AGW Theory - Discussion

I remember referencing her before and had all the pro-AGW folks go apeshit. She's one of the scientists who was attacked and nearly had her career ruined by the AGW folks attempting to sniffle all opinions that didn't 100% support the established narrative.

Her crime wasn't even questioning AGW theory, but rather asking that the AGW crowd be more transparent and tolerant of a dissenting minority.

From her statement


There is more but it paints a very bad picture about the professionalism and behavior of the AGW lobby. This is exactly the reason why I stopped supporting AGW during the 2009 season and then later, after my own unbiased investigation into the available data, started to seriously doubt everything spoken about it.

I love scientific "studies" that consist of nothing but a headline. There's like so much information in them.

Anthony Watts is a blogger, not a scientist. He runs that asinine website that Saevel grabs all of his false info from. There is absolutely zero useful information in that link you provided. How did the authors reach their conclusions? Who *** knows! All that matters is the words agree with your preconceived notion that climate scientists are conspiring to fudge data.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said that the raw station data needs to be corrected or that sensor placement is also considered and corrected for. I'm pretty sure I linked something previously explaining the use of heat island effect corrections - why they're done and how. I realize there is no honest intention to actually learn anything here, but I'm genuinely concerned that a moderately simple concept doesn't seem to register in certain poster's heads.

As far as Curry, she likes to wear the badge of heretic because it gives her the appeal of a real skeptic (just fyi, she doesn't deny AGW is occuring). But she gets looked down upon by the climate community because she likes to argue in generalities and not evidence therefore pandering to the subset of people who simply feel that the science is wrong. 'We don't know how much humans are contributing to climate change. (paraphrasing)' Well, no ***, Judith, but there is a high certainty that humans are causing a large portion of it. She doesn't argue the science because the science doesn't support the story she's trying to sell. Plus, she mentioned Climategate right off the bat. It's hard to believe people are still running with that lie.

Same could be said of the studies you post here. sarcasm included.

True, however. Christy and Nielsen Both have doctorates and are climate scientist.

It is hilarious how you can say this and then in your next breath say this!

You did and it got ripped apart for how asinine it was.

I know the feeling bro.

"Ripped apart", lol. I've yet to see a sensible argument against the information I've presented. The studies that I and others have posted are full papers, not titles. I've also linked to full data sets and made mention of publically available data, including the NOAA data. All I get in return is outright dismissal or whatever the *** you've been posting.

It's honestly boring. I'm bored. And I actually like these kinds of discussions but here it's so retardedly lopsided. You know what would be a novel change? Providing some actual evidence. Crazy, right?

Studies based on faulty data and assumptions!

Which is literally changed to a higher temperature on purpose! You say so yourself!

Exactly how are we to prove that AGW isn't happening, when climate scientists can't prove it is happening?

Perhaps, a sensible debate could occur if you would present some sensible, non-corrupt, peer-reviewed, honest information for once.

Yet.. Here you are..

Same way climate scientists are proving their theories.



I mean, who uses unaltered data anymore? What's the point in conducting science when all you have to do is lie and you get government grants out of the wazoo?

Why not give up the information if it so clearly shows AGW is happening! I would feel sorry for you people that believe this AGW crap if it wasn't so blatantly obvious how corrupt our government is and this is only giving them more power!

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/

The warming is global, but the conspiracy is american!

What warming?

Global Warming/Climate Change is and always has been about one thing: Imposing a world wide Carbon Tax, a mechanism so complicated that it could never be tracked or audited and would therefore provide a bottomless slush fund of corruption for political parasites and those connected to them. This isn't about Science, it's about MONEY.

It'd be a damn shame if all we ended up doing is making the world more livable at the expense of a handful of oil and coal billionaires.

Sucks to be Saudi.

Why can't we do this without fear mongering over the fantasy AGW?

You guys seem to forget that everybody wants cleaner energy.

When you have no idea how something works and have no intention of learning then, yeah, I guess it would seem like magic.

What does the definition of a climate scientists have to do with this?

The entire Republican clown car is against cleaner energy. Lindsey Graham was the only one of them to come out in favor of clean energy.

Why is that do you wonder? Follow the bribes campaign contributions if the Supremes will let you. You will find people and corporations who are against clean energy at the other end.

Eh, that depends on your definition of "against cleaner energy". A lot of people just don't want to fork over more money for energy that is more expensive and less efficient. Once you fix the price and efficiency problems to a point that they're better than anything the oil companies have to offer, then we'll see who's actually against cleaner energy.

We could at least drop the oil and gas subsidies or shift them to renewable sources. Could make a difference in what is actually more expensive. I mean we're already paying them, just in taxes and other forms instead of directly when we buy from those sources.

If you're not willing to pay 2x as much for you're power you MUST be against cleaner energy. That's the narrative anyways.

Only in your mind

Why are you so for junk science? You do know the saying "garbage in, garbage out," right? If climate science uses garbage data (data that has no basis of reality), why do you think that the results is anything but garbage?

If anything, the only ones who refuses to learn are climate scientists. They base their hypothesis on known garbage data,

Wait, are you saying there's no alternative energy tax credits in existence?

You keep saying this yet have done nothing to support it.

You honestly believe that temperatures taken 100yrs ago are just as up to snuff as temperatures taken yesterday?

Do you even realize the scale of information that is most likely so inaccurate from before the computer age that this talk of 1-2 degrees is totally asinine today?

Wait, this isn't common knowledge?

Or are you in denial?

Uncertainty in old records has been studied:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006548/full

Next.I've addressed data correction methods several times. Pretending I didn't isn't a substitute for a counter argument.

Yup, Pleebo is in denial.

Hey, why don't you use raw data again? Isn't it because it disproves all theories associated with global warming?

Here. One more time:
Understanding adjustments to temperature data

I said nothing of the sort.

Seriously..
And it's a Blog.. You just scolded me for posting a Blog!

No wonder you're bored, all your "information" comes from old blogs which you keep parroting as science fact.

Yadda.. yadda.. something.. hypocrisy.. It's always the same coming from you.