Australia suffers most extreme warming

Sigh!! Now I get it - you were quoting earlier graphs - please be more specific because you are not the only person I am discussing this topic with.

And you STILL have not shown were the graphs are in error

 

I beg your pardon??? Are you NOW trying to say that due to differences of what is being represented in the pretty pictures means that YOUR statements and claims are correct, while everybody else’s is wrong???

After all this time, you have not figured out that the pretty pictures (NO MATTER WHO POSTS THEM) do not represent what the poster is claiming??? Again, IF one cannot collaborate the graphs they are posting with the data used to post them, you have no credibility to assume anything of their validity... This accounts to the credibility of the person proclaiming them as reliable...

IF and ONLY IF you could point to the first graph you are trying to say is the rebuttal of my premise that the pretty pictures are only for gullible people to pretend they know what they are talking about, I may talk about that graph. BUT as I am talking about the two graphs you posted to me which is a pretty picture of the GISP2 DATA which unless you stood out there for over 50,000 years with a thermometer is derived from the GISP2 data posted by NOAA (from the warmer religion). So that would make this statement entirely irrelevant and showing more of the dishonesty on this topic.

Again 15 years (which is 5 less than last time it was claimed) seems to have lost the fact that actual data compared to pretty pictures show far different things.

Well that is your problem, READ every single one of those graphs (yes I did look) and you will see that they DO NOT say what you say they are saying...

So you are saying that you were standing out there some 10.000 years??? You posted the GIPS2 Graphs and claimed them to be true and accurate, WHERE do you think the data came from to make that graph???

Oh to your claim of IPCC predictions running close



The actual observations of the AR5 (yours AR4) falls well short, which was posted in the AR5 report after the draft was leaked to try and sort some credibility. Mmmm, I wonder how that will fly in the face of the IPCC supporters???

 

BUT you want to pretend the sources are good validation against the data held within???

What you are really saying is that if it supports global warming one must look to the facts, but if they are not, you can discount the facts held within because of where they come from...

I think you have just shown more of that hypocrisy over the sources than pointing out Adultmale's failure... In other words, I think you got yourself...

 

And this is what happens when you pounce on answers. I did not read your posts all the way through and to be truthful I often don't because they are not worth wasting my time on. But I did re-read them and then I realised WHICH charts you were referencing (one PAGES back) it made more sense and I changed my reply

BTW you SITLL have not proven a point - or even come near to proving a point.

As for your chart - well, you failed with mine so let me see what I can do with this one from WUWT - which an even cursory glance shows has been cherry picked. It shows only five years of data - the last five years where we have had one of the lowest solar outputs on record - it also only shows surface temperature not total cumulative heat

 

I will offer you the same bet I offer everyone. Pick a site of your choosing as long as it is a sceptic site, and I will pick one of mine. The one who finds the most misleading data, lies, manipulation and downright conflagration of facts wins - the loser to pay PF a donation. My only stipulation is that the moderators decide who has won.

 

That is interesting, I believe it is YOU who decided to take me to task with your "climate does not change by itself..." Now it is apparently that your religious fervour also wants to say you don't even bother addressing the points raised.

As I showed in previous post when it had become apparent that WITH YOU COMMENTS ON TEMPERATURE, you obviously had change your subject matter (on your own I might add). It was apparent that you had decided that you would not follow your own standard of sticking to the point and made a diversion to something else... This is YOUR failure not mine.

Again, IT is not me that has to show you the error of your pretty pictures as I am not the person who decided validity without justification. I posted the link to the data that YOUR graphs were made of, AND anybody with any small part of grey matter who wishes to check the data will see that certain data has been omitted. Should they wish to graph it themselves, they will get different graphs from those YOU posted... You proclaim as cherry picking that other graphs have done the same... NOT MY POINT TO PROVE as it is YOUR claim.

Isn't that intriguing, NOW the pretty pictures do not add up because the pretty picture is not BASED on data long enough to show what is intended.

IF YOU NOTICE, the temperature has not shown an upward trend from the start of the graph.
IF YOU NOTICE, the graph shows that CURRENT TEMPERATURES have not meet even close to the 95% certainty of the IPCC predictions at all... IF YOU NOTICE the IPCC predictions did not say the trend will be this or that, they stated the temperature would be this and that, so time frame is irrelevant to the graph provided.

IF YOU NOTICE the graph does not say WHY the temperatures should be this or that they simply show the IPCC predictions and the actual observations... NOTHING MORE. My point is shown, that you are trying to defend this graph as some sort of representation of climatic conditions and how it does not show this nor that because of this and that. FACT IS, this graph simply shows the IPCC are wrong with their predictions (AS STATED BY THE IPCC with their admission of overstating the effects of CO2).

