Recent Global Cooling Controversy

by metatron 236 Replies latest jw friends

  • mP
    mP

    bohm:

    It is such a travesty the supposed "experts" and "scientists" are all Joe Nobodys who just sit behind their screen, eyeball a graph and ask any odd question that pop into their mind without doing any research, and unless these questions are answered to their satisfaction (and unfortunately all these supposed "scientists" are entirely unaware of statistics and are basically morons who are to lazy to look anything up for themselves) they just keep to their pre-consieved notion the climate is getting hotter.

    mP:

    So we are now arguing from authority. Asking for a lousy graph or two because i can read is a crime is it ? I should just lap up whatever my betters say just like the bible. I have an education just like you, im sure we can appreciate a few numbers on a graph.

    BOHM:

    I do hope you find the time to put some of your carefully researched observations into print. I mean, I bet nobody ever thought about how (for instance) the average in the graph you found was computed, and surely nobody bothered to write that down. We all know those are things no scientist would ever think about.

    mP:
    Do you honestly think that asking afor a simple graph showing averages for each year that goes back say 50 or 100 years is too much ?

    It really should be made open to the public. I just wish the media would show things like this instead of speaking to us like idiots that are uncapable of seeing increasing numbers on a graph.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

    Imagine that graph did not show mean global sea surface temperature, but rather the frequency of child deaths in a large city due to a particular type of cancer associated with (amongst other things) a particular toxin which a large nearby plant was releasing into the towns water supply.

    Apparently, we are supposed to argue like this:

    * since we dont have any data from before 1880, the curve could really be FALLING

    * If one look at the years 1880-1910 and 1940-1960, one can clearly see a decreasing trend, so there is nothing to worry about.

    * There are natural variation in the cancer deaths, the supposed trend could just be spurious or natural

    * scientists are only interested in money, so who is saying they are not making up these numbers just to get published/funded?

    etc. etc.

  • bohm
    bohm

    mP:
    Do you honestly think that asking afor a simple graph showing averages for each year that goes back say 50 or 100 years is too much ?

    It is very hard to be convinced you are really interested in forming an oppinion on evidence when all you do is ask for evidence that it litterally took me 20 seconds to find with one google query. The relevant charts are these:

    Source: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20130103.shtml

    How come you have so far on this thread not done ANY research on your own, but just ask for data and when the data is given to you, you just ask for more?

    It really feels like debating a creationist.

    Q: yah but how come there are no human fossils.

    A: There are right here (link)

    Q: yah but how come there are no proof the fossils are old

    A: There are, right here (link)

    Q: yah but how come there are no details on how the fossils was gathered and reconstructed?

    A: there are, right here (link)

    Q: yah but how come there are no details on why those bones are related to humans?

    A: okay i give up, do your own research.

    Q: THERE ARE NO HUMAN FOSSILS!

  • bohm
    bohm

    mP: It really should be made open to the public. I just wish the media would show things like this instead of speaking to us like idiots that are uncapable of seeing increasing numbers on a graph.

    Most historical climate data is public and can be downloaded for free, yet another fact 20 seconds on google would have shown you. You can then read about all the pre-processing steps in the relevant papers and why they were done and reconstruct the graphs. Ofcourse that require real work and research; i suppose that might put you off.

  • mP
    mP

    BOHM

    * since we dont have any data from before 1880, the curve could really be FALLING

    mP:

    No, the honest thing to do is not make any comment at all either way, and not put words into any link or quote that are not there.

  • mP
    mP

    Bohm:
    its also interesting that the graphs from one source of temps dont exactly match those of another. Different places have are different. For some its above avg in one year and yet hte othergraph shows the opposite.

    The Aus temp of 1940 is above avg while the American recording is below. The graphs are there for all too see.

  • mP
    mP

    Bomh;

    How come you have so far on this thread not done ANY research on your own, but just ask for data and when the data is given to you, you just ask for more?

    mP:

    I have. Look at your own charts its not quite as clear cut as what you claim. The bottom graph shows 2010 returning towards the average, which doesnt sound quite as sensationalist as the doom and gloom otehrs are proclaiming. It was really that terrible the graph should not contain any or very few less than avg values in the later or second half.

    Secondly none of your charts prove that the pollution caused by humans is affecting the temp. If this was true, and im sure we can agree that pollution has been increasing at a steady rate the temp graph should also match this, but rather we have the absurd situation where 2010 avg is almost the same as years 100 years before.

    How exactly is this explained ? Reason with me ?

  • besty
    besty

    @mP - Another impact of sea level rise is to put you out of your depth and us out of your misery.

    Why not stick to your original statement - "global warming is a sham"

    Everything else you have written is embarassing.

  • mP
    mP

    BOHM

    It really feels like debating a creationist.

    Q: yah but how come there are no human fossils.

    A: There are right here (link)

    Q: yah but how come there are no proof the fossils are old

    A: There are, right here (link)

    Q: yah but how come there are no details on how the fossils was gathered and reconstructed?

    A: there are, right here (link)

    Q: yah but how come there are no details on why those bones are related to humans?

    A: okay i give up, do your own research.

    Q: THERE ARE NO HUMAN FOSSILS!

    mP:

    You spend a lot of effort with insults, and you still using your 1337 skills have yet to explain why 1910 has the same temp as 2010 even after 100 years of Carbon in the air ?

  • besty
    besty

    @mp

    The bottom graph shows 2010 returning towards the average, which doesnt sound quite as sensationalist as the doom and gloom otehrs are proclaiming.

    The grey boxes show decadal averages.

    Are the grey boxes trending above or below the line as time progresses? Above/below/can't tell - your answer pls

    Are the grey boxes getting bigger or smaller? Bigger/Samller/Can't tell - your answer pls

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit