Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Jose Fly]

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/mckitrick_temp_stations.jpg

Do you have something a bit more scientific than a jpeg from some hokey webpage?

Here is a detailed view of average temperature and thermometer numbers after 1950. Note how average temperature suddenly began to look like a hockey stick. How did they do this? Mainly by promoting thermometers from warm places and demoting those from cold places ( higher altitudes and remote rural places).

Assumes facts not in evidence. Even if we assume the unsourced graph is accurate, it does not show that anyone "promoted thermometers from warm places and demoted those from cold places".

And in the United States, Anthony Watts - in a volunteer survey of over 1000 of the 1221 instrument stations - had found 89% were poorly or very poorly sited, using NOAA’s own criteria. This resulted in a warm bias of over 1ºC. A warm contamination of up to 50% has been shown by no less than a dozen peer review papers including ironically one by Tom Karl (1988), director of NOAA’s NCDC and another by the CRU’s Phil Jones (2009). (Tom Karl and Phil Jones are at the centre of the Climategate scandal)

Anthony Watts lost whatever credibility he had when he agreed to work with the Berkeley Earth Temperature Project on their methods and analyses, and stated "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong" yet when the results confirmed the scientific community's conclusions and negated his, he welched and went back on his word.

Further, NOAA reevaluated their surface stations, and in 2010 concluded that while there were minor issues with some stations, the net result was that they were producing cooler temps than actual.

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record

Way to move the goal posts when he brought up inconvenient data.

Try and keep up. I directly addressed the data you cited. If all you can do in response is throw out silly accusations, that speaks for itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And by the same token, all the other data sets show what they show. Yet some would have us completely ignore them.

"I don't care what you say.....I'm still right!!!!"

Nice.

Are you implying that I am ignoring the data sets, if so please provide your evidence, if not, then please do not create misdirection?

A question, do you think humans are the main cause of climate change?

 

[Debateable]

Further, NOAA reevaluated their surface stations, and in 2010 concluded that while there were minor issues with some stations, the net result was that they were producing cooler temps than actual.

Of course they said that. Gives them some leash to adjust temps up.

All you had to do is look at the graph I gave you and you can clearly see the trend as stations closed. I'm sure though you think someone just made that up though right?

Perhaps you should read the entire site.

Measuring temperature

Also, if Watts "welched" on his word, he probably had a good reason, meaning he probably saw fraud.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you implying that I am ignoring the data sets, if so please provide your evidence, if not, then please do not create misdirection?

I'm talking about those who would have us ignore certain data sets (e.g., the surface temperature data, weather balloon data). If you don't fall into that category, then I wasn't talking about you.

A question, do you think humans are the main cause of climate change?

If you're referring to the current warming trend, yes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course they said that. Gives them some leash to adjust temps up.

So you're accusing the scientists who conducted the review of deliberate fraud. Any actual evidence to back up such a serious accusation?

All you had to do is look at the graph I gave you and you can clearly see the trend as stations closed. I'm sure though you think someone just made that up though right?

Perhaps you should read the entire site.

Measuring temperature

Like I said, do you have a better source for this data other than a cheezy website?

Also, if Watts "welched" on his word, he probably had a good reason, meaning he probably saw fraud.

LOL.....just like a creationist.

 

[metis]

So you're accusing the scientists who conducted the review of deliberate fraud. Any actual evidence to back up such a serious accusation?



Like I said, do you have a better source for this data other than a cheezy website?



LOL.....just like a creationist.

I agree, and I checked the site out and it's really just another pseudo-science source put together by those who have an "agenda".

If there was any doubt about global warming, that should easily have been dispelled because of measurements of not only temperatures, which are not based on "models", but also higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, both of which we have known for well over a century to have heat-retention qualities.

So, what we see is just another claim of conspiracy whereas all these climate scientists are ignorant, dishonest, or both.

 

[Jose Fly]

I agree, and I checked the site out and it's really just another pseudo-science source put together by those who have an "agenda".

They had to have gotten the data for that graph from somewhere, so it shouldn't be too difficult for Debatable to find the original source.

