re: NOAA Whistleblower: How world leaders were duped over manipulated AGW data

quote:

---

I don't think they do that at all

---

Worked on you. You apparently have never looked from your questions.

quote:

---

That is an even bolder claim than anthropomorphic climate change. What do you base this on?

---

The past historical trends. They all look pretty much the same. Rapid cooling, cold for a little while, rapid warming, hot for a while longer.

quote:

---

Key word - record. We have an official record of global temperatures for approximately a century.

---

You are aware there are ways to estimate temperature other than a thermometer right?

quote:

---

Maximum temperature =/= rate of temperature increase. Where are you finding that the Minoan warming period had a more rapid rise in temperatures

---

I take it you haven't bothered to look at the ice core studies.

quote:

---

We obviously don't need to account for the temperature on this planet 100,000,000 years ago to understand that our climate is changing. Climate deals with weather conditions on a bidecade scale of time.

---

That's funny.

More like millenia scale. And you do have to go back further to get a picture. The last 100 million years doesn't even contain one full hot, cooling, cold, warming cycle.

It is difficult to argue against a circle jerk because of the variations in points that im having to address.


I never said that we cannot look to various time scales to determine trends. I was addressing the question about baselines of our warming temperature trends, red herrings about how it was much warmer millions of years ago, and people misunderstanding the use of the word record. Scientist do use ice cores and other methods to peer into global temperatures back several hundred thousand years and this gives us an understanding of natural variations in temperature to compare to our current situation.

I looked into the Minoan warming period and didnot find anything that stated that the warming was more rapid than what we are experiencing today.

I used to be in denial that artificially doubling and soon to be tripling the amount of greenhouse gases on this planet was causing a disruption to the climate. So no, I do not take anything from climatology as gospel, but after doing honest research it is very hard to deny that we are impacting the climate. If you would check your lazy bias and do some honest research you will see the answers to many of your concerns.

quote:

---

Lol that you don't comprehend.

---

Just keep away from actual science, and you should be okay.

The way it works is that results from experimentation should be repeatable, and so the experiment is run many, many times over by many different scientists and the results speak for themselves. There is no "skeptical science", only scientists analyzing data and letting the chips fall where they may.

If you have an agenda when conducting an experiment, it's not science.

No charge for the lesson.

quote:

---

I looked into the Minoan warming period and didnot find anything that stated that the warming was more rapid than what we are experiencing today.

---

Apparently you need someone to tell you how to think. Look at the data.

Just over the last 10,000 years we've had 7 major spikes, the increase and decrease for some of them is almost vertical first some of them, based on very small time frames, 3-400 year intervals.

We are impacting the climate, nobody questions this. From history though we see this same thing occur completely without any assistance from man.

Are we coming out of this cold period? Maybe, or maybe we're just having a Minoan spike and we'll cool off and stay in a cold cycle for a while longer.

No one knows for certain, but if history tells us anything it's going to get a lot warmer at some point over the next few million years.

And there is nothing man can do about it.

quote:

---

And since we know for certain, and have seen it exposed multiple times, that there is an agenda . . . . then its no longer science

---

There are those climate scientists that have an agenda and are not conducting sound science, and there are climate scientists that are studying climate science objectively and are practicing sound science.

Each study has to be examined on its own merits, and objectively - that is to say, without the agenda of proving AGW right OR wrong.

So far the data suggests a global climate warming trend. There seems to be no true consensus on anthropogenic impacts due to insufficient data. There are hypotheses based on current knowledge of natural phenomena such as the ability of CO2 gas (and other gaseous compounds in the atmosphere) to allow ultraviolet radiation to pass through, but trapping infrared radiation - commonly referred to as the Greenhouse Effect. But an experiment to test the hypothesis conclusively has yet to be developed.

quote:

---

There are those climate scientists that have an agenda and are not conducting sound science, and there are climate scientists that are studying climate science objectively and are practicing sound science.

Each study has to be examined on its own merits, and objectively - that is to say, without the agenda of proving AGW right OR wrong.

So far the data suggests a global climate warming trend. There seems to be no true consensus on anthropogenic impacts due to insufficient data. There are hypotheses based on current knowledge of natural phenomena such as the ability of CO2 gas (and other gaseous compounds in the atmosphere) to allow ultraviolet radiation to pass through, but trapping infrared radiation - commonly referred to as the Greenhouse Effect. But an experiment to test the hypothesis conclusively has yet to be developed.

---

Very reasonable post. I agree. Have an upvote.

Daily Mail? Really? That's what you consider a credible news source? Come on now...

quote:

---

less than 1% of the scientist involved in studying AGW. You cannot discredit every single scientific journal article if a few of them show signs of bias.

---

Sadly, you seem to have no idea as to where the data that these scientists rely on actually comes from.

You seem to be of the impression that each independent scientist generates his own independent data. They don't. They rely on very few sources, one of the most common of which is NOAA. Now we know accuracy of NOAA data is questionable.

If the data is inaccurate, inaccuracy of scientific findings is a given.