Ian Shlasko, can you provide proof that GW sceptics have lied?

Lost User

Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist. 2) Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun." 3) You tube vid: Quoted scientists. etc several more from Watts. 6 or 7, Delling pole. Yep, a journalist. Talking about the Jones inquiry. 9) Rich Trzupek quoting schnieder, a scientist. 10) Journalist reporting politicians so not a scientific point of view. So, lots of quotes form scientists on both sides. Do you consdier them crackpot? A financial journalist wuoting the events of a pollitical meting. Hardly crackpot. Watts. A weather man. And Delingpole, a commentor for the Telegraph. Tell me, didnt journalists expose the watergate scandal?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Lost User

Yes it is! :laugh:

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Ian Shlasko

fat_boy wrote:

Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.

Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS. Unless you can understand this VERY simple distinction, any discussion with you is pointless.

fat_boy wrote:

We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?

We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.

fat_boy wrote:

One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place.

Cute. Out of all the different dictionaries cited on that page, you pick the one that describes the ETYMOLOGY instead of the DEFINITION. Funny how every actual DEFINITION on that page uses the word "average." So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless. Your homework for the day... Look up the definitions of "FACT" and "AVERAGE".

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

Lost User

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS

What proven facts?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.

Bullshit,

Ian Shlasko wrote:

So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless.

Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy fucking grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem. AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident. Go back and read the basic scicence of AGW then come back to me when you have the slightest understanding.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

William Winner

fat_boy wrote:

Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist.

You're right...he's even less qualified.

fat_boy wrote:

Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist

First, being a weather-man does not make you a scientist. Most have degrees in journalism, not science. Secondly, having looked at weather data for 25 years doesn't make you a credible climate change scientist. As for most of the others, sure they're using scientists, but you didn't use them, you used something written by a non-scientist and I think we can all agree that if you have a specific viewpoint to start with, you can find quotes and papers to back you up. As for number 10, well, it's great that you can tell how politicians feel about a subject by what they do, since we all know that there's no way they're politically motivated.

Ian Shlasko

fat_boy wrote:

What proven facts?

Exactly my point.

fat_boy wrote:

Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy f***ing grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem.

That particular part of the Internet is derived from actual dictionaries, that ARE considered the holy grail of truth, since they define the actual language we're using. If you're going to argue that the average is irrelevant and that every single region has to get warmer, than make up your own terms instead of referring to it as "Global Warming."

fat_boy wrote:

AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident.

If memory serves, William Winner actually explained that to you several months ago on an earlier thread. Since he seems to know more about the theory than me (And, I'm pretty sure, than you), I defer to him on that.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

Lost User

William Winner wrote:

As for most of the others, sure they're using scientists, but you didn't use them

Yeah, sorry, I didnt have the time to go and ask all the scientists individually, I used a video off youtube which had done it already. My profound alppologies for my lazyness and lack of professionalism. End of the day AGW theory has problems: 1) The troposphere isnt as warm as it should be. 2) The south pole is not warming. 3) Man made CO2 is not having a detectable effect on temperatute outside of normal variation. Almost every scientist in the world agrees with that, whether they be pro AGW or against it because they are the hard and fast facts. Bob Watson and Phil Jones, both in the pro AGW camp, have both stated as much. Lindzen and Christy both in the anti AGW camp the same. Lets forget the crap, and look at the basic empiracle evidence for AGW.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Lost User

Ian Shlasko wrote:

than make up your own terms instead of referring to it as "Global Warming."

I dont have to. You provided on that fits perfectly.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

If memory serves, William Winner actually explained that to you several months ago on an earlier thread

No he didnt. No one can since it is a well known problemn with the AGW theory.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

riced

Late too the party, but: Sallie Baliunos: Claimed (2001): "measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. " In "Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy: Climate History and the Sun". George C. Marshall Institute. Claimed (2002): "Both satellites and balloons have carried instruments aloft to sense the temperature changes of those layers. In the case of the satellite record, which begins in 1979, there is a globally-averaged warming trend of only 0.04 C per decade, which projects to 0.4 C per century." In Science Rejects Kyoto by Sallie Baliunas - Capitalism Magazine One of them's a lie. I leave you to decide which one. :laugh:

Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.

