Hacker News Reader

Ok, so overlooking that SPPI are a notorious denier hack site, how do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase? Also, how do you explain the strong correlation between the temperature trends (ie. increase in temperature) between urban and rural areas? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... and http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-int... for details/pretty graphs.

Btw, that argument is #6 in the list of common denier arguments http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

> In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required

Scepticism is fine, but the level of scepticism needs to be in proportion to the level of data available. The bulk of the data available strongly indicates that global warming is real, and is caused by humans. Which is why people who don't believe in global warming are now called 'deniers' - they're not really skeptics.

You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument".

This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate.

The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken.

But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.

Sans evidence? So, satellite data, weather station data, ice core data, coral reef data, tree ring data, ad infinitum - all independent measurements, all agreeing with each other, is not enough?

Let me put it another way - what evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?

If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to.

You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence-- yet you never even saw the evidence you claim you presented.

This is how your position is fundamentally anti-science. You don't understand the science, you haven't seen any evidence. But a link to a propagandist, proves, in your mind, that you're on the side of "Science".

By the way, the fact is, if you actually studied that data, it doesn't actually agree. Only be selectively choosing samples can you get tree ring data, ice core data, etc to agree, and only by distorting with arbitrary factors (also known as fraud) can you get weather station data and satellite data to agree.

In fact, the claim that all this data agrees with each other is itself a bit of scientific nonsense because it presumes this data were actually measuring the same thing in the same method and were actually independant.

Ok, I give up. If you want to "engage in meaningful debate", you need to read the blog post, click through to the data and scientific papers where you disagree with what's said, and argue the details of what you disagree with.

Notice how you're completely avoiding the two questions that I've put to you. If you want me to continue to respond, or stop calling you a denier, or whatever, address either of those two questions. Here they are again:

How do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase?

or

What evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?

You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here?

Must be nice to not have to do any thinking at all- you just link to some propagandist and have your opponents (anyone foolish enough anyway) debate them.

I fell for that once, and the person's response? "Well, I never said that!"

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the arguments that I have put forth, ignore the science and facts I have referenced, and continue to demand that I answer questions that presuppose facts you have not presented.

Maybe you're just incapable of debate. Or you don't care- because this is a religion and the science really means nothing to you.

The ball is in your court. You can respond, or you can continue to equivocate. I really don't care.

Look, I'm not the guy you're arguing with, and I'll be honest and admit that I haven't looked at the data on either side enough to form a solid, evidence based opinion on AGW either way. I am not arguing for either side here. But what you're saying is ridiculous.

>You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here?

He's asking you to look at scientific papers, the actual data on what's being argued here. This is completely reasonable when you're discussing a scientific matter. Looking at the evidence is how science is conducted.

> that presuppose facts you have not presented.

This would be the papers he linked.

> because this is a religion and the science really means nothing to you.

Look back up to your first sentence. Look back down here. Look up at that first sentence again. Do you see the inconsistency? He linked to the science. You refused to look at it.

Once again, I cannot honestly say that I know enough to make an informed opinion about this, but your arguing in this topic was horrible. You continually failed to address his links in every single post, and then complained he wasn't looking at the data.

"If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to."

Um....you do realize that's exactly what has happened, right?

Your last paragraph very aptly describes your own mode of arguing. Your're not doing your cause any good that way.

Out of all the arguments against AGW, the complaints by McIntyre against the Mann analysis are the only ones I've heard that seem to warrant being taken seriously. If you really can get rid of the entire 20th century warming by removing a small set of proxies, regardless of the statistical analysis, it's a serious problem.

And the response on the "skeptical science" web site, that new data has confirmed the hockey stick shape, doesn't sound convincing either. You can't both say "ok, the Mann analysis was wrong, and the field has moved on" and then say "subsequent data confirm the hockey stick" without needing to explain the remarkable coincidence that the initial incorrect study ended up getting exactly the same shape as the new "correct" data.

What I've not seen anywhere is an analysis of the extent to which projections about future warming is driven by the exact shape of the 20th century temperature record and how changing the temperature record would feed back on the GCM projections. If anyone knows of such a study, please post the reference.

You mean this page? http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

My reading of it is that the original Mann analysis stands up, ie. Mann 1999 is largely correct, and that McIntyre's analysis is flawed. The Wahl 2007 paper contains some "interesting" language:

"Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. ... Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination ... leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous."

"without statistical and climatological merit" - heh. Them's scientific fighting words.

The projections are based completely on the temperature record, and changing the temperature record would produce different projections. The projections are essentially fudged to get the result that is desired for political reasons.

