Draginol Draginol

Climate is cooling according to Jones

▼

Climate is cooling according to Jones

from JoeUser Forums

Phil Jones is “the guy”, as in THE go-to guy when it comes to climate change.

In an interview where he complains about skeptics “spinning” statements he ultimately reveals this:

"I'm a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I'd say so. But it hasn't until recently - and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend."

You can read the whole thing here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

Here’s the deal. IF human produced CO2 was a major factor in affecting global climate then there would be no “recent” cooling at all because CO2 production by humans has continued to steadily climb.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that the “recent” cooling that has been measured coincides with the precise time when people started really paying attention to the methods of data collection and started scrutinizing the data a lot more closely. 

83,299 views 81 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for the whole "the data shows warming"... one of the chief accusations is that of selectively terminating measuring stations showing cooling.
End of quote
Even if this argument were correct (which it's not) then what about the two separate satellite records that both show warming, what about the physical evidence of plants whose habital zone has marched steadily north or animals whose northern migrations now start earlier and earlier and whose southern migrations start later. There are countless sources of evidence of warming and like I've said if you choose to simply deny them all then that is your choice. I have no interest in your belief system, believe what you want to believe because there is no thing that I or anyone can say that will convince someone who can deny the evidence of 30 years of warming that is right in front of their nose.

Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Mumblefratz, reply 74
There are thousands of peer reviewed articles published in well respected scientific journals that support AGW. To me that is sufficient proof. For any other field of science such as the medical field that would be sufficient for even you.
End of Mumblefratz's quote

Which goes back to my statement you know nothing of science or proof!  Peer reviewed articles are not "proof".  It is evidence, but not "proof".  I think that is why you are so clueless.  You just have no understanding of science.

For someone to doubt the validity of such a source essentially requires them to believe in a world wide conspiracy of climate scientists that have been deluding everyone for years know.
End of quote

Strawman alert!  NO it does not.  As we have seen (and as the scandal continues to unfold), it only requires a few key people to "hide the decline" of their doctored data.  Once they contend they are gods and there is no question, the rest of the studies/data using their tainted results come to the same conclusions!  Shazaam!  Who would have thought?

Well, apparently the ones that know nothing of science and "proof".

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Mumblefratz, reply 76
(which it's not)
End of Mumblefratz's quote

Not demonstrated or proven.  Strictly uneducated opinion.

then what about the two separate satellite records that both show warming,
End of quote

My stove shows warming!  Non-sequitur.  So what?  Satellite records are only 30 years old, and less than 25 of them are considered accurate.  So for 25 years (actually 10, since Phil Jones has already stated no statistical warming in the last 15) they showed warming.  Just like there was warming back in the 30s and there was warming 1000 years ago.  So what?  Was Co2 causing the MWP?

All the satellites have shown is the temperature over the last 25+ years.  Not what has happened over the last 100, 250 or 1000 years.  Which means we have a temperature.  And this was not known before satellites?

Again, you don't know science.  Warmest for satllite records is like saying climate changes.  And only a voodoo priest (or an AGW religious) would argue that statement.

 

Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top

There are thousands of peer reviewed articles published in well respected scientific journals that support AGW. To me that is sufficient proof.
End of quote

Thousands.  Hmm.  Why, then, would the 'evidence' for some of the IPCC's most dramatic & publicized claims (glacier retreat, rocketing ocean levels, Amazon deforestation, African dustbowl/famine) be anecdotal fluff from pop magazines?  Surely in all those 'thousands' of peer reviewed articles in all those 'respected' journals they could have found something.  Not that any of those dramatic & publicized claims 'proved' anthropogenicity, anyway.  Warming has occurred during (some of) my lifetime (how many times now have I had to remind you I acknowledge that?), but unless it can be made out to be 'dramatic & unprecedented' there's no case for the A in AGW; 'dramatic & unprecedented' are necessary to building such a case (hence the 'minor mistakes' in AR4) but hardly sufficient.

