Global Warming?

[Anthasu1]

Okay, just felt like mentioning that we are having the coldest spell in Florida that we have had in a few years. I guess it's thanks to Global Warming I had to wear a jacket during the summer. In Florida. Yeah.

Global Warming is natural, right with *gasp* Global Cooling! I'm seriously sick of this. It's a natural deal. If you don't believe me, how do you think the Ice Age ended? Global Warming. I'm sure that the Cavemen emitting CO2 with their prehistoric cars caused that. Definitely.

So, yeah, it also doesn't help that most of the Scientists working on it are biased. It's ridiculous.

[dok]

Eirikr, isn't it a bit early in the debate to start attacking the messenger in stead of the actual message?

In all the stolen e-mails, there isn't one single case of destroyed evidence of cooling. (The only mentioning of removing data is, somewhat ironically, the sort of urban heat island effect stuff I was talking about earlier. Including that data, of course, would only enhance the measured warming trend.) There is one case where, for a cover illustration to a report, a researcher concatenated measured warming trends (based on satellite data) to older data based on tree rings. That's the closest thing we have to a scandal here.

The real story in all the hacked and stolen documents is how utterly banal the whole 10 years of correspondence is. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised there wasn't something at least a little more salacious.

As usual, RealClimate has good commentary on the issue, if you actually want to know what the e-mails were about in stead of jumping to conclusions. But what's the fun in that?

At any rate, if you're going to continue to claim that there's no warming trend with your multiple endpoint cherry-picked plot, then I'm not sure what the point of continued discussion is. You already have your conclusion, and you're just collecting arguments to support it.

[jschild]

Okay, just felt like mentioning that we are having the coldest spell in Florida that we have had in a few years. I guess it's thanks to Global Warming I had to wear a jacket during the summer. In Florida. Yeah.

This entire statement shows you do not understand what the "Global" in global warming means.

It does not mean that every single point on Earth is increasing in temperature - it means that the aggregate world wide is increasing.

[jschild]

Originally Posted by dok

Eirikr, isn't it a bit early in the debate to start attacking the messenger in stead of the actual message?

In all the stolen e-mails, there isn't one single case of destroyed evidence of cooling. (The only mentioning of removing data is, somewhat ironically, the sort of urban heat island effect stuff I was talking about earlier. Including that data, of course, would only enhance the measured warming trend.) There is one case where, for a cover illustration to a report, a researcher concatenated measured warming trends (based on satellite data) to older data based on tree rings. That's the closest thing we have to a scandal here.

The real story in all the hacked and stolen documents is how utterly banal the whole 10 years of correspondence is. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised there wasn't something at least a little more salacious.

As usual, RealClimate has good commentary on the issue, if you actually want to know what the e-mails were about in stead of jumping to conclusions. But what's the fun in that?

At any rate, if you're going to continue to claim that there's no warming trend with your multiple endpoint cherry-picked plot, then I'm not sure what the point of continued discussion is. You already have your conclusion, and you're just collecting arguments to support it.

But, but...that means they would actually have to read and understand the non-controversy!

[Gulp]

I'm going to post this again in the offchance that someone excited about those emails might accidentally click one of the links below.

Originally Posted by jschild

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-hack-context/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ils-non-event/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/in...rden-of-proof/

http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-ma...len-cru-emails

http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/25/cli...-need-to-know/

and for the massive scandal that proves gravity is all a big hoax as well.....

http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-...ment-thinking/

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by Eirikr

the average surface temperature of Earth has been in steady decline since 2002

<snip>

<graph of a wiggly line that goes up and down like crazy>

Yep, steady decline aright.

[ABOMINATION]

You know what people called the warm weather before all the hype on Global Warming?

A nice day.

I know there is global warming going around, but I seriously doubt that it is as bad as all the hype says it is.

[someguy]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

For instance, Professor Richard Lindzen, the leading meteorologist in the world, took 20 years gathering data on heat radiation leaving earth versus the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. His recorded data doesn't match the theories that other scientists are proposing. Probably haven't heard of him, hm?

Oh, I've heard of him all right. He's the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. This means that his job, his position, was paid for by charitable foundations established by Alfred P. Sloan. And who was Alfred P. Sloan?