Lost User

This is an interesting story. The satelites showed no warming, and this was veririfed by weather ballon radings (Sonde readings). The satellite data was later adjusted for skin drag and time of day reading which produced a slight warming trend. This is the troposphere trend, which is about a third the surface trend. This raises a procedural question, given that weather ballons had been used for centuries why was their validation of the satellite data discarded? It was later suggested that the weather ballon data should be adjusted too. Again, why should centuries of accepted scientific method be changed because the data is unpalatable?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

riced

fat_boy wrote:

This is an interesting story

Maybe. But still Sallie lied - one of her claims must be false. QED. :)

fat_boy wrote:

This raises a procedural question, given that weather ballons had been used for centuries why was their validation of the satellite data discarded?

Perhaps because it was shown that the satellite measurements were more accurate?

fat_boy wrote:

given that weather ballons had been used for centuries

We can't be given that. The first balloons were those of de Bort around 1896 - i.e. just over a century (and they were experimental).

Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.

Lost User

riced wrote:

Maybe. But still Sallie lied - one of her claims must be false. QED.

Oh for sure. Dont forget our friend Schnieder, who was a global cooling alarmist in the 70s, even going so far as to say CO2 caused cooling, who a decade later became a GW convert.

riced wrote:

Perhaps because it was shown that the satellite measurements were more accurate?

I dont know much about sonde data gathering techniques, but since they have been used for centuries I would imagine that an inacuracies would be at least consistent. Even if they had read incorrectly, they would have consistently read incorrectly. And since the issue is a rise intemperature, this would have been detected.

riced wrote:

We can't be given that. The first balloons were those of de Bort around 1896 - i.e. just over a century (and they were experimental).

OK. I was relying on memory, which failed me. I seemed to recall the first weather balloons used were in the 18th century.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

riced

fat_boy wrote:

Oh for sure. Dont forget our friend Schnieder, who was a global cooling alarmist in the 70s, even going so far as to say CO2 caused cooling, who a decade later became a GW convert.

So Sallie lied and therefore you have proof that, at least one, GW sceptic lied. What any other person did, no matter what their group affiliation, is irrelevant.

fat_boy wrote:

sonde data gathering techniques, but since they have been used for centuries I

No the have not, they are no earlier than 1896 - see next quotation where you admit this.

fat_boy wrote:

OK. I was relying on memory, which failed me. I seemed to recall the first weather balloons used were in the 18th century.

fat_boy wrote:

Even if they had read incorrectly, they would have consistently read incorrectly.

That's an assumption - it may be that the variation in measurement is sufficiently large to mask any underlying trend. This could be because the precision of the sonde instruments was relatively low. You appear to be saying that the readings could be consistently biased in one direction if that were so, and the precision of both groups of instrument was the same, an underlying trend would still appear. I lack the engineering competence to claim that either group of instruments is more precise than the other. But the general trend is to better precision, so I suspect earlier instruments to be less precise. If so then earlier sonde instruments could indeed have variability that masks an underlying trend that more precise satellite instruments reveal.

Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.

Lost User

riced wrote:

That's an assumption

Instrument changes tend to cause step variation in records, and are esy to spot. Of course gradual deterioration would be harder to see, but since they have been used fairly widely one eould expect this kind if thiing to have been handled correctly. For example, validating the instruments regularly is a key part of scientific rigour. Stick it in boiling waterm check it reads 100. Stick it in water at maximum densitym check it reads 4. Engineering companies regularly verify instruments. It all part of quality and accuracy. BTW I have worked a long time in engineering (mechanical) in R and D, which is kind of scientific in some ways so I know what I am talking about.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription