and India industrialising is sufficient to push CO2 levels past another dozen dozens of 'points of no return'?

[demi-conservative]

I'm just trying to make sure people have a strong factual basis to use as a foundation for forming that judgement.

I want to clarify what facts I believe. I believe that human industrial activity has caused some warming. That's all, about the rest I'm appropriately agnostic or skeptical, how much warming, whether it is significant compared to past temperature variations, all the way to 'the sky is falling'.

There is too much political power, money, and cultic morality behind 'the sky is falling'. The conflation involved in 'trust climate science because physics is accurate' is fodder for the gullible. Scientists are not superhuman, and any branch of science is still a human endeavour. The statistics involved in this particular case are so easily massaged.

Any one of politics, money, and cultic morality is enough to ruin an 'objective truth-finding' human endeavour. When all three are present in massive quantities, the only appropriate response for any rational man is massive skepticism.