"For Sloan, motorizing the fascist regime that was expected to wage a bloody war in Europe was the next big thing and a spigot of limitless profits for GM. But unlike many commercial collaborators with the Nazis who were driven strictly by the icy quest for profits, Sloan also harbored a political motivation. Sloan despised the emerging American way of life being crafted by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sloan hated Roosevelt´s New Deal, and admired the strength, irrepressible determination and sheer magnitude of Hitler´s vision." -- Edwin Black.

Sloan was an American who gave support to Nazi Germany, driven not only by greed but because he agreed with their vision. He helped found the Liberty League, a racist, anti-semitic, anti-populist group that gave money to vicious, anti-American organizations like the Sentinels of the Republic, who wanted to make sure that no laws were ever put in place that would protect children from unfair labor practices.

In 1934, Sloan founded the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, worth more than a billion dollars today, to give money to people and organizations that promote his worldview.

And THAT is who signs Professor Richard Lindzen's paycheck.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by someguy

And THAT is who signs Professor Richard Lindzen's paycheck.

And THAT would be an excellent example of what we call a red herring argument. What the political views of the man who started a foundation that now gives money to a professor and scientist were has no bearing on the actual professor himself.

If we went specifically looking for scientists, politicians, business owners--anyone really--that were sponsored by, or otherwise had financial dealings with a foundation, company, organization, whathaveyou, I can assure you that lst would be quite extensive, and would no doubt include other reputable individuals of note.

For instance--remember all the hype about Obama going to Reverend Wright's church? That doesn't necessarily have any bearing on Barack Obama himself. Plenty of mud was slung at Obama because of who he associated with in the past--but that's something that you would have none of, no doubt. But now, that sort of argument serves your purpose, and you're okay with it? Sounds a little hypocritical, no?

EDIT: Oh, and Edwin Black is a reported for the New York Times. Which is a paper that has been rated quite high on the liberal-bias scale. So if you want to start talking about who signs who's paychecks--there's a little tidbit for ya. A newspaper often criticized for being liberally biased is signing the paycheck of a man writing negative things about someone against global warming... Hm, like I said, you can make arguments like that about anyone.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by someguy

And THAT is who signs Professor Richard Lindzen's paycheck.

He must have signed a lot of checks before he died in 1966.

[dok]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

For instance, Professor Richard Lindzen, the leading meteorologist in the world, took 20 years gathering data on heat radiation leaving earth versus the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. His recorded data doesn't match the theories that other scientists are proposing. Probably haven't heard of him, hm?

It would be more likely that this argument would be widely known if it were based on objective facts. The idea that nobody else is actually basing their research on recorded data is a titanic falsehood.

Again, here's a good summary of data sources. Some of the major sources for global temperature can be looked at directly here, here, here, and here. All of those are based on raw data that is available for independent verification and analysis.

If you want the CO2 data, it's in that first link, too.

If you want the paleoclimate data, it's in that first link, too.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

And THAT would be an excellent example of what we call a red herring argument. What the political views of the man who started a foundation that now gives money to a professor and scientist were has no bearing on the actual professor himself.

If the political views of the founder still carry some weight in the decisions of who gets the money, then it does give reason to guess at the leanings of the professor. That said, I'll agree that the professor's research should be judged on its merits. And its those merits that are lacking.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by dok

If the political views of the founder still carry some weight in the decisions of who gets the money, then it does give reason to guess at the leanings of the professor. That said, I'll agree that the professor's research should be judged on its merits.

I was just saying, to jump straight to the conclusion that because the guy who set up the foundation had pro-Nazi views, that Lindzen must have them too is not a legitimate conclusion. It's been 49 years, and I was merely stating that the foundation has no doubt changed over the years, and quit possibly so have the views it was founded on.

Originally Posted by dok

And its those merits that are lacking.

Albeit based on your opinions, and a significant amount of others. However, there are also a significant amount of well-educated people who would disagree, and say that his merits are worth taking into consideration.

Also, to respond to this:

Originally Posted by dok

The idea that nobody else is actually basing their research on recorded data is a titanic falsehood.

I don't mean to say that there hasn't been data collected by people on the "Global Warming is legit" side of the debate that is used as evidence. You're exactly right, assuming that would be laughably incorrect.