I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to many arguments against AGW, or maybe not many good ones. But since you have an open mind, I'd suggest you look into the absorbtion of IR By CO2, the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the lack of tropophere warming (where it should show up) and the historical correlation of CO2 and temperasture-- CO2 has been a lagging indicator and has, in the past, been much higher than it is now from natural events without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. These are basic facts that don't take much analysis and greatly undermine the AGW theory. Also, the planet is getting colder in recent years (past decade) while CO2 has been rising.

What is this lack of troposheric warming of which you speak?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measureme...

http://www.earthsystemtrends.org/2009/03/lower-tropospheric-...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&ye...

Radiation transfer is what I do my research on (though not in the atmosphere), and it's something we know how to do. I really doubt the scientific field has screwed that up. Certainly all arguments I've seen regarding that have had crackpot quality. (I have some hope of getting around to actually running that problem myself, but "real" work always seems to get in the way.)

The projections were not based entirely on the Mann temperature record. There are satellite data, other analyses, etc., and I haven't seen to what extent changing one of those data sets impacts the projections.

Right. So - plenty of downvoting, zero actual debate. And you wonder why people are writing bots to argue with climate deniers.

Respond! Don't just blindly downvote.

This is the problem you global warming proponents have. You demand a response or citations, yet you never povide them yourselves. You didn't provide an argument worth debating, you just claimed there was no basis for the opposing viewpoint and called them a name.

Global warming is an ideology that rejects science and includes the belief that all opponents reject science and therefore are not worth arguing with. This is why you will not find arguments from global warming advocates, you will just find derisive claims and namecalling.... which you provided an example of.

Note: I am not getting into the debate with you, I am merely pointing out why your namecalling produced, as you put it "zero actual debate".

Point taken about the name calling, but it largely stems from frustration. I don't agree with you about the lack of response or citations. I've provided plenty of data and argument - skepticalscience link to plenty of papers, independent, peer-reviewed, etc. - as well as the reason why deniers are called deniers instead of skeptics. In return, what do I get? One hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted, and a whole load of scorn and downvoting.

If you want me to stop calling people deniers, how about they engage with the question: "How do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase?" Simple, no?

I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted".

First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of science, it is a barometer of political correctness. (Trust me on this, as I've had papers peer-reviewed in much more esoteric and less politically and government-funding driven areas.) In fact, by controlling the peer review process via government fundeing ,the global warming movement attempts to discredit all science that disagrees with its agenda... and the need to do this is proof positive that science is not the foremost consideration.

As for "Easily rebutted"-- if it is so easily rebutted, please do so. Provide a rebuttal. It doesn't have to be a proof, but an argument would be sufficient. It is NOT rebutted by linking to the opinions of others. A simple rebutted is not that difficult. I can rebut the entirety of the global warming movement with a simple statement: Temperatures have been getting lower over the past decade while CO2 has gone up.

This references two easily verifiable and non-controversial facts, and rebuts the entirety of the hypothesis. so if this paper is so "easily rebutted" do so. A link to a blog post of opinion of someone you claim also links to papers is not a rebuttal. (I stopped following such links when I found that all of them referred to papers that did not make the claim that the forum poster was asserting.)

As to your last question, you haven't provided any such records. IF you would like to link to them directly, then I will have a look. (sincerely.)

I'll put the argument (against the paper) in simple terms:

The SPPI paper says that land weather station data is broken, temperatures are being reported as much higher than they should be, it's all the urban heat island, etc.

Yet the satellite data strongly corresponds with the land based temperatures and also shows an increase. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/surface_satellite_compa... (or read the damn blog post properly)

In addition to this, both urban and rural stations show the same levels of temperature rise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/jones_london.gif

Which brings us back to my original question: If we take what you are saying about the land based temperatures at face value, how do you explain a) the extremely strong correlation between the satellite data and the land based data, and b) the extremely strong correlation in the trends between different stations if the data is flawed?

First off, you've confused me with codefisher. Codefisher made his point by providing a link to support his argument, which you said couldn't be done because you said there was no science supporting his argument. Now you're changing the subject, and attacking me, including engaging in name calling, and dishonesty, trying to force me to defend a position that I have never taken.

And even so, you are easily defeated because you have provided no evidence supporting your position. You're taking some date, and asserting that it says something without considering the nature of that data and what it is actually measuring.

The thing that has tripped you up is that you think you're referring to science when you're actually referring to propaganda. People have massaged the numbers to support a hypothesis, and you link to it, thinking it is factual. It isn't. (otherwise there is no way the rural and urban areas would show the same warming, unless there was no such thing as a heat island effect, a position I presume you are not taking.)

Thus you have jumped the gun, insulted me, and made erronous arguments while ignoring, multiple times, it being pointed out that you're doing so, because you won't pay close enough attention to notice that you're attacking a person who didn't make the claim you erronously assumed.

You, sir, are a troll wobbly. Good day.