If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   PSU's other scandal: "He was the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation"   (nationalreview.com) divider line 429
    More: Interesting, PSU, Jerry Sandusky, Rand Simberg, climatologies, Michael Mann, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Graham Spanier, Unabomber  
•       •       •

3554 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2012 at 1:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



429 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-17 04:46:34 PM

GeneralJim: it always gets down to the idea that you are convinced that everyone who disagrees with you is motivated only by evil thoughts, greed green, and rage.


ftfy
 
2012-07-17 06:03:45 PM

GeneralJim: Moral consistency? Seriously, just what is your cognitive difficulty? I don't mind a good Godwin -- but this stealth bullshiat is annoying. If someone is going to compare someone to NAZIs, fine. It's inevitable. But, have the stones to say it. It's also one of the stupidist terms I've ever heard... "Climate deniers." Oh, really? Show me one person who has denied there is climate. That is just being stupid to get in a covert Godwin. So, in YOUR specific case, is your use of "climate denier" due to not having the cojones to do a proper Godwin, or are you just parroting others?


The term denier is also applied to people who claim cigarette smoke is harmless, people who claim CFCs have zero impact on the ozone layer, Creationists, and others. Its purpose is to reclaim the word "skeptic" to its proper meaning-- one who is motivated only by evidence.

The ACC denier movement isn't skeptical in the slightest. They're contrarians who lap up random blog claims that agree with their political ideologies, but ignore hard data and professional studies from actual scientists. At best, it's hard-headed tribalism and cherry picking intended to confirm one's biases. At worst, it's blatant deception intended to push an agenda.

As noted elsewhere, it's the same mentality that makes people prime targets for cults.

You believe in a conspiracy theory that requires thousands of scientists around the world to commit fraud in massive numbers, with the complicity of their peer/rival scientists, a host of government organizations, private and publicly-owned journals, professional societies, and universities. It's completely insane on its face, and it gets crazier the more you dig.
 
2012-07-17 06:06:39 PM

Jon Snow: The rest of these I have already addressed at length when he's brought them up before, e.g.:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6988429/75530579#c75530579
http://www.fark.com/comments/6988429/75543574#c75543574
http://www.fark.com/comments/6995138/75590458#c75590458
http://www.fark.com/comments/7035465/76070241#c76070241


I hereby predict that GeneralJim will completely ignore that you have shown his claims to be false, and continue to inaccurately cite that same group of papers as if nothing just happened.

I mean, you even provided direct quotes and pictures from the articles showing how they contradict his bare assertions about them, but he's not exactly big on "evidence".
 
2012-07-17 06:22:12 PM

Kome: Cool. I sent you an e-mail.


Done!
 
2012-07-17 08:29:41 PM

HighZoolander: Zafler: Holy crud, how much of this thread got cleaned up?

Aw, just the best part!



It's in my profile now.
 
2012-07-17 08:39:05 PM

Cubicle Jockey: HighZoolander: Zafler: Holy crud, how much of this thread got cleaned up?

Aw, just the best part!


It's in my profile now.


excellent. I wasn't smart enough to think to do that :)

(the quick url doesn't work, btw, it just links to a deleted comment message)
 
2012-07-17 09:58:31 PM

Cubicle Jockey: It's in my profile now.


Holy hell, I think that's one of the best Mojo Biatchslaps of Knowledge I've seen. No wonder it got cleaned.
 
2012-07-17 10:05:53 PM

chimp_ninja: Chimperror2: If we are just comparing degrees, what climatology degree does Michael Mann have? Oh wait. None.

Um, he has a Ph.D. in geophysics and geology, and his dissertation was specifically on climate oscillations in the historical record. He did his postdoc on temperature reconstructions. He's worked his whole career since in the climate field, publishing in peer-reviewed journals on that very topic.

That's excellent preparation for doing paleoclimate work. Very few programs, especially 15 years ago, offered a degree called "climatology".


Um he got that after 10 years after failing as physicist. He fell into the paleo work and got the geology degrees but it was after he earned and worked in other areas. There's a 10 year span betwee degrees where his degree wasn't anything close to his research.

If you are going to slam someone with degrees in forestry for studying pine cones, it's kind of silly to hold him up to someone with degrees in applied mathematics who is also studying pine cones and claim they forestry guy isn't qualified. But that MrNoGo - GED for ya.
 
2012-07-17 10:33:25 PM

Chimperror2: chimp_ninja: Chimperror2: If we are just comparing degrees, what climatology degree does Michael Mann have? Oh wait. None.

Um, he has a Ph.D. in geophysics and geology, and his dissertation was specifically on climate oscillations in the historical record. He did his postdoc on temperature reconstructions. He's worked his whole career since in the climate field, publishing in peer-reviewed journals on that very topic.

That's excellent preparation for doing paleoclimate work. Very few programs, especially 15 years ago, offered a degree called "climatology".

Um he got that after 10 years after failing as physicist. He fell into the paleo work and got the geology degrees but it was after he earned and worked in other areas. There's a 10 year span betwee degrees where his degree wasn't anything close to his research.

If you are going to slam someone with degrees in forestry for studying pine cones, it's kind of silly to hold him up to someone with degrees in applied mathematics who is also studying pine cones and claim they forestry guy isn't qualified. But that MrNoGo - GED for ya.


BTW, Loehle has been publishing Environmental papers at least 10 years before Mann realized he was breathing too much CO2 and his degrees are in mathematical ecology in the 1980's (at least 15 years before Mann discovered rocks).
 
2012-07-17 10:55:30 PM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: He melts down, and makes seven farking replies. It's hilarious.

You and monkey boy sure read a lot into a post... too bad you're illiterate.


To be fair to me and monkey boy (who we all know are really the same person, of course), we read a lot into seven consecutive posts all responding to the same post.

There's a lot to read into there.
 
2012-07-17 11:23:52 PM

chimp_ninja: I hereby predict that GeneralJim will completely ignore that you have shown his claims to be false, and continue to inaccurately cite that same group of papers as if nothing just happened.


Of course. Although he might mix it up a little and rather than just straight up ignore the repeated debunkings say that he'd totally respond, for serious, pinky swear, butbutbut he's got to be at the gym in 26 minutes catch a plane a day and a half later.
 