If there was any doubt about global warming, that should easily have been dispelled because of measurements of not only temperatures, which are not based on "models", but also higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, both of which we have known for well over a century to have heat-retention qualities.

So, what we see is just another claim of conspiracy whereas all these climate scientists are ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Yep, and like most conspiracy theorists they have no actual evidence for the existence of this conspiracy.......which I guess proves that the conspiracy is working!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you're referring to the current warming trend, yes.

Fine, so please explain how much of that trend is natural and how much is due to human CO2 emissions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Fine, so please explain how much of that trend is natural and how much is due to human CO2 emissions?

I won't limit it to just CO2, but I would estimate that human activities are responsible for 100% of the global warming trend since 1950.

 

[Debateable]

So you're accusing the scientists who conducted the review of deliberate fraud. Any actual evidence to back up such a serious accusation?



Like I said, do you have a better source for this data other than a cheezy website?



LOL.....just like a creationist.

Where are you getting this creationist garbage?

 

[Debateable]

I won't limit it to just CO2, but I would estimate that human activities are responsible for 100% of the global warming trend since 1950.

100%??!! Your are out of your ****ing mind! MAYBE 20% at the MOST.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I won't limit it to just CO2, but I would estimate that human activities are responsible for 100% of the global warming trend since 1950.

What is/are the other human cause/s contributing to the warming trend in addition to CO2 that you refer to?

 

[Jose Fly]

Where are you getting this creationist garbage?

Your behavior. It's stereotypical denialism, little different than that of creationists.

100%??!! Your are out of your ****ing mind! MAYBE 20% at the MOST.

What do you think the cause of the other 80% of warming since 1950?

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, animated smilies.....wonderful.

What is/are the other human cause/s contributing to the warming trend in addition to CO2 that you refer to?

Methane, nitrous oxide, CFC's to name a few.

 

[Debateable]

I agree, and I checked the site out and it's really just another pseudo-science source put together by those who have an "agenda".

If there was any doubt about global warming, that should easily have been dispelled because of measurements of not only temperatures, which are not based on "models", but also higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, both of which we have known for well over a century to have heat-retention qualities.

So, what we see is just another claim of conspiracy whereas all these climate scientists are ignorant, dishonest, or both.

So we are all supposed to believe that something that consists of 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which we only produce 4% of that (or 0.0016% of the atmosphere) has been the primary cause of all the warming we have been seeing? WTF are you smoking? That is such a small number that it isn't even worth mentioning. Take that info and include the fact that a study (that I linked earlier in this thread) has proven that solar activity has been intensifying over the past century and has stabilized at a high rate. Yet it's man's activity that has been the cause all of the warming. GTFOH

 

[Debateable]

Your behavior. It's stereotypical denialism, little different than that of creationists.



What do you think the cause of the other 80% of warming since 1950?

The sun, hence the study I linked much earlier in the thread proving that the sun has been intensifying over the last century.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ah, animated smilies.....wonderful.

Methane, nitrous oxide, CFC's to name a few.

Your post was ridiculous, as you are going to realize, what do you expect?

So you are claiming that humans are the predominate cause of methane in the atmosphere?

 

[Jose Fly]

The sun, hence the study I linked much earlier in the thread proving that the sun has been intensifying over the last century.

Apparently you forgot that the data you cited shows that the increase in solar output stopped around 1950, as was pointed out to you earlier.

Did you ever come up with any evidence to support your accusation that the NOAA scientists who reviewed the surface temperature station data deliberately committed fraud?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your post was ridiculous, as you are going to realize, what do you expect?

Oh sure....well done.

So you are claiming that humans are the predominate cause of methane in the atmosphere?

Human activity (e.g., landfills, agriculture, fossil fuel production) is the primary source for the increased levels of atmospheric methane.

 

[Debateable]

Apparently you forgot that the data you cited shows that the increase in solar output stopped around 1950, as was pointed out to you earlier.

Did you ever come up with any evidence to support your accusation that the NOAA scientists who reviewed the surface temperature station data deliberately committed fraud?

How about the fact that they are getting paid gross amounts of money to find just that. Like as in over a hundred BILLION dollars has been spent on finding man's effect. NOT what is causing the warming, but what man has caused.