Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[IndyDave1776]

I know that's what I'm saying, it's a green energy plot to destroy our economy. Clearly most all climate experts and organizations are in on it. I'm just glad we have the experts here to parse the raw data and tell us what it really means.

You could start with the fact that your experts apparently flunked out of history, otherwise, they would sh*t their pants over what happened in the 1300s regarding climate--or else be forced to concede that today, they are screaming, 'The sky is falling!'

 

[Jludo]

Yes, we know, the State Science Institute shall not be questioned.

Something tells me a laundry list of non governmental agencies wouldn't budge your position either.
What makes climate change so much different than every single other piece of scientific research we take for granted every day?

 

[Jludo]

You could start with the fact that your experts apparently flunked out of history, otherwise, they would sh*t their pants over what happened in the 1300s regarding climate--or else be forced to concede that today, they are screaming, 'The sky is falling!'

How do you know what the climate was like in 1300? not scientists and climatologists is it. None are denying the earth goes through warming and cooling periods.

 

[Jludo]

Oh yea those other transparent scientific research organizations.

 

[printcraft]

Oh yea those other transparent scientific research organizations.

Why manipulate the source data? That happened.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Something tells me a laundry list of non governmental agencies wouldn't budge your position either.
What makes climate change so much different than every single other piece of scientific research we take for granted every day?

What makes it different is that most other divisions of science are not political footballs. Global Warming/Climate Change/WTF-ever we are calling it this week has a number of problems separating it from real science. First is its application as a tool of political leverage. Second is the orthodoxy associated with it in which daring to question the 'accepted' position automatically makes the questioner, regardless of his credentials, a buffoon, flying in the face of conventions scientific practices starting with approaching all 'truth' with skepticism, and in most all other areas, keeping the results and chucking the theory if it disagrees with the results.

If it were approached with more scientific method and less political purity as the standard, I might give it and its adherents more consideration. If those who are hawking it were not dependent upon politically-motivated money for their personal positions, I might consider paying a bit more attention to them. Everything I see tells me that we are hearing an echo chamber that does not tolerate question let alone dissent because that is what the money behind the 'consensus' wants. Nothing more and nothing less. Now, when are they going to account for the fact that 'record keeping' began at the bottom of a cooling trend and history has recorded significantly greater warming trends? If they can't be truthful about that which I already know, why the hell would I trust them with things I don't know with certainty?

 

[IndyDave1776]

How do you know what the climate was like in 1300? not scientists and climatologists is it. None are denying the earth goes through warming and cooling periods.

Since you apparently didn't do much better in history than our illustrious scientists, no, in the 1300s modern instruments were not available. That said, they were advanced enough to keep written records, and when crops are growing in greater abundance and growing further north than they can now be grown, that tells you much unless you already have your mind made up.

 

[chipbennett]

Something tells me a laundry list of non governmental agencies wouldn't budge your position either.
What makes climate change so much different than every single other piece of scientific research we take for granted every day?

Because other scientific research is handled in a scientific manner.

Climate change "research" is not. When you do things that would get you failed - and laughed - out of a 100-level science course, you don't get to call what you're doing "science". When you're doing it at taxpayer expense, you're committing fraud.

 

[chipbennett]

How do you know what the climate was like in 1300? not scientists and climatologists is it. None are denying the earth goes through warming and cooling periods.

We do know, first-hand, what the climate was like in the 1930s and 1940s. That your vaunted government agencies are attempting to foist on the American public the empirically disprovable claim that 2014 and 2015 were hotter than the Dust Bowl era is utterly absurd.

 

[Jludo]

Since you apparently didn't do much better in history than our illustrious scientists, no, in the 1300s modern instruments were not available. That said, they were advanced enough to keep written records, and when crops are growing in greater abundance and growing further north than they can now be grown, that tells you much unless you already have your mind made up.

They also know because of ice cores isotope concentrations, tree ring widths, coral growth, etc.

 

[Jludo]

We do know, first-hand, what the climate was like in the 1930s and 1940s. That your vaunted government agencies are attempting to foist on the American public the empirically disprovable claim that 2014 and 2015 were hotter than the Dust Bowl era is utterly absurd.

The globe was warmer in the 30s because we had a dustbowl?

 

[chipbennett]

The globe was warmer in the 30s because we had a dustbowl?

Not sure if serious, or trolling.

We have a documented temperature record from that era. The widespread, record high-heat days, and the record, widespread droughts, caused the dust bowl; not the other way around.

 

[IndyDave1776]

They also know because of ice cores isotope concentrations, tree ring widths, coral growth, etc.

Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten about our illustrious scientists getting caught a few years back cherry picking ice samples that supported the narrative.

 

[Jludo]

Because other scientific research is handled in a scientific manner.

Climate change "research" is not. When you do things that would get you failed - and laughed - out of a 100-level science course, you don't get to call what you're doing "science". When you're doing it at taxpayer expense, you're committing fraud.

I'm sure these hack scientists would love to hear you explain to them how they would flunk a 100 level science course, name a single scientist who backs up your claim

 

[Jludo]

Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten about our illustrious scientists getting caught a few years back cherry picking ice samples that supported the narrative.

Right, some made nefarious decisions so the science in its entirety is wrong?

 

[churchmouse]

Right, some made nefarious decisions so the science in its entirety is wrong?

There are a heck of a lot more examples than just cherry picking ice samples.

 

[churchmouse]

The globe was warmer in the 30s because we had a dustbowl?

That was caused by man. It was poor decision making by the farmers over using the land. Not by climate change.
The entire farming industry was forever changed by their misuse of the land.

 

[Jludo]

Not sure if serious, or trolling.

We have a documented temperature record from that era. The widespread, record high-heat days, and the record, widespread droughts, caused the dust bowl; not the other way around.

Show me this documented global temperature record from the 40s that exceeds today's temp

 

[chipbennett]

I'm sure these hack scientists would love to hear you explain to them how they would flunk a 100 level science course, name a single scientist who backs up your claim

So, you're going with the appeal to authority fallacy, then?

Things that would get you failed out of a 100-level science course:

1. Manipulating raw data
2. Not disclosing that manipulation, or the unadulterated raw data
3. Extrapolating data
4. In-filling missing data with "estimated" data
5. Making claims about data that are exceeded by two orders of magnitude by the data uncertainty (error bars)

Do I need to go on?

 

[Jludo]

That was caused by man. It was poor decision making by the farmers over using the land. Not by climate change.
The entire farming industry was forever changed by their misuse of the land.

Exactly, it was no proof that global temperatures were higher then than they are now