2012-07-17 11:31:30 PM

Jon Snow: Of course. Although he might mix it up a little and rather than just straight up ignore the repeated debunkings say that he'd totally respond, for serious, pinky swear, butbutbut he's got to be at the gym in 26 minutes catch a plane a day and a half later.


Oh he's going to be totally convinced that you're me now. He hates when I call attention to cause-and-effect and chronology, pointing out how he had X amount of time to respond since being exposed to Y. It's great!
 
2012-07-17 11:43:22 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: He hates when I call attention to cause-and-effect


Psh! Just strong correlations, that's all. And everyone knows correlation != causation.
 
2012-07-18 12:15:34 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Yes, the guy who just attempted to correct me on a point of knowledge I demonstrated I was fully aware of 30 minutes before the post he's responding to did claim he was able to predict the past with 100% accuracy.

As far as I can recall, you have NEVER demonstrated you've been "fully aware" of anything. Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?

profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-18 01:24:26 AM

GeneralJim: Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?


Uh yup. That's exactly what I'm doing. You brag and bluster that you can "predict the past" with eerily clairvoyant accuracy:

GeneralJim: Nothing is easier to spot AFTER the fact, but it is INCREDIBLY hard to predict in advance, which is, of course, when predictions are most useful. Like everyone else, my track record of predictions of PAST events is clearly clairvoyant. It's predicting the future that's the biatch.

So what happens when we put your bullshiat to the test? I happens like this:

1. I make a post directly addressing Dr. Craig Loehle's study.
2. You make a post crying about linking to Michael Mann's website.
3. I laugh at you for crying about that while you link to Roy Spencer, because you hate source denegration... until, of course, it's something you want to do
4. You get in to one of your famous blusters, trying to obfuscate from the above fact by attempting to "correct" me by pointing out it's Dr. Loehle's study, not Dr. Spencer's.
5. Which, unfortunately for you, would carry a lot more weight if that was something I hadn't demonstrated I had knowledge of before you attempted to correct me.
6. Which, again very unfortunately for you, makes your claim that you can predict the past with stunning accuracy all the funnier.

This is wrong, yes? I mean, you seem to be suggesting that something here is clearly wrong when you state this:

GeneralJim: As far as I can recall, you have NEVER demonstrated you've been "fully aware" of anything. Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?


So somewhere in that list of six fully cited, fully linked-to, documented premises, something must be wrong, right? Something amiss. Because if my conclusion is false, as you suggest, then either my reasoning must be invalid, or my facts must be untrue. If the reasoning is valid and the facts are true, the conclusion must be true. But I don't see you pointing out anywhere where it's actually wrong. You just insist it is, contradicting documented historical events vs. your desire to be right.

And I bet that if any further conversation comes from this thread of argument with you, something tells me that even if we go twenty posts on, you'll just continue playing contextomy games, leveling personal attacks as the sum total of your 'arguments' instead of little tidbits of vengeful goodness thrown in to a cold logic stew, and basically your typical MO of avoidance, attention whoring, and rage.

Though go on, do prove me wrong. I would love to learn something new about GeneralJim today.

Lack of self-awareness and lack of internal moral consistency are a biatch, aren't they Jim?
 
2012-07-18 02:07:44 AM
Chimperror2:
What mojo is saying is ad hominem is a proper form of rebuttal when you have nothing else.

If we are just comparing degrees, what climatology degree does Michael Mann have? Oh wait. None.

The chairman of the IPCC is a railroad engineer. Al Gore is a failed presidential candidate. James Hansen is an astronomer and physicist, but mostly a bureaucrat. But you just don't GET it. Only SKEPTICS have to prove their credentials. Just like peer-reviewed literature that supports AGW is unassailable, and peer-reviewed literature which falsifies AGW is useless, error-riddled, and not worthy of grade eight science class.

That's also why a localized cold spell means NOTHING in terms of climate, because everyone knows that weather =/= climate, while a localized hot spell shows the dire need for sending our money to India and China to stop this horrible problem disaster catastrophe.

That's why carbon dioxide levels closely FOLLOWING the temperature for four hundred thousand years means nothing, but a couple-year tick where sunspot activity on the Sun APPEARS to follow temperature means that the entire close-coupled relationship means NOTHING, DAMMIT.

And, in the above example, the POINT of noting that carbon dioxide follows planetary temperature is to point out the DIRECTION of the relationship. The characteristic which FOLLOWS another characteristic cannot be in control. This point is OBVIOUSLY lost on the warmtards, because there is no mechanism whereby Earth's temperature could have any effect on the Sun's sunspot activity.

That's the essence of scientific fraud -- the rules MUST be relaxed, and occasionally ignored, when looking at the fraud -- but strictly enforced upon anyone who dares question. Questioning, and a skeptical attitude have become the marks of heresy in climatology -- when questioning and skepticism are the HEART of science itself. And then, of course, those trying to get everyone in lock step, and keep them from questioning the science authorities howl that anyone not in jackboots is anti-science. It's an approach ripped directly from the Bolshevik playbook.
 
2012-07-18 02:41:36 AM
Kome:
GeneralJim: Do you get this? Somehow, I'd bet you don't. Time for an example:

Do you understand that I said those links were to studies of the "effects" of global warming, not the "causes" of it? Did that sail over your head? You even quoted me saying those links were to the effects. How did that not sink in for you?

The point, which you missed, being that such discussion of the EFFECTS of "horrible" global warming is all the warmers present. In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore mentions exactly ONE connection between carbon dioxide and temperature - the ice core charts, and then he lies about the relationship there. The entire balance of his science fair project is (occasionally plagiarized) discussion and images of the "expected" disastrous results.

Your bullshiat links have absolutely no bearing on the debate. They are precisely as useful as a description of the effects should cows light their farts and become creatures of the air. (Umbrellas would have to be significantly strengthened, and carried at ALL times when outside.) And that's the point. Warmtards keep showing what the results of warming would be, should it happen -- but, only the bad effects; significantly larger amounts of arable land generally doesn't make an appearance. And, they keep showing that the temperature has gone up -- as long as you start in 1850 to 1880. And, they show that carbon dioxide levels have gone up, and that the increased levels are due to human activity (Yay, us!)