IT IS SIMPLY A PRETTY PICTURE... HERE IS ANOTHER


This pretty picture shows the same, BUT one thing it does is point out that while temperatures are not significantly rising (AT A LESS RATE than the IPCC PREDICTS) the correlation of CO2 to that is not right. THUS the correlation of CO2 to temperature is not made by the religion of the AGW and the IPCC... There are no REAL facts in the picture. IT IS JUST A PRETTY PICTURE, demonstrating the fact the claims of CO2 rises having direct link and cause of temperature is a fallacy. This in no way actually proves correlation; it simply demonstrates evidence of correlation is not present and thus anybody who wants to simply pretend it exists by posting such pretty pictures is wrong.

BUT as my original point is that YOUR graphs do not represent any real data from NOAA (as you claimed)… it is your job to show that it is (which you have not). Your standard is imposed upon YOU.

 

Yours is easy, I have already pointed to the cherry picking of your original post on the GISP2 graph. Obviously cherry picked... In fact I consider YOU cherry pick your data (as obviously you only choose the pretty pictures that agree with your religion). Perhaps if you could explain why you WIKI graphs don’t show what you claim they show, we might be able to consider this.

I don't think I need to worry about any such thing as everybody has demonstrated this cherry picking with ALL sites. The real bet would be to show that these sites DON'T manipulate the data... So far NOTHING you have posted (and I for that matter) has not been manipulated in some way. I make NO claim that it is not, but again I am not pretending different either. It is YOU who wants to pretend this and that from what is posted... SO far you are failing…

So when you can associate the difference of the pretty pictures (those graphs you post) and the actual data used to create them, then come back and ask that question. Until then, in my mind you have wasted 15 years of your life (5years less than the previous claim of credibility) praying to your lord GORE, and being led by the nose.

Oh to the graphs posted BY me from the AR5 predictions, IF YOU NOTICE near the top you will see a small note of prediction (I am assuming) of lordmocktonfoundation.com =.04... That is a closer call than the IPCC giving Mockton far more credibility than the IPCC in that matter...

 

Just saying that they do not represent "real data from NOAA" is not the same as PROVING it. There are plenty of sites out there that will let you manipulate the data for yourself - woodfortrees is one of them

 

You are being deliberately disingenuous. Clicking the "long range solar forecast" highlighted in blue does take the reader to an official NASA site. The true and accurate evidence regarding the real cause of global warming is presented in the link I provided to you, but for some reason, you don't want to read it or acknowledge it.

As I suspected after reading the article myself. If there was any inaccurate information given regarding NASA; NASA would have been the first to demand a retraction and an apology from the editor.

Now I would like you to provide links and evidence to dispute NASA science.

 

Same standards as you have applied to others (Including me) with

Just saying, does not mean you are right...

then this one...

Where is the evidence of this claim??? Two graphs of the GISP2 data sets which were doctored...

As stated, YOU claimed them as validity of data created from the data held on the NOAA site posted, yet you cannot validate them... COMPLETELY DISHONEST... FAILURE of your own standards.

Again, your claim, YOUR job to validate your own claim and I have pointed to where the full set of DATA lays... This is your claim of others to verify, I impose your own standards upon you...

Just saying that they do represent "real data from NOAA" is not the same as PROVING it.

 

But if you can prove the claims why bother with the blogs, why don't you just post the proof that disputes my blogger?

 

She did

 

It just occurred to me that http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...-think-tanks-and-climate-change-denial-books/ has taken the alarmist tactic of discrediting anyone or anything that disputes their religious doctrine to a whole new level. These two, with their 'social' degrees are actually trying to discredit warming skeptic books en masse! They are not in any way disputing the contend of the books, they are trying to discredit them all without even reading the first page in any of them!!

 

i did not read that far and why should I - by that stage I had already found so many errors, straw men, misleading statements and flat out misrepresentations that it was enough for me. Why should that link be any better represented than the rest of the data?

I am not disputing NASA science - and I have to ask if they are correct about this then you have to accept they are correct in the predictions of Anthropogenic global warming. What I am disputing is the (mis) representation of the data.

Now back to that NASA link - it is from 2006 Why 2006?? Because that said what the journalist wanted - that there was going to be a quiet period and we did not have to worry about global warming

2013 - and it has been a lower solar activity but not down as far as predicted

 

Never mind

 

What - that we still have a long way to go in as far as solar predictions are concerned - never been in doubt

As I already have pointed out the SSRC is NOT part of NASA.

Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) is a leading independent US climate research company. It is the foremost institution in the United States dedicated to the analysis and planning for the next climate change - forecast to be one of decades of record cold weather.

The SSRC maintains active communication channels with some of the world's best experts in the field of solar physics and climate research pertaining to the matter of the next climate change. In addition it has a dedicated list of "Supporting Researchers" who have committed their name and assistance to the mission of the SSRC. The SSRC also updates key US government leaders of the status of climate change activity centered on its area of expertise.

