Abbott: "Warmer when Jesus was a boy"

[evo]

Bad day? I meant to write "climate science", obviously.

Every day is a good day.

If that's the case, my apologies.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

You really need to further your research ............
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Why are you still quoting Jo Nova. What does a major in women's studies know about the complex science of climate ?

Look, its pretty clear from this thread that scientists (and I mean qualified, peer reviewed scientists, not bloggers) believe in the hockey stick model, and not that MWP was hotter than today.

Sure there are a number of un-qualified people who write blogs that claim this isnt the case, but they are only supplying misinformation by fair means or foul.

I suspect Hawkmania, meds and possibly bloods are right wing people who have decided to back Tony Abbotts view (which the OP was all about), and troll the internet to back up their views. They do not seek the scientific view, they seek to impose their political will. For them it is a political game, not a scientific one. The "great" thing about the internet, you can always find someone who agree's with you...somewhere, whatever your point of view.

 

[shiznit]

Other reconstructions based on the same flawed/cherry picked data?

Post again when you have something that adheres to The Scientific Method and not from the circle jerkers at real climate.

Oh, silly me, scientific method is OBVIOUSLY not a part of scientific literature, objective truth can only be seen in blogs and media reports. Damn the last 400 yeas of scientific method, it's obviously part of the conspiracy!

 

[TheBloods]

I suspect Hawkmania, meds and possibly bloods are right wing people who have decided to back Tony Abbotts view (which the OP was all about), and troll the internet to back up their views. They do not seek the scientific view, they seek to impose their political will. For them it is a political game, not a scientific one.

I'm not right wing. I made it quite clear in my first post I was not backing Abbott's views. You are clearly playing a political game as much as the people you decry. Your assumption that the data that supports your views must be correct and there can be no discussion about conflicting data or views is evidence for your non-scientific views.

 

[pazza]

Interesting...the UN's own weather agency has just announced that the month of April across the worls, is officially the warmest EVER recorded for global average temperatures on both land and water.

The temperature recorded was 14.5 degrees celsius as the global average. Warmer than normal conditions were most prominent in: Canada, Alaska, Eastern US, Australia, Southern Asia, Northern Africa and Northern Russia (source: Herald-Sun yesterday).

Abbott is officially wrong, AGAIN.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I'm not right wing. I made it quite clear in my first post I was not backing Abbott's views. You are clearly playing a political game as much as the people you decry. Your assumption that the data that supports your views must be correct and there can be no discussion about conflicting data or views is evidence for your non-scientific views.

Thats being a bit devious there Bloods. This thread is a fairly simple look at the argument as a whole, and I cant see how any subjective person can come to the same conclusion as you.

The equation is simple. A large majority of qualified people believe one thing. A few unqualified blog artists believe another.

I'm sticking with the scientists on this one, and merely showing up the lack of qualifications or motives of the blog artists. Thats healthy to the debate.

I have no political bias on this. I can categorically tell you that I will vote for the party at the next election who I genuinely believe will do the most to reduce our green house polution. If Malcolm Turnbull storms back as opposition leader, and mandates an ETS as his first task as PM, then I'll be the first to buy a blue ribbon to pin on my chest.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Abbott is officially wrong, AGAIN.

Fair chop, he was obviously caught up in the heat of the robust debate at the time.... when he was talking to primary school kids.

 

[pazza]

Fair chop, he was obviously caught up in the heat of the robust debate at the time.... when he was talking to primary school kids.

About his level of intelligence....

 

[medusala]

Interesting...the UN's own weather agency has just announced that the month of April across the worls, is officially the warmest EVER recorded for global average temperatures on both land and water.

Abbott is officially wrong, AGAIN.

Just one slight issue with that. The use of "recorded".

There are no instrumental records for Roman times.

 

[TheBloods]

And a month's temperature is not climate.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Abbott regressive faux religious scumbag.

Rudd populist faux religious scumbag......

Pro-tip, both parties and their leaders are a disgrace.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Just one slight issue with that. The use of "recorded".

There are no instrumental records for Roman times.

Highest April in recorded history.
Better? Feel any dumber for being wronger?

 

[TheBloods]

Highest April in recorded history.
Better? Feel any dumber for being wronger?

Yeah, so it's the highest April in a couple of hundred years, so what? That's as meaningful as the other side arguing there can't be global warming because of the severe winter storms.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Yeah, so it's the highest April in a couple of hundred years, so what? That's as meaningful as the other side arguing there can't be global warming because of the severe winter storms.

In recorded history, you got that?
Ok doofus here is your challenge. Explain the current warming. Why have has the last decade (better?) been the hottest in recorded history? Just one of those things? I'm all ears.

 

[TheBloods]

In recorded history, you got that?
Ok doofus here is your challenge. Explain the current warming. Why have has the last decade (better?) been the hottest in recorded history? Just one of those things? I'm all ears.

Wow - here is another example of a zealot, who knows even less, and has to resort to insults. Weak. Yes - "recorded history" - it's not that old. You think that because the current temperature is above the 20thC average that is evidence of global warming? There is much better evidence than this sort of silly media short-termism, but that's probably all you can cope with.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Why are you still quoting Jo Nova. What does a major in women's studies know about the complex science of climate ?

Look, its pretty clear from this thread that scientists (and I mean qualified, peer reviewed scientists, not bloggers) believe in the hockey stick model, and not that MWP was hotter than today.

