Originally Posted by FineTunes
No tm, that's not what's the article is about, it's about how deniers often misinterpret data to "prove" that global warming isn't happening (the link was provided). The data is based upon 30 years of satellite data. As deniers often do is to take things out of context or only look at a portion of the evidence. The 30 year period is only a small portion of the temperature data that reflects increasing temperatures....some of the following might be helpful.
So killing the messenger kills the message?
A bad messenger means you don't have to address criticisms or prove a point?
As for you links, if you don't care to add anything to them, then I'll give them as much time as you do which is none. Do you honestly think discussion is simply throwing books, papers, pamphlets at someone and declaring you've won because they won't read whatever or how much stuff you want to throw at them? The point either stands or it doesn't. Worse still, the very point of this thread eludes you entirely. It's like you are so busy spamming links, you don't even understand what the discussion happens to be.
I didn't miss it. You didn't and still haven't addressed the point of this thread. I even simplified it for you. You've ignored and instead merely go to different websites and spam this thread with the graphics from them. What you are doing is completely illogical and dissuades rather than persuades.
Here is the point from the OP.
My point exactly: We can't use short-term weather patterns as evidence. But the Global Warming Enthusiast Club does exactly that. We hear constantly about record temperatures in the summer that are "evidence" of climate change (notice how "global warming" is gone as a term since it's been totally discredited and mocked). We hear and read that global war...eh...climate change is causing record numbers of strong hurricanes. It's causing torrential rain. It's causing tornados. It's even causing blizzards!
If your local town has a record setting week of warm temperatures next August, you'll here scientists wandering on to your 24 cables news network telling you that the reason the weather is so hot is global warming. If we have a couple earthquakes in Mexico, get used to it, global warming. Hurricanes are named progressively following the alphabet. Thus during the Bush years when New Orleans got hit by Hurricane K
atrina, we were told, better get used to seeing those later letters often due to global warming.
The question being asked is, why is weather support for global warming, but never falsifies global warming. We aren't talking about ignoramuses wandering around talking out there ass. Al Gore was the one declaring we would have ever more and ever escalating hurricanes as an example.
It doesn't appear logical or scientific. It simply appears exploitative and controlling. Regardless of the actual validity of global warming, it is not scientific to declare that localized and short term weather events are not climate and then turn around and declare that some random weather event is proof of climate.
I guess you missed ClimateGate....come on tm. I raised many questions about postings of one individual who kept going to the same sites like C3 which ofter distort the findings of scientific papers....some examples and comments of others
You are not seriously claiming that two wrongs makes a right are you? You're not seriously claiming that because you feel someone acted badly in one thread, you get to crap all over an entirely different thread created by an entirely different person for an entirely different purpose.
However based on what I've seen in this thread, it's pretty clear you do feel that way.
Those were thoroughly answered. When you ignore answers or sidestep the point, what you end up doing is fully justifying that which you claim to abhor, (yet practice) namely just dropping information and not actually contributing anything.
Why would anyone ever practice what they claim to hate? Why not be better than it?
You claim to hate posts that answer no questions or that provide links with no input or conclusions from the person providing them.
Yet that is exactly how your posting style. How can you complain about what you do?
Now as for your problems with my answers in that thread, you can take it back to that thread and I'll be happy to highlight the answers there. This thread deserves better.
And speaking of the thread topic, here's an example from Time Magazine.
Weather isn't climate, except when it supports climate change. Then weather is climate. That is the point.
Ironically it even issues the same old trope at the end of the article...
As the world warms, even cold air from the Arctic or Siberia may not be enough to offset the greenhouse effect, and major snowstorms like the one the Northeast just experienced could be a thing of the past.
We promised winter would disappear. It hasn't in fact it is here in record amounts. Our prediction is wrong. Wrong makes us right. When our prediction that is currently completely wrong becomes right in the future, that makes us right too.
Science must predict. It must be falsifiable. You can't do what the article does, or cite ten links from your favorite source, add nothing and then move on and that is theory hopscotch.
One theory is that a warmer Arctic may actually lead to colder and snowier winters in the northern mid-latitudes.
Theories are not just interchangeable pieces where you can borrow from this one on this day and from another one on another day.
That's not the only theory. Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at the environmental research firm AER, has written that increasing seasonal snow cover in Siberia may drive extreme winter weather.
Great a second theory and no real explanation on any of them. Don't worry, if next week we have record highs, that weather will prove climate as well, and we can go grab two different theories by two other scientists and ignore these two scientists while we still make the same claims.
This all addresses the actual thread topic which is what I hope you will do as well.
BTW. I could engage in bad logic though. I could declare you acted badly in another thread and thus I can treat you badly in this one.
I could create a hypothetical and if you refuse to engage me on it, declare you are actually ducking the issue by actually focusing on it instead of the hypothetical...........
Suppose Hitler would have invented a zero carbon energy source, but it would have required him winning WWII, and exterminating the entire Jewish race to make it come to fruition, would you save the planet but sacrifice those people?
It's called a moral paradox for a reason. They aren't hard to design. (Sego understands that) However pondering paradoxes (or being unwilling to engage in them) doesn't address the thread topic.
I could also intentionally misconstrue you, address and accuse based on that, and then claim you haven't answered something when you refuse to address what I assigned to you instead of what you said.
Plus it looks like 2010 may be according to NASA: Hottest November on record, 2010 likely hottest year on record globally — despite deepest solar minimum in a century
Example: Oh so now you are saying that one hot year determines climate for the next 50-150 years? Here's a link from your own source saying one year could never be enough data to draw a trend and here's another from very basic math primer noting you cannot plot a line with one point.
How do you explain trying to use one data point to plot a line FT? You said this one point plots the line. So answer me to my satisfaction now or you are ducking the point.
Please don't answer any of these btw, because they are all examples of the types of "questions" people complain aren't answered around here.
You can see, this stuff isn't hard to do. So now that I've addressed those for you, feel free to take any unanswered "questions" back to their respective threads, be it climategate or whatever and please address the question of this thread, hopefully with something other than links to bumper stickers.