| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,891 Views) | |
| Chris | Nov 14 2011, 07:16 AM Post #171 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for admitting I did provide sources. But again, you are arguing ad hom. It doesn't matter what you think of the organization or the person. To argue that is to argue logical fallacies. You cannot argue rationally from fallacies. "How about the other one?"
Edited by Chris, Nov 14 2011, 07:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 14 2011, 07:19 AM Post #172 |
|
Deleted User
|
Hmm, I just followed the money trail for SPPI back to The Center for Science and Public Policy and from there, straight to Exxon Mobil. Surprise Surpise. |
|
|
| Chris | Nov 14 2011, 07:21 AM Post #173 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ad hom. I suppose though, if you can't argue the data but don't like it you have nothing left to do but argue logical fallacies. How do you defend doing that? I've asked you several times now. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 14 2011, 07:24 AM Post #174 |
|
Deleted User
|
OK, so the other graph looks like it came off the Daily Mails (The British equiv. of the national enquirer) website. I cannot find it anywhere on BEST's website, can you? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 14 2011, 07:28 AM Post #175 |
|
Deleted User
|
Hmm I see you've learned nothing from the tobacco industry experience. i ma not arguing data, I am arguing how some people cherry pick the results to suit their corporate masters. |
|
|
| Chris | Nov 14 2011, 07:29 AM Post #176 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, so now you admit I gave sources. Strange, for 3 or 4 pages and dozens of posts you lied I hadn't. Now are you asking about the graph of BEST data that Curry said: "This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly. ‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’" And you said "I have no problem with Judith Curry, at least she is climatologist." And Richard Muller said "...he [Muller] admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified." Is that what you're questioning now, telco? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 14 2011, 07:31 AM Post #177 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yes I foudn them buried in your links, so why did you just not clear that up earlier? All I needed were you to say SPPI & Daily Mail. Very simple. Regardless, they are interpretations of another organizations data by unqualified people. A daily mail reporter? really. Give me a break. Brew already dealt with Curry's cherry picking, no need to repeat the coup de grace he did on you over that one. |
|
|
| Chris | Nov 14 2011, 07:33 AM Post #178 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As you already admitted, I gave you my sources. "they are interpretations of another organizations data by unqualified people." Oh? You mean the graph of BEST data that Curry said: "This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly. ‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’" And you said "I have no problem with Judith Curry, at least she is climatologist." And Richard Muller said "...he [Muller] admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified." Is that what you're questioning now, telco? Are you saying Curry and Muller are unqualified? Curry is a climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and member of the BEST team. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and head of the BEST team. You're questioning them? Edited by Chris, Nov 14 2011, 07:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 14 2011, 07:43 AM Post #179 |
|
Deleted User
|
As Brew pointed out, Curry is cherry picking isolated data and not looking at the overall trend, not very good practice. As for unqualified i am referring to the Daily Mail Had you done your research & gone to the actual source, BEST itself, you would find this: Has Global Warming Stopped? Some people have suggested that there has been no global warming over the past 13 years, and they ask whether our land-only analysis verifies that. The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades so you can better see the period in question. The blue curve is the result of our analysis, and the grey lines represent our 95% confidence limits. Berkeley Earth analysis chart ![]() The large fluctuations up and down that take place every few years correlate very strongly with the North Atlantic temperatures (the AMO index) and with El Nino (ENSO index 3.4). See our paper on "Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures" for analysis of that. The presence of these fluctuations makes any strong extrapolations from short-term behavior uncertain. Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 14 2011, 07:46 AM Post #180 |
|
Deleted User
|
BTW also on BEST's site is this statement by Curry & Mueller: Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller: In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not. We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take. Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed. We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:41 PM Jul 11