What they DON'T show is the link between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and planetary temperature. They show us lab bottles with varying levels, and say that's what counts. They show us model outputs which automate their hypothesis. But, they don't show us real world effects... because they are too small to notice: 0.24 K to 0.50 K, and that is assuming that ALL of the changes in carbon dioxide levels since the dawn of the industrial age are due to mankind.

So, impress me. Show me something that actually links OBSERVED temperature data to carbon dioxide levels, and still looks scary. Note that this means that the output of models does NOT count. I'll wait.
 
2012-07-18 03:24:06 AM

GeneralJim: The chairman of the IPCC is a railroad engineer. Al Gore is a failed presidential candidate. James Hansen is an astronomer and physicist, but mostly a bureaucrat. But you just don't GET it. Only SKEPTICS have to prove their credentials. Just like peer-reviewed literature that supports AGW is unassailable, and peer-reviewed literature which falsifies AGW is useless, error-riddled, and not worthy of grade eight science class.


A few problems with this (big surprise, since it originates with you).

1. Al Gore does not conduct scientific studies himself and attempt to use any titles he may have to advance those studies as non-climatologist Craig Loehle did.
2. Rajendra Pachauri does not conduct scientific studies himself and attempt to use any titles he may have to advance those as studies as non-climatologist Craig Loehle did.
3. Hansen... mostly a bureaucrat. Really, just ell oh ell.
4. Rajendra Pachauri is not a "railroad" engineer. One of his PhD's is in industrial engineering. If you can't even be honest about that, why should anybody trust you on anything?

So yep, that really says it all. If you think this is in any way equivalent to Dr. Craig Loehle, you're a moron. If a climatologist worked under a chairperson who had no climatology-related degree, it wouldn't be a problem. Because, of course, chairing a committee is something Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is far more qualified to do than any climatologist.

But you like to pretend that the chair of the IPCC collating information and scientific studies conducted by accredited experts in their field is the same thing as a non-climatologist winging their own climate-related studies.

It's bullshiat, of course, and transparently so. But hey, keep pretending this time apples to oranges really is a meaningful comparison.
 
2012-07-18 03:28:16 AM
Jon Snow:
As I have pointed out to GeneralJim in dozens of threads, the corrected Loehle reconstruction- despite never having been published in a legitimate peer reviewed science journal, despite throwing out the same proxy data that GeneralJim is only too happy to use when he thinks they support him- shows basically the same thing as reconstructions he decries as fraudulent when they are plotted on a common baseline[1][2][3][4]:

You make it sound like MY fault that Michael Mann's polluting of the data with fraud is MY fault. It's not. But, that's what Fark's prime climate shill is SUPPOSED to do, N'est-ce pas?

And, you're either mistaken, or lying -- look at the data... Look at the brownish line that is the Loehle plot. Notice how it zooms up, soaring above the others in the pack, around the time of the MWP? Plotting them all together is obfuscating, but the distinct nature of the Loehle study is quite evident, despite the impedimenta.

This is not one flyer study. This is simply the average of 18 other proxy study results. The difference? Tree ring width is highly suspect as a proxy for temperature, and all tree-rings were left out of the Loehle study. And that is the point. The tree-ring data distorts the temperature record. And that is just in general, not specifically the data from Keith "One Tree" Briffa.
 
2012-07-18 03:57:42 AM
P.S.:

GeneralJim: And, in the above example, the POINT of noting that carbon dioxide follows planetary temperature is to point out the DIRECTION of the relationship. The characteristic which FOLLOWS another characteristic cannot be in control.


GeneralJim still doesn't understand how feedback works.

For the uninformed, it works like this. An increase in temperature releases previously sequestered CO2. The CO2 then released compounds the temperature increase, due to the physical properties of CO2.

For an analogy, imagine an actual greenhouse, encased entirely in snow. This greenhouse also has snow inside of it, but all its panes are intact, just completely covered in snow, so completely dark. The sun shines down on this snow-encapsulated greenhouse one day, and melts all the snow off the windows. Now the inside of the greenhouse has direct sunlight on it.

Even if the total amount of sunlight stays identical (power, angle, all of it), the volume of snow inside the greenhouse will melt at a considerably faster rate than the snow outside, because now the sun's power is being compounded by the greenhouse; the sun's rays are allowed to pass through the glass, but the insulation of the greenhouse keeps the heat from escaping (it's for this reason that, unsurprisingly, CO2 et al are called greenhouse gases). This is obvious. We know this. We have known this for centuries. Principles like this have allowed us to build greenhouses in the first place, and furthermore allowed our ancestors to store ice in hot, equatorial, desert climates.

This is really one of the most simple portions of greenhouse gases to understand -- I mean for fark's sake they're name for this principle -- and yet any time you mention feedback to Jim, he'll flip right out.

You (you being the undecided third party audience) can also conceptualize it thus: CO2 in the form of dry ice is a solid which rapidly sublimates to gaseous form if exposed to normal, ambient air. (In fact it sublimates at around -78.5 C). If you keep it at, say, -150 C at normal atmospheric pressure, the CO2 will stay solid (as happens on the crust forming the surface of the Martian ice caps, which have polar temperatures as low as -140 C, though with a considerably thinner atmosphere).

Now, the only way to release this sequestered CO2 and have it enter the atmosphere is to heat it up. Otherwise it will just stay as a solid deposit of carbon dioxide, not doing anything other than just sitting there. It won't enter the atmosphere at all.

Naturally, this leads us to the perfectly normal deduction that (in the case of solid CO2) we need to heat it up to get it to act as an insulator to trap even more heat. Children could grasp this positive feedback effect, and feedback effects such as this are encountered on a regular basis in day-to-day life, in everything from economics (a billionaire sells his stock, prompting others to sell their stocks, causing the stock to rapidly lose value, causing more people to sell, or even holding a microphone to a loud speaker).

Again, children are capable of grasping this, of grasping the idea of making a situation worse without ever altering the input into the system, just allowing it to feed back into itself over and over.

GeneralJim, my dear undecided third party readers, cannot.
 
2012-07-18 04:35:45 AM

GeneralJim: You make it sound like MY fault that Michael Mann's polluting of the data with fraud is MY fault.


You make it sound like you're committing a bare assertion fallacy and oh whoops, you are.

GeneralJim: The difference? Tree ring width is highly suspect as a proxy for temperature


GeneralJim has been informed on multiple occasions that dendroclimatology prefers maximum latewood density over ring width as a proxy. However, even though GeneralJim insists (and attempts to act like) he is very informed on the subject of AGW, he doesn't grasp the basics of one of the fundamental properties dendroclimatology proxies (I would hazard a guess and say it's because he doesn't understand MXD and has a basic understanding of what ring width is, and therefore relies on ring width to argue against MXD studies).

Ask yourself, why is a person who is ostensibly very informed on the subject unable to understand that MXD is not ring width?

And he undoubtedly confuses the two. Note his mention of Keith "One Tree" Briffa, which is a reference to Keith Briffa's Yamal study Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees

(Note: Despite the claim of deniers/contrarians, Keith Briffa did not use only one tree, this is simply a lie by implication that originated God knows where. Notice also how these supposedly very informed people who are clearly in a position to second-guess scientists cannot even name the study to which they are referring.)

So, how do we know Briffa used tree ring density and not ring width like GeneralJim claimed? That's easy, we do the one thing Jim didn't do and check the paper Jim referred to (and which I actually named and linked to), and we find this:

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com

So why does Jim say this?

GeneralJim: Tree ring width is highly suspect as a proxy for temperature... The tree-ring data distorts the temperature record. And that is just in general, not specifically the data from Keith "One Tree" Briffa.


If tree-ring width distorts the data, why does Jim never give discussions about MXD? It's because he doesn't understand what MXD is, hasn't yet incorporated it into his world view, etc. This raises some interesting questions:

1. If Jim is referencing studies, why does he not understand what those studies contain, and what is being measured by them, before arguing against them? How can he claim something is faulty if he clearly, demonstrably does not know what that thing is?
2. If Jim is knowledgeable on the subject of AGW and any purported fraud, why can he not properly argue against what is actually being measured (MXD), instead of substituting something else (ring-width)?
3. If Jim cares about the truth as he claims, and has been informed that his line of questioning is invalid because it focuses on a straw man (ring width) as a straw man substitute for what was actually studied (latewood density), why does he persist in repeating something he knows not to be true?

Most important of all,

4. If Jim is intellectually honest and intellectually curious, why do none of the answers to the questions above cause him to introspect in an effort to analyze his internal value judgments? Why, for example, is Jim able to look at himself making an argument about Briffa and tree-ring width, look at a stone-cold factual rebuttal that Briffa did not look at ring-width and, instead of saying to himself "perhaps I'm not as informed as I believe myself to be," instead elects to repeat something he knows not to be true?

Difficult questions for an "honest" man to answer. I expect bloviating, rage, and deflection. I doubt I'll be disappointed. Option two is that he'll ignore this completely, and need to have it brought up to him a fifth or tenth or twentieth time, claim ignorance ("I NEVER SAW THAT! AND SINCE YOU CAN'T PROVE I DID, YOU'RE TRYING TO READ MY MIND!") and promptly attempt to alter his worldview to incorporate it without ever conceding he was wrong, or causing him to second guess himself.
 
2012-07-18 07:42:00 AM
Don't give up, Jim. If you get the last post in the thread it means you won the debate, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-07-18 08:13:15 AM
chimp_ninja:
GeneralJim: There is no link to between the release of carbon dioxide and the warming

GeneralJim: You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.

I've told you before -- the quickest way to seem smarter than you are is to STFU, and MYOB.

First statement: Warmers have failed to make the case for large warming being associated with carbon dioxide that they claim.

Second statement: Carbon dioxide increases DO warm the planet.

Is this simple enough for you to understand?


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-18 08:18:45 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.

GeneralJim: Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2. Abandon your faith.

See? Pathological.

GeneralJim: That's not the point. The "greenies" have a ZERO PER CENT accuracy rate on their predictions.

Dude you can't even predict who you were a few years ago.

Stupidity on your part is not pathology on my part. Once more, let me show you where you farked up:

"Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2. Abandon your faith."
Most of the warming we have seen is of natural causes. Blaming it all on mankind is bullshiat.

"The 'greenies' have a ZERO PER CENT accuracy rate on their predictions." You disagree? Name ONE of their alarmist predictions that has come true.
 
2012-07-18 08:30:53 AM
chimp_ninja:
If you point out that seven separate investigations by seven different bodies vindicated him (as was done above), he'll process it as proof that the conspiracy is larger than he thought. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists-- evidence against their delusions just feeds them.

This is why you're a dumbass. You can examine Mann's work yourself -- I did. And, while you might not be able to evaluate it, perhaps you can find child in grade six to help you out.

Mann "surveys" a bunch of other papers from around the globe, temperature proxy studies. I think it was 21 papers, but I'm not sure of the number, and you're not worth researching it. Look it up yourself. Then, look up those papers. EVERY SINGLE paper he surveyed shows the medieval warm period, and all of them but one show the little ice age afterwards. Mann concludes that the papers he surveyed show no evidence of either the MWP or LIA.

When THAT is his paper, and it's certified to be A-OK, I know YOU are the type of scientician who will take the word of people who will lose money or prestige if they find a problem when they say it's good, rather than trust what you see and think. Who are you going to believe: a bureaucrat, or your own lying eyes? To be fair though, if I had your thinking equipment, I might well take the word of ANYONE rather than think it out for myself. You DESERVE the totalitarian state being planned for you. It's too bad that if you get it, so will everyone else.
 
2012-07-18 08:33:22 AM
Kome:
The advantage of my post was that it isn't nearly as cluttered and noisy as yours.

Yeah, and if you'd just stop posting, the clutter could be removed completely.
 
2012-07-18 08:41:18 AM
HighZoolander:
Section IV starts this way: "Stating that global warming is occurring because there is a scientific consensus to that effect is another appeal to authority fallacy."

and ends this way: "...has released a list of over 700 scientists rejecting global warming ... The list includes many current and former IPCC members as well as several Nobel Prize winners."