The SSRC possesses the capability to conduct planning and research on how best to prepare individuals, businesses, and governments at all levels for the next climate change to a period of long lasting and potentially dangerous colder weather.

Sources of Funding

The SSRC actively solicits research funding, study contracts and donations from qualified, reputable sources. In view of the polarized nature of the current climate change debate, the SSRC does not accept requests from any individual or organization that is seeking predetermined outcomes or otherwise represents views which are considered extremist or alarmist by the SSRC or are not willing to accept an objective examination of the facts. We do accept funding from well intended, open minded individuals and organizations who value the independent position and capability that a science research company like SSRC can provide. The SSRC currently operates primarily from income derived from sales of its publications. (See "Publications" page).

Those wishing to donate to the SSRC can mail a (non-deductible) check payable to "SSRC" to P.O. Box 607841, Orlando, Florida 32860.

John L. Casey
President, Space and Science Research Corporation

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html
BEST description might be "internet scam"

NASA has always held that a good percentage of the current warming is because of man dumping 83 million barrels of (burnt) oil per day into the atmosphere

We wish - truth is that as soon as the "Merchants of Doubt" got into the act any attempt to try to prevent data being misused was touted as "A few scientists scamming the rest of the community" You only have to look at the outcry over the East Anglia University's inability to release temperature data (which it did not even own to release) to realise how efforts to stop data being misused can be misrepresented

No question - mine was the real NASA

Dave I have been studying this now for over 15 years and we are coming closer and closer to having the entire jigsaw puzzle. We have had the main pieces of this puzzle in place for a lot of years now

But bottom line is there are a lot of disinformation sites out there - don't get sucked into them

 

This is a very good criticism of the alarmist doctrine and expose of the slimy tactics they use.

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

Dr David M. W. Evans is a mathematician and engineer who consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005. Another alarmist who became a skeptic after having a good look at the so called "evidence"!

 

I don't debate to convince them but these threads do get read by others outside the forum - every forum has "lurkers" who do not participate but do read. My reply might be googled by someone looking for a rebuttal of the paper that Cullidave posted or someone undecided about the subject. That is why I try to keep calm, do not indulge in Ad Homs and DO research so that those who are undecided can read through and think the same thing that struck me. "Gee these denialists have NO science on their side, no real debate and what little there is is misrepresented or outright false data.

 

Noooo - do a more thorough search David Evans is less than he claims to be and has been trying to make money from denialism for some time
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (**snort - read David Evans definition of a rocket scientist)

But enough of the personalities let us look at the "science" here

1) Paper has no academic references

Now I have a HUGE issue with that to start with and that in itself should tell you there is less value there than used toilet paper

2) Not peer reviewed - in fact not accepted for publication even in "Crapmag.com" and you would have to get a group of scientists to stop laughing at the content long enough to peer review it before it could be accepted

3) What little referencing there is, is to other blogs - enough said of THAT

4) Quotes OISM as valid source (still laughing over that one)

5) Strawman building e.g.

6.) The "Saturation effect" has been debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a cyclone - and the easiest way of debunking it is to show that the IR signature of Earth has and still is changing

In other words this paper has the same relationship to published peer reviewed academic papers as Evan's definition of a Rocket Scientist has to do with Rocket science

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

Anyone for a Claytons??

 

You picked one thing out of that whole article that you think you can refute, the staturation effect. As usual you immediately launched into character assassination and discredit of the source. Once again you criticis the use of blogs as reference even though you constantly use blogs as reference yourself, you even referenced a blog in your reply!!! Oh, sorry I forgot, YOUR blogs are true gospel and need no scrutiny. Once again you criticis someone for getting paid for their skeptic views and infer that this discredits anything they say but then you don't level the same criticism at anyone getting paid for their alarmist outpourings. You are an outrageous hypocrite!!

 

May I ask, was the hole/s in the ozone layer taken into consideration when these models on climate change were done? I don't see much evidence form either side that represents what effects the holes in the ozone have had on recent climate change?

 

I provided 6 points which demonstrate this paper is not worth printing and instead of a defence i.e. further papers to "prove" the "saturation effect" (good luck there) I get Ad Homs

I grew up before academic referencing was a requirement in high schools let alone tertiary education (certainly nursing in the bad sad old days did not insist on it) so I am used to people who do not know or understand what it is and what it means. Valid academic referencing means everything is linked to research and if you note even the blogs I quote are linked to research. Certainly Sceptical Science has links to valid peer reviewed papers throughout as does even WIKI (surely you have seen the list of papers at the end of a Wiki entry).

Without links to valid and validated research it is no longer a paper but an opinion - and in all probability, and judging by the mish mash of crap worth a LOT less than mine.

But I am used to Ad Homs and take them for what they are - indicators that the author has run out of things to say