Lets put it into some perspective: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temps-ar1.jpg and http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg No correlation between CO2 and temperature - and we have yet to reach the sustained high temps of the medieval warm period.
Then some widwer perspective - a global cooling problem! http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_presse/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate.jpg
And then the real cause for concern - we're headed to the next ice age, but don't sell your high latitude property yet:
As a wise man once commented - lies, damn lies, and statistics.
How could you take any short term graph seriously when compared to the four graphs I've linked to. I'd also suggest your graph is misleading compared to actual figures: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.65/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2012.95/trend/offset:0.01
Yikes, I guess in this scenario where none of us are Climate Scientists we should look to their guidance (very nearly all of which agreed on Global Warming a long time ago).
Or is this another case of 'I'm right & science is wrong'?
So what do you make of the data provided that indicates the opposite of your belief and clearly shows the chart in the original post is clearly not the indicator the poster suggests it might be? If you wish to continuing believing selective data manufactured to appear a certain way, then go for it. That's what those with the political agenda are really happy with.
However if you really have an open mind have a look at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/27/cagw-bias-in-academia-lesfrud-and-meyer-2013-revisited/ See what the underlying theme might be.
What you are unaware of is I do have some background in this area. In a previous role I worked with scientists to create computer models in conjunction with the insurance industry. As a result I do know a little about the science of climate and what is driving it - and just how little is truly known about the system. Your call to a higher athority that supposedly knows it all is really sad. Have a read of the climategate emails sometime to see why that might be.
Para - why are you frothing so mightily? My "Goodness" is hardly an inflammatory comment. Yours is an over-reaction to a simple comment about a simple graph. It does show a trend though, aye!
The graph does continue a trend - but we're probably talking about different trends here.
Frothing? Don't you think it sad that Bioneer believes he is right and science is wrong? I wouldn't call trying to help lost and wayward souls frothing.
Bioneer seems to be saying that us amateurs should look to the climate scientists for their views, rather than wallow around in the bits and pieces we glean from our own 'research'. A significant number of those scientists, some 97%, say much the same thing as each other. You, paranormal, say the opposite. Go figure (we have).
Perhaps you need to go figure a bit more RG. Can you prove the 97% figure? Or is it more propaganda and not an empirical result. Why is it that more and more eminent climate scientists are openly questioning the AGW mantra?
It is a sad indictment that you have a commendable question everything attitude - except when it comes to your own beliefs.
But back to the topic at hand. the post shows a graph with a selected series of manipulated data. This was countered with factual evidence showing your graph is at best misleading, yet you wish to cling to your belief. And you wonder why people suggest it may be a religion.
I don't wonder why "people" say 'religion', para. In my experience, those who hold religious beliefs of their own, lay that charge most readily at the feet of others. It reminds me that those who know most about Satanism, are Christians of the most fundamental sort. They seem, somehow, to understand the workings of the minds of their 'enemies' intimately. Curious, I know!
OK Paranormal, I decided to stop clinging to my beliefs and it's left me with a chilling question: What if we're creating a better world for nothing?..
15 comments:
Is that your hockey stick then?
Lets put it into some perspective:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temps-ar1.jpg
and
http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg
No correlation between CO2 and temperature - and we have yet to reach the sustained high temps of the medieval warm period.
Then some widwer perspective - a global cooling problem! http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_presse/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate.jpg
And then the real cause for concern - we're headed to the next ice age, but don't sell your high latitude property yet:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
It looks to me as though there's a trend in that graph.
As a wise man once commented - lies, damn lies, and statistics.
How could you take any short term graph seriously when compared to the four graphs I've linked to. I'd also suggest your graph is misleading compared to actual figures:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.65/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2012.95/trend/offset:0.01
Flat trend line there for 16 years.
Yikes, I guess in this scenario where none of us are Climate Scientists we should look to their guidance (very nearly all of which agreed on Global Warming a long time ago).
Or is this another case of 'I'm right & science is wrong'?
So what do you make of the data provided that indicates the opposite of your belief and clearly shows the chart in the original post is clearly not the indicator the poster suggests it might be? If you wish to continuing believing selective data manufactured to appear a certain way, then go for it. That's what those with the political agenda are really happy with.
However if you really have an open mind have a look at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/27/cagw-bias-in-academia-lesfrud-and-meyer-2013-revisited/ See what the underlying theme might be.
What you are unaware of is I do have some background in this area. In a previous role I worked with scientists to create computer models in conjunction with the insurance industry. As a result I do know a little about the science of climate and what is driving it - and just how little is truly known about the system. Your call to a higher athority that supposedly knows it all is really sad. Have a read of the climategate emails sometime to see why that might be.
Para - why are you frothing so mightily? My "Goodness" is hardly an inflammatory comment. Yours is an over-reaction to a simple comment about a simple graph.
It does show a trend though, aye!
The graph does continue a trend - but we're probably talking about different trends here.
Frothing? Don't you think it sad that Bioneer believes he is right and science is wrong? I wouldn't call trying to help lost and wayward souls frothing.
Bioneer seems to be saying that us amateurs should look to the climate scientists for their views, rather than wallow around in the bits and pieces we glean from our own 'research'. A significant number of those scientists, some 97%, say much the same thing as each other. You, paranormal, say the opposite.
Go figure (we have).
Perhaps you need to go figure a bit more RG. Can you prove the 97% figure? Or is it more propaganda and not an empirical result. Why is it that more and more eminent climate scientists are openly questioning the AGW mantra?
It is a sad indictment that you have a commendable question everything attitude - except when it comes to your own beliefs.
But back to the topic at hand. the post shows a graph with a selected series of manipulated data. This was countered with factual evidence showing your graph is at best misleading, yet you wish to cling to your belief. And you wonder why people suggest it may be a religion.
I don't wonder why "people" say 'religion', para. In my experience, those who hold religious beliefs of their own, lay that charge most readily at the feet of others.
It reminds me that those who know most about Satanism, are Christians of the most fundamental sort. They seem, somehow, to understand the workings of the minds of their 'enemies' intimately.
Curious, I know!
OK Paranormal, I decided to stop clinging to my beliefs and it's left me with a chilling question: What if we're creating a better world for nothing?..
That'd be a waste, Bio. You can't make money from that! Only invest in things that return you $money$.
Didn't your father teach you anything??
Bloody parents!!!
Hope Leo's found his roar and thriving.
Leo's my mane man!
Are you really Bioneer? Removing choices from Leo before he's had the opportunity to make them?
Post a Comment