None of your monkey troop is really up on that new "cognition" thing, are they? Why in the flaming fark can none of you morons process this? Let me skip the details, and simplify the words, and go get your tire swing and some bananas, and we'll see if we can't cram a new thought in your head. Here goes:

Claims being made by warmtards of consensus are false.
Additionally, consensus would prove nothing, even if it were true; science doesn't work on consensus.


Any of that getting through, or do I need to go get the cattle prod?
 
2012-07-18 08:42:11 AM

GeneralJim: The point, which you missed, being that such discussion of the EFFECTS of "horrible" global warming is all the warmers present.


Actually, the point you missed is I had specifically said I was linking to those studies because of a conversation I had just been having about the effects of global warming. If you wanted me to link to causes, you could have simply said so and I would have gladly linked to a different set of a dozen or so scientific publications that you either won't read anything but the abstract of, won't read at all, or will just pretend I never posted. To me, though, it seems kind of redundant when there are other people in the thread posting that kind of information. I figure I would approach it from a different angle.

This is related to the issue of convergent validity. Multiple angles on an issue are necessary to sort out which ideas and theories are more accurate than others. These studies help show that global warming is happening, so the people who hold the position that it isn't are wrong and the case that they are wrong is stronger. Many of them, however, if you had bothered to read the entire articles instead of just the abstracts, do provide references to studies looking directly at causal relationship between human activity and global climate. So... reading comprehension for the win. Too bad you're losing.

Your bullshiat links have absolutely no bearing on the debate. They are precisely as useful as a description of the effects should cows light their farts and become creatures of the air. (Umbrellas would have to be significantly strengthened, and carried at ALL times when outside.) And that's the point. Warmtards keep showing what the results of warming would be, should it happen -- but, only the bad effects; significantly larger amounts of arable land generally doesn't make an appearance. And, they keep showing that the temperature has gone up -- as long as you start in 1850 to 1880. And, they show that carbon dioxide levels have gone up, and that the increased levels are due to human activity (Yay, us!)

So now you're saying that global warming is a good thing? And yet earlier you were saying that the evidence that the predictions made by global warming theory are inaccurate and never come true anyway. Which basically means you are now saying something that is directly contradicting your own words earlier in this thread.

And my links had a minor bearing on the debate. Because the debate isn't just about causes of X. In fact, when trying to establish a policy position on an issue, looking at the effects of X are pretty damn important. So, you know, oddly enough to have equal bearing on the debate as the research establishing causation that others are posting, discussing, or linking to.

What they DON'T show is the link between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and planetary temperature. They show us lab bottles with varying levels, and say that's what counts. They show us model outputs which automate their hypothesis. But, they don't show us real world effects... because they are too small to notice: 0.24 K to 0.50 K, and that is assuming that ALL of the changes in carbon dioxide levels since the dawn of the industrial age are due to mankind.

Wait, so now the change is real but it's insignificant. Another contradiction in your position, this time in the very same post as what you're now contradicting.

So, impress me. Show me something that actually links OBSERVED temperature data to carbon dioxide levels, and still looks scary. Note that this means that the output of models does NOT count. I'll wait.

I'd be impressed if you could maintain a logically coherent argument within a single post. You show me that, I'll post links to articles showing what it means to be opaque to solar radiation.
 
2012-07-18 08:46:35 AM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: There is no link to between the release of carbon dioxide and the warming.


Bullshiat and you know it.

Models? Jars in labs? Nope. Hard data from observations, or GTFO.

And fark the entire skepticalscience blog. It's one big lying talking point sheet for shills.
 
2012-07-18 08:49:16 AM
Kome:
GeneralJim: I didn't "blow my stack" at anything (so far) in this thread.

6 posts. In one hour. And you're the only one posting during that time. That's not "blowing your stack"?

Nope. But I'd have to see a log of all the exact posting times to be sure.
 
2012-07-18 09:11:15 AM

GeneralJim: "Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2. Abandon your faith."
Most of the warming we have seen is of natural causes. Blaming it all on mankind is bullshiat.


Nope, sorry chief, "CO2 is not causing global warming" directly contradicts this statement:

GeneralJim: You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.


If you're going to lie, at least pick one and stick with it. They're mutually contradictory statements. CO2 either is or is not causing global warming.

First, some time ago, you claimed CO2 wasn't causing warming. In this thread, you're saying that claiming you think CO2 doesn't cause global warming is a straw man, because you don't believe that. Except you're on record stating that that's your belief.

Again, seriously, that's pathological lying. It's pathological, Jim. No person looks at two mutually contradictory statements they made, and then tells the person who sees them as mutually contradictory that they are that they're stupid. It's pathological. You're a pathological liar.
 
2012-07-18 09:20:43 AM

GeneralJim: Kome: GeneralJim: I didn't "blow my stack" at anything (so far) in this thread.

6 posts. In one hour. And you're the only one posting during that time. That's not "blowing your stack"?
Nope. But I'd have to see a log of all the exact posting times to be sure.


Are you seriously just getting around to posting responses to things that happened almost 22 hours ago? Are you just taking that long to browse the web to find the appropriate talking point rebuttals or do the nice folks in white coats only let you use the computer at certain times and you just have to respond to things when you can?

Anyway, dude, you posted 6 times in the span of 1 hour and you were the only one talking. From 2012-07-17 03:15:54 AM, 2012-07-17 03:50:51 AM, 2012-07-17 03:54:11 AM, 2012-07-17 04:01:03 AM, 2012-07-17 04:10:14 AM, and 2012-07-17 04:17:48 AM you were the only one talking. About a host of irrelevant nonsense. A great benefit of an internet forum like Fark is that your words are still viewable if you scroll through the thread. Which is how we've been able to catch you in so many contradictions. We're able to see what you've said in addition to what you're saying.

Anyway, how do you account for a Koch brothers funded study, led by a global warming skeptic concluding that global warming is really happening that human activity is one cause of it? Like I said in way earlier in the thread: Research group put together by climate change skeptic publishes a study funded by the Koch brothers and concluded climate change is real.
 
2012-07-18 10:02:29 AM
chimp_ninja:
The ACC denier movement isn't skeptical in the slightest.

The warmer alarmist movement has an exact analog in the (anti-)vaxxers. You claim a correlation that is not there, and tout that imaginary correlation as "proof" You continue your campaign after the founders of it have been proven to be frauds, and despite objective data collected that falsify the fundamental hypotheses upon which your house of cards is built.