Sure there are a number of un-qualified people who write blogs that claim this isnt the case, but they are only supplying misinformation by fair means or foul.

I suspect Hawkmania, meds and possibly bloods are right wing people who have decided to back Tony Abbotts view (which the OP was all about), and troll the internet to back up their views. They do not seek the scientific view, they seek to impose their political will. For them it is a political game, not a scientific one. The "great" thing about the internet, you can always find someone who agree's with you...somewhere, whatever your point of view.

Peer review? That is laughable considering that the un ipcc has perverted the peer review process.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipcc-reliance-on-grey-literature-30.html

For years we've been told the UN's climate bible bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. A few months ago, the wider world began to wake up to the fact that this is not the case.

As the citizen audit results I released four days ago reveal, the 18,531 references cited by the IPCC are so far from being 99 percent peer-reviewed it's laughable. A full 30 percent of them (5,587) were not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Moreover, in 21 out of 44 chapters (48 percent) the level of peer-reviewed references was so low the chapter received an 'F' on our report card.

Let's restate this: the rate of non-peer-reviewed source material cited by the IPCC is thirty times larger than what the British government suggested would be acceptable a mere 12 weeks ago.

And while we're on peer reviewed studies:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming.

Have you actually got an argument for your side that is in any way respectable?

And on Jo Nova, well its similar to having a railway engineer as the chairperson of the ipcc. Nice corner you've argued yourself into there.

Oh, silly me, scientific method is OBVIOUSLY not a part of scientific literature, objective truth can only be seen in blogs and media reports. Damn the last 400 yeas of scientific method, it's obviously part of the conspiracy!

There is a simple way of showing you this thanks to a handy little chart.

The ipcc uses the actual method listed above. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of their findings.

Interesting...the UN's own weather agency has just announced that the month of April across the worls, is officially the warmest EVER recorded for global average temperatures on both land and water.

The temperature recorded was 14.5 degrees celsius as the global average. Warmer than normal conditions were most prominent in: Canada, Alaska, Eastern US, Australia, Southern Asia, Northern Africa and Northern Russia (source: Herald-Sun yesterday).

Abbott is officially wrong, AGAIN.

So the un's own weather agency has supported the un's own ipcc in their propaganda. While we're at it, why don't we get the alp's official line on how great krudd is as pm.

For your education, have a read of this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/on-the-march-of-the-thermometers/

That said, the GHCN station dropout Smith has been working on is a significant event, going from an inventory of 7000 stations worldwide to about 1000 now, and with lopsided spatial coverage of the globe. According to Smith, there’s also been an affinity for retaining airport stations over other kinds of stations. His count shows 92% of GHCN stations in the USA are sited at airports, with about 41% worldwide.

Once again the labour fanbois have been unable to support their own arguments with anything resembling scientific evidence. The score on this on this issue: rabbot 1 - kruddy 0. Game over.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Abbott regressive faux religious scumbag.

Rudd populist faux religious scumbag......

Pro-tip, both parties and their leaders are a disgrace.

Missed this earlier. A very accurate account of the big two's leaders in a succinct form.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Abbott regressive faux religious scumbag.

Rudd populist faux religious scumbag......

Pro-tip, both parties and their leaders are a disgrace.

Hey rednecks, dont try and lump Rudd in the same religious corner as Abbott. He's never baned abortion pills, or used the bible as an historical record of global warming.

Nice try. Its a tired old tactic. You find a few faults with the IPCC, and suddenly global warming is a fake. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

And on Jo Nova, well its similar to having a railway engineer as the chairperson of the ipcc. Nice corner you've argued yourself into there.
.

Jo Nova believes Bush was behind 9/11. Do you ?

All these blogs you quote, all have the same "consipiracy theory" way of thinking. If data is sampled differently, it must be to hide something.

Seriously, get a tin foil hat and a survival manual if you are sucked in by that.

 

[TheBloods]

Hey rednecks, dont try and lump Rudd in the same religious corner as Abbott. He's never baned abortion pills, or used the bible as an historical record of global warming.

Abbott didn't do this either. That's a very weak effort.

Nice try. Its a tired old tactic. You find a few faults with the IPCC, and suddenly global warming is a fake. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As tired as some of the tactics on the other side. Both sides are full of closed-minded zealots.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Wow - here is another example of a zealot, who knows even less, and has to resort to insults. Weak. Yes - "recorded history" - it's not that old. You think that because the current temperature is above the 20thC average that is evidence of global warming? There is much better evidence than this sort of silly media short-termism, but that's probably all you can cope with.

As I thought - pissweak. You havent got a clue and make even less sense.
The last 10 years are the hottest in recorded history. Can you explain that? Doofus.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

.. you on the other hand .. if you started your arguments with "Well let me tell you something" you'd be mistaken for our PM.

Fair shake of the sauce bottle.

 

[shiznit]

Peer review? That is laughable considering that the un ipcc has perverted the peer review process.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipcc-reliance-on-grey-literature-30.html
And while we're on peer reviewed studies:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Pop Tech's list thoroughly debunked

And, a deniers guide to reading scientific papers:

How to read scientific papers
The benefit of the list is that you don't have to read them, you can just copy paste the entire list all over the internet. But if you do want to read some of the papers on the list you should take the following advice to make sure you don't do it wrong.
Never read papers in context of other papers. This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming. Find some nice arguments to bash warmists with but for heavens sake don't analyze the arguments in