No one can prove anything to someone that simply denies all evidence and I have no desire to try.
End of quote

Your usual broad-brush condescension at work.  Faced with the proposition that GW is a dire, man-made and remediable threat to my children's future, I can accept, doubt based on reasonable cause or reject.  There is no obligation to 'disprove' the proposition in order to either doubt or reject it.

Further, AGW is, for better or worse, inextricably bound up in what has been proposed to 'fix' it.  The draconian nature of the proposed 'remedies' substantially raises the bar when it comes to proof of the A in AGW, not to mention the bar for proof that the proposed remedies would 'work'.  Association is not causation, but there is an apparently innate, powerful (and probably survival-based) human proclivity to assign cause-effect relationships to sequential or simultaneous events: B occurred after (or coincident with) A, therefore A was the cause of B.  This is a highly seductive notion to humans, but almost always wrong in nature.  Someone gets a cold during flu season and they invariably blame it on the flu shot they got the week before, no matter the biological impossibility or the eloquence of my explanation absolving the flu shot.  There is more to concluding cause-effect relationships than 'consensus' and I commend to you this discussion of Hill's Criteria.  I'm not ready to burden myself, my children and grandchildren with the cost of a remedy as likely to be futile as beneficial (depending on whether you're a carbon trader or not), for a 'problem' of uncertain cause and scope.

Just as no one needed to disprove that smoking is bad for you.
End of quote

I'm well aware of your favorite non-sequitor.  And of your disdain for [anything big such as oil] companies.

Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top

For someone to doubt the validity of such a source essentially requires them to believe in a world wide conspiracy of climate scientists that have been deluding everyone for years know.
End of quote

This argument was so familiar... I finally figured out why! I have heard it before from another religion!

Christians often told me the exact same thing as backing for their belief in god and the bible.

[EDIT]well, not EXACTLY the same, what I was told by several christians is: For someone to doubt the validity of such a source essentially requires them to believe in a world wide conspiracy of christians that have been deluding everyone for over 2000 years.[/EDIT]

Thousands.  Hmm.  Why, then, would the 'evidence' for some of the IPCC's most dramatic & publicized claims (glacier retreat, rocketing ocean levels, Amazon deforestation, African dustbowl/famine) be anecdotal fluff from pop magazines?  Surely in all those 'thousands' of peer reviewed articles in all those 'respected' journals they could have found something.  Not that any of those dramatic & publicized claims 'proved'anthropogenicity, anyway.  Warming has occurred during (some of) my lifetime (how many times now have I had to remind you I acknowledge that?), but unless it can be made out to be 'dramatic & unprecedented' there's no case for the A in AGW; 'dramatic & unprecedented' are necessary to building such a case (hence the 'minor mistakes' in AR4) but hardly sufficient.
End of quote

Well put, or as any school teacher would say "cite your sources".

Further, AGW is, for better or worse, inextricably bound up in what has been proposed to 'fix' it.  The draconian nature of the proposed 'remedies' substantially raises the bar when it comes to proof of the A in AGW, not to mention the bar for proof that the proposed remedies would 'work'.
End of quote

I'm not ready to burden myself, my children and grandchildren with the cost of a remedy as likely to be futile as beneficial (depending on whether you're a carbon trader or not), for a 'problem' of uncertain cause and scope.
End of quote

not to mention that even if the problem is real, the massive economic damage caused by the so called "remedies" (ex: cap and tax) for an ineffective <10% reduction in emissions could prevent necessary funding for research and development of true solutions. (aka, there are unintended consequences... which are actually being predicted by people with half a brain)

Association is not causation
End of quote

Absolutely true.

Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 79
Just as no one needed to disprove that smoking is bad for you.
End of Daiwa's quote


I'm well aware of your favorite non-sequitor.  And of your disdain for [anything big such as oil] companies.

End of quote

It is the refuge of scoundrels that they change the rules of the game in mid-play..  Having lost the debate on facts and the issues, MF always resorts to name calling and non-sequiturs. ke5trel is just a carbon copy of the same.