Scientists know that correlation does not prove causation, but carbon dioxide doesn't correlate at all well with global temperature. On the other hand, solar irradiance does.


sites.google.com
 
2012-07-18 10:15:06 AM
chimp_ninja:
You believe in a conspiracy theory that requires thousands of scientists around the world to commit fraud in massive numbers, with the complicity of their peer/rival scientists, a host of government organizations, private and publicly-owned journals, professional societies, and universities. It's completely insane on its face, and it gets crazier the more you dig.

No, all one has to do is get a couple of people who collect the data for the repositories, and corrupt them. It doesn't take too many. Try this list: Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt. There are probably two or three others. That's all one needs -- that and the complicity of politicians, who can be counted upon to cheat. They control the money for research, and hence, the research. Done deal. Claims that thousands of people are required are bollocks, and part of the same retarded mind-set you carry with you at all times.

What *IS* a conspiracy theory of the tin-foil kind is that the Koch brothers are corrupting the whole field, or that the tiny dribble of money for research that comes from the energy companies somehow corrupts any scientist it touches. Now THAT is pants-on-head retarded.

The IPCC has been caught dozens of times committing fraud with their published reports. And, just WHAT kind of fraud has corrupted the IPCC? ALL of the fraud is in the form of environmental groups getting their lying propaganda into IPCC reports. Not one bit of "oil company" corruption has made it into the reports. As always, follow the money. For every dollar that energy companies put into research, environmental groups put in ten. And for every dollar that environmental groups put in, governmental units put in at least ten. At least pretend you have a brain.

But none of that holds a candle to the crazy you exhibit with your tortured logic and charts of times when posts are made. That crap gives me a literal headache if I try to follow it. Thank GOD I don't have to -- I KNOW what I was doing, and it has nothing to do with your brain-fever-induced schemes. Now THAT is some crazy shiat.
 
2012-07-18 10:24:59 AM

GeneralJim: Scientists know that correlation does not prove causation, but carbon dioxide doesn't correlate at all well with global temperature. On the other hand, solar irradiance does.


1) I have no idea where the hell that graph is from. "Modified from Soon, 2004" is not a good start.

2) Why is the graph of arctic temperatures only? Why the weird vertical scaling?

3) Here's actual solar irradiance data from NASA, a primary source:
science.nasa.gov

Note that there has been a small decline since 1975. Temperatures have rose significantly over that time. Irradiance data taken directly from NASA.

4) According to whatever the hell temperatures you're plotting, it was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Again, let's go to a primary source and check that claim:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Data is from NOAA/NCDC, current to 2011.

Using actual data, you come to very different conclusions-- solar irradiance is only weakly correlated with the recently observed climate change, whereas it follows greenhouse forcings quite well. Again, from NASA, co-plotting both irradiance and greenhouse forcings in common units:

www.giss.nasa.gov

This all goes back to what I what pointing out before:

chimp_ninja: The ACC denier movement isn't skeptical in the slightest. They're contrarians who lap up random blog claims that agree with their political ideologies, but ignore hard data and professional studies from actual scientists. At best, it's hard-headed tribalism and cherry picking intended to confirm one's biases. At worst, it's blatant deception intended to push an agenda.


Of course, this has all been pointed out to you before, so it's more appropriate to ascribe your repeated attempts to push this nonsense as deliberate deception coupled to your mental illness.
 
2012-07-18 10:30:14 AM
chimp_ninja:
I hereby predict that GeneralJim will completely ignore that you have shown his claims to be false, and continue to inaccurately cite that same group of papers as if nothing just happened.

And why not? You morons totally ignore the fact that you are claiming a controlling interest from something that doesn't even correlate. You continue to believe that the keepers of the data are being honest, when you can SEE that they have been altering past data to conform to the agenda they have. You continue to insist that the plans of the U.N. which they have both published and discussed are a crazy conspiracy theory. So, with such logic-impaired partisan boneheads as yourselves, I don't even read Snow's BS. Here, for your edification, is the proof, published by NASA GISS itself, that the data are being diddled more than a prom queen on a hayride:

i44.tinypic.com

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-07-18 10:33:08 AM

GeneralJim: No, all one has to do is get a couple of people who collect the data for the repositories, and corrupt them. It doesn't take too many. Try this list: Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt. There are probably two or three others. That's all one needs -- that and the complicity of politicians, who can be counted upon to cheat. They control the money for research, and hence, the research. Done deal. Claims that thousands of people are required are bollocks, and part of the same retarded mind-set you carry with you at all times.


You continue to lie. Climate science is practiced by thousands of scientists, not five. Phil Jones alone has 42 people working for him, and a conspiracy to commit massive data fraud over a decade or two would require them all.

This study, published in the journal Science, investigated claims from 928 papers on climate change. Not one disagreed with the consensus position that the recently observed climate change. 928 papers likely means a couple thousand unique authors, plus all the reviewers (3-5 per paper), journal editors at dozens of professional journals, the government, academic, and private funding organizations who pay for the work, etc.
 
2012-07-18 10:45:04 AM

GeneralJim: You continue to insist that the plans of the U.N. which they have both published and discussed are a crazy conspiracy theory. So, with such logic-impaired partisan boneheads as yourselves, I don't even read Snow's BS.


See, but in this post he uses the links you cite, pastes in actual images of the contents of those cited articles, and shows that you are blatantly, repeatedly, and reliably lying about their contents.

I could see why you would want to pretend not to see those. The problem is, everyone else in the thread can see them, and they're all laughing at you (in part) because of that.
 
2012-07-18 10:51:45 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: He melts down, and makes seven farking replies. It's hilarious.

You and monkey boy sure read a lot into a post... too bad you're illiterate.

To be fair to me and monkey boy (who we all know are really the same person, of course), we read a lot into seven consecutive posts all responding to the same post.

There's a lot to read into there.

Bullshiat. You're off on another unfalsifiable stream-of-unconsciousness load of dingoes kidneys. If I post a long post, it's indicative of mental illness. If I post short posts, it's indicative of mental illness. If I post a few short posts in a short time, I've "melted down." If I go to sleep, and don't post anything for a while, or, God forbid, actually DO something during a day, it proves I'm mentally ill and cowering somewhere, afraid to post. So, fark you. Hell, I even missed a climate thread entirely a few days back. I do have things to do in my live, unlike you basement dwellers. Not that much, but clearly more than you.

