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

[chipbennett]

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

That would be the raw data, being fraudulently manipulated by the climate change fraudsters.

(Of course, "raw data" is a rather... fluid concept at this point; the data are changed on an almost daily basis. But please: tell me some more about how that's "science".)

 

[Jludo]

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?

Yes actually, I want legitimate sources for all of those. And yes when it comes to science I appeal to authority, I trust scientists who are doing the research and come to a vast consensus. I can't personally measure the global temperature, at some point I must defer to the 90+% experts

 

[Jludo]

That would be the raw data, being fraudulently manipulated by the climate change fraudsters.

(Of course, "raw data" is a rather... fluid concept at this point; the data are changed on an almost daily basis. But please: tell me some more about how that's "science".)

So these scientists are willing to show you the raw data they collect then they manipulate the results and dare the arm chair climate experts to call them out? It's a global conspiracy why not just fudge the raw data?

 

[chipbennett]

Yes actually, I want legitimate sources for all of those.

I am a legitimate source.

And yes when it comes to science I appeal to authority...

Then find/refute them yourself. I don't facilitate logical fallacy.

...I trust scientists who are doing the research and come to a vast consensus.

One, there is no "vast consensus".

Two, anyone who invokes "consensus" in scientific endeavor demonstrates that they know nothing about scientific endeavors. Science is not, and has never been, a matter of "consensus".

I can't personally measure the global temperature, at some point I must defer to the 90+% experts

There is no "90+%" of experts.

The temperature record is publicly available, as are the manipulations of that record. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of those manipulations has rendered the US surface temperature record essentially useless.

 

[printcraft]

Oh yea those other transparent scientific research organizations.

NOAA withholds climate documents from Congress « Hot Air

ALSO

Yes actually, I want legitimate sources for all of those. And yes when it comes to science I appeal to authority, I trust scientists who are doing the research and come to a vast consensus. I can't personally measure the global temperature, at some point I must defer to the 90+% experts

Dispelling the 97% rumor.

The 97% consensus myth ? busted by a real survey | Watts Up With That?

 

[Jludo]

I am a legitimate source.



Then find/refute them yourself. I don't facilitate logical fallacy.



One, there is no "vast consensus".

Two, anyone who invokes "consensus" in scientific endeavor demonstrates that they know nothing about scientific endeavors. Science is not, and has never been, a matter of "consensus".



There is no "90+%" of experts.

The temperature record is publicly available, as are the manipulations of that record. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of those manipulations has rendered the US surface temperature record essentially useless.

There is absolutely a 90+% of experts, I'll show you mine you show me yours.
1. National Academy of Sciences
2, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- US Army and US Air Forces included
3. National snow and ice data center
4. National Climate Data Center
5. NASA and Goddard Institute
6. US Geological Survey
7. US Geodetic Survey
8. World Meterologist Organization
9. Cousteau Society
10. National Audubon Society
11. National Geographic Society
12. International Union For The Conversation of Nature.
13 US Department of Defense
14 United States Navy

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• Geological Society of London
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK

 

[chipbennett]

There is absolutely a 90+% of experts, I'll show you mine you show me yours.
1. National Academy of Sciences
2, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- US Army and US Air Forces included
3. National snow and ice data center
4. National Climate Data Center
5. NASA and Goddard Institute
6. US Geological Survey
7. US Geodetic Survey
8. World Meterologist Organization
9. Cousteau Society
10. National Audubon Society
11. National Geographic Society
12. International Union For The Conversation of Nature.
13 US Department of Defense
14 United States Navy

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• Geological Society of London
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK

What does a list of organizations prove?

 

[printcraft]

What does a list of organizations prove?

They are organizations so they are above board.
There are NOT people working there taking orders.
We have to trust it because it says "national" "society"

 

[Jludo]

What does a list of organizations prove?

That's who I look at for expertise when it comes to climate science, where do you get your information?

 

[eldirector]

Jut for giggles, grabbed the first organization from the list:
The National Academy of Sciences
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-t...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.

So, while the organization has thrown its hat in the ring, its membership has not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's who I look at for expertise when it comes to climate science, where do you get your information?

If that's the way you operate, then do you also accept the word of the RNC and DNC as absolute truth regarding governance?

 

[printcraft]

If that's the way you operate, then do you also accept the word of the RNC and DNC as absolute truth regarding governance?

Obviously does, because they are not made up of people with a political agenda.
Trillions of dollars to be pulled out of the private sector has NOTHING to do with this.

 

[chipbennett]

That's who I look at for expertise when it comes to climate science, where do you get your information?

You claimed a "90+%" consensus, and then listed a bunch of organizations. The latter does not prove the former.

 

[Jludo]

Jut for giggles, grabbed the first organization from the list:
The National Academy of Sciences
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-t...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284


So, while the organization has thrown its hat in the ring, its membership has not.

Alright your source is 'The Climate Depot' run by former Republican aid Marc Morano. Noted.

 

[Jludo]

If that's the way you operate, then do you also accept the word of the RNC and DNC as absolute truth regarding governance?

Of course not, science is above politics.

 

[Jludo]

You claimed a "90+%" consensus, and then listed a bunch of organizations. The latter does not prove the former.

There's not a single dissenting scientific organization, your not putting forth a single shred of evidence doesn't prove much either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Of course not, science is above politics.

OK, politicians in white lab coats are superior to politicians wearing suits that cost more than some folks pay for cars. Makes perfect sense. Scientists are also above 'finding' the results that the people who fund them want found.

There's not a single dissenting scientific organization, your not putting forth a single shred of evidence doesn't prove much either.

Got it! Everyone agrees, therefore it's true. That is the reason why folks like Copernicus, Galileo, and the intrepid Columbus were proven to be useless morons--everyone knows and agrees that the Earth is flat and the sun and moon revolve around it.

 

[eldirector]

Alright your source is 'The Climate Depot' run by former Republican aid Marc Morano. Noted.

This better?
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1

My apologies. I should have linked the US Senate Minority Report originally, rather than a blog post quoting it.

 

[printcraft]

Of course not, science is above politics.

[video=youtube;FopyRHHlt3M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M[/video]

 

[Jludo]

OK, politicians in white lab coats are superior to politicians wearing suits that cost more than some folks pay for cars. Makes perfect sense. Scientists are also above 'finding' the results that the people who fund them want found.



Got it! Everyone agrees, therefore it's true. That is the reason why folks like Copernicus, Galileo, and the intrepid Columbus were proven to be useless morons--everyone knows and agrees that the Earth is flat and the sun and moon revolve around it.

Hey I can find a blog post that says the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe, that'd be as much evidence as anyone here has come up with. You think if Galileo was alive today he'd be on your side? The Catholic church tried and condemned Galileo so climate change isn't real?
Who are the scientists who we trust and read as a collective to further our own personal knowledge on this website? You aren't going out and colliding particles yourselves so at some point we have to trust the scientists, and the ones that I trust say global warming is happening, and if they are wrong they will admit it and update their predictions, as scientists do when new evidence comes to light.