And, as always, your stalker obsession speaks more to YOUR instability than to mine.


nyc3img.soundclick.com
I tell you I have PROOF.
Just look at these time stamps!
He posted SEVEN TIMES in one hour.
SEVEN! I ask you: Is that normal?
 
2012-07-18 11:12:24 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Oh he's going to be totally convinced that you're me now. He hates when I call attention to cause-and-effect and chronology, pointing out how he had X amount of time to respond since being exposed to Y. It's great!

Nope, I don't think you and Snowjob are alt-brothers. He's an arrogant little shiat, and I don't think he could stand even pretending to be as post-stupid as you are.

But, please, do tell me more about how much time I have to answer charges made in the court of Fark, and do I need to submit them on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper, or on legal size?

This is another of you self-important type's problems. Somehow, you all seem to think that you can assign homework. Fark off. I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it. Sometimes, when there is a lot of time, I will read it, but that doesn't have the same amusement value. Not only does he put lipstick on his pig, nobody dances with her at the cotillion. *SNERK*

But, that's only to be expected from people as farking impervious to reality as the whole gang of chicken squickers too impenetrably dense to recognize a fraud when the data is being manipulated in front of their eyes. And so dumb that they think consensus, real or faked, is science. Totally, blissfully unaware of how feedback systems work, and willing to believe that O.J. didn't kill anyone because a jury found him not guilty.

And, in TFA, the POINT is that PSU let a serial child molester get away with his crap for DECADES, rather than cause a loss of revenue to the University, but you can TOTALLY trust them when they say Michael Mann didn't commit fraud. The fact that tens of millions of dollars of grant money would go away if he were determined to have committed fraud had NOTHING to do with it. And that whole Sandusky thing was just a temporary, twenty-year glitch, and not at all indicative of anything being wrong in the adjudication process at PSU. Nope, no siree.
 
2012-07-18 11:29:30 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Section IV starts this way: "Stating that global warming is occurring because there is a scientific consensus to that effect is another appeal to authority fallacy."

and ends this way: "...has released a list of over 700 scientists rejecting global warming ... The list includes many current and former IPCC members as well as several Nobel Prize winners."

None of your monkey troop is really up on that new "cognition" thing, are they? Why in the flaming fark can none of you morons process this? Let me skip the details, and simplify the words, and go get your tire swing and some bananas, and we'll see if we can't cram a new thought in your head. Here goes:

Claims being made by warmtards of consensus are false.
Additionally, consensus would prove nothing, even if it were true; science doesn't work on consensus.

Any of that getting through, or do I need to go get the cattle prod?


Well, if several Nobel prize winners have signed on, it must be true! Or did that appeal to authority slip past you?

Seriously, do you have any critical thinking/reading comprehension abilities at all?
 
2012-07-18 11:30:10 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?

Uh yup. That's exactly what I'm doing. You brag and bluster that you can "predict the past" with eerily clairvoyant accuracy:

GeneralJim: Nothing is easier to spot AFTER the fact, but it is INCREDIBLY hard to predict in advance, which is, of course, when predictions are most useful. Like everyone else, my track record of predictions of PAST events is clearly clairvoyant. It's predicting the future that's the biatch.

So what happens when we put your bullshiat to the test? I happens like this:

1. I make a post directly addressing Dr. Craig Loehle's study.
2. You make a post crying about linking to Michael Mann's website.
3. I laugh at you for crying about that while you link to Roy Spencer, because you hate source denegration... until, of course, it's something you want to do
4. You get in to one of your famous blusters, trying to obfuscate from the above fact by attempting to "correct" me by pointing out it's Dr. Loehle's study, not Dr. Spencer's.
5. Which, unfortunately for you, would carry a lot more weight if that was something I hadn't demonstrated I had knowledge of before you attempted to correct me.
6. Which, again very unfortunately for you, makes your claim that you can predict the past with stunning accuracy all the funnier.

This is wrong, yes? I mean, you seem to be suggesting that something here is clearly wrong when you state this:

GeneralJim: As far as I can recall, you have NEVER demonstrated you've been "fully aware" of anything. Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?

So somewhere in that list of six fully cited, fully linked-to, documented premises, something must be wrong, right? Something amiss. Because if my conclusion is false, as you suggest, then either my reasoning must be invalid, or my facts must be untrue. If the reasoning is valid and the facts are true, the conclusion must be true. But I don't see you pointing out anywhere where it's actually wrong. You just insist it is, contradicting documented historical events vs. your desire to be right.

And I bet that if any further conversation comes from this thread of argument with you, something tells me that even if we go twenty posts on, you'll just continue playing contextomy games, leveling personal attacks as the sum total of your 'arguments' instead of little tidbits of vengeful goodness thrown in to a cold logic stew, and basically your typical MO of avoidance, attention whoring, and rage.

Though go on, do prove me wrong. I would love to learn something new about GeneralJim today.

Lack of self-awareness and lack of internal moral consistency are a biatch, aren't they Jim?

Oh. My. God. Holy fark, I was pulling your leg, but you really ARE that brain-dead. Oh, man, this is frickin HILARIOUS. Seriously, this is classic! Way funny, but in a "back away slowly" kind of way. Just in case you were wondering, THIS post of yours is what melting down looks like.

"So somewhere in that list of six fully cited, fully linked-to, documented premises, something must be wrong, right?" HAHAHAHA! I can see it now... I say "I'm gonna slap you in the face with my dick," and the response is a series of DNA tests proving conclusively that I never slapped you in the face with my dick, which of course PROVES that I'm a pathological liar, and a narcissistic personality with rage issues, delayed borborygmus, and shortness of pants. Oh, friggin' stop! My sides hurt. Oh, man, I'd PAY for a straightman like you IRL. The only down side is that I'm getting that kind of creepy feeling that I might be teasing a handicapped person...
 
2012-07-18 11:36:46 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
4. Rajendra Pachauri is not a "railroad" engineer. One of his PhD's is in industrial engineering. If you can't even be honest about that, why should anybody trust you on anything?

He's an engineer, and he worked for the railroad. Therefore, he is a railroad engineer. WHAR DISHONESTY, WHAR?

www.untoldentertainment.com
 
2012-07-18 11:41:43 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: There is no link to between the release of carbon dioxide and the warming.


Bullshiat and you know it.
Models? Jars in labs? Nope. Hard data from observations, or GTFO.

And fark the entire skepticalscience blog. It's one big lying talking point sheet for shills.


Yeah, it's clearly a lie to provide a summary of actual science, with links to the original publications. If you think they're lying, do your own research, and read the originals.

As far as 'hard data from observations' goes, this should help you:

(from here the same post that you didn't understand the last time I posted it)
"These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. "

Here are a few of the primary sources:
Revell-Suess_1957

Levin_Hesshaimer_2000

and a big list of more of them

You should maybe learn to read, so that you understand what you're criticizing and why you're criticizing it. Or you could just keep us all rolling on the floor, laughing at you.
 
2012-07-18 11:41:53 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
the sun's rays are allowed to pass through the glass, but the insulation of the greenhouse keeps the heat from escaping

You really ARE amusing. That's not how greenhouses work, you moron. But, yes, do insult me, and point out how a child can understand it, when YOU farking don't.
 
2012-07-18 11:48:38 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
You (you being the undecided third party audience) can also conceptualize it thus: CO2 in the form of dry ice is a solid which rapidly sublimates to gaseous form if exposed to normal, ambient air. (In fact it sublimates at around -78.5 C). If you keep it at, say, -150 C at normal atmospheric pressure, the CO2 will stay solid (as happens on the crust forming the surface of the Martian ice caps, which have polar temperatures as low as -140 C, though with a considerably thinner atmosphere).

Now, the only way to release this sequestered CO2 and have it enter the atmosphere is to heat it up. Otherwise it will just stay as a solid deposit of carbon dioxide, not doing anything other than just sitting there. It won't enter the atmosphere at all.

Wow, the list of subjects about which you know fark all is long and distinguished. This is what I'm talking about. You talk about this stuff, and you have NO freaking idea how any of it works, and then you start pontificating about it, and insulting others. Why this is wrong? One word: SUBLIMATION. A block of solid carbon dioxide at -100oC will eventually disappear. It does NOT have to be heated up to enter the atmosphere, bonehead.

Want to look less stupid? STFU. Guaranteed results.
 
2012-07-18 12:00:44 PM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim has been informed on multiple occasions that dendroclimatology prefers maximum latewood density over ring width as a proxy. However, even though GeneralJim insists (and attempts to act like) he is very informed on the subject of AGW, he doesn't grasp the basics of one of the fundamental properties dendroclimatology proxies (I would hazard a guess and say it's because he doesn't understand MXD and has a basic understanding of what ring width is, and therefore relies on ring width to argue against MXD studies).

So, you're back for more, eh? Okay, question: Does a tree grow at night? (To avoid further humiliation, I'll answer for you) Answer: not appreciably. Another question: Does a tree grow when it is freezing outside? Answer: not appreciably. So, if nighttime temperatures, or temperatures in the winter change, tree rings will, for all practical purposes, miss that information. And, since warming temperatures reduce the difference between winter and summer temperatures, and day and night temperatures, it can easily be important information that is being missed.

Also, trees grow more with more water. So, if rising temperatures (or falling temperatures) bring more rain to a location, the tree grows more. Trees also grow more when exposed to fertilizer, such as bovine excrement, which is why the trees near Mojo's place are frickin' HUGE.

So, any attempt to use tree rings as a proxy for temperature are inherently inaccurate, and hence should not be used unless no other option is available.


i1.squidoocdn.com
 
2012-07-18 12:06:32 PM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
If tree-ring width distorts the data, why does Jim never give discussions about MXD? It's because he doesn't understand what MXD is, hasn't yet incorporated it into his world view, etc.

This is interesting, from the bunghole that just proved he doesn't know how a greenhouse works.

images.sodahead.com
 
2012-07-18 12:06:50 PM

GeneralJim: carbon dioxide doesn't correlate at all well with global temperature. On the other hand, solar irradiance does.

sites.google.com


GeneralJim claims that CO2 and global temperature are not correlated. GeneralJim then posts, as "evidence", an unsourced plot of "Arctic" temperature and TSI, that is meant to imply a poor correlation.

The Arctic is of course not the globe, as even GeneralJim would probably concede (after seven or eight posts filled with deflection and invective, no doubt).

The attribution of warming to increases in GHGs is of course not based on a naive correlation, but rather on the well understood physics of greenhouse gases on planetary energy balance (understood by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, and others who were no doubt part of the UN conspiracy. Presumably they borrowed Obama's time machine).

But let's- just for the moment- pretend that GeneralJim's argument is valid. What if the attribution of warming rested solely on a naive correlation between globally-averaged temperature and a single other variable.

Let's look at the correlation between CO2 and global temperature vs. the correlation between CO2 and solar activity. What do you suppose we'll find?

First, let's look at solar vs. global temperature. Since you claim (depending on when it suits you) that the surface instrumental data are made up, we'll just use Roy Spencer's satellite data.

i.imgur.com

I get a correlation of R2 = 0.0257 between solar (I'm using PMOD data, but it doesn't really change the results much to use a different solar data set) and UAH.

Remember, GeneralJim is claiming:

GeneralJim: carbon dioxide doesn't correlate at all well with global temperature. On the other hand, solar irradiance does.


So according to GeneralJim, R2 = 0.0257 means two variables are well correlated.

What happens when we look at CO2 vs. UAH?

i.imgur.com

We get a correlation of R2 = 0.3594.

So, by GeneralJim's own claim, CO2 is more than an order of magnitude better correlated with temps than solar is.

If we look at CO2 vs. temp over the full instrumental record, or over the ice core record, the correlation is even greater.

Because, back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2012-07-18 12:09:41 PM
Wyalt Derp:
Don't give up, Jim. If you get the last post in the thread it means you won the debate, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It is clearly YOU boneheads who are jockeying for thread position. I just want to see Mojo explain how more things work, so I can taunt him as many times as possible...
 
Displayed 50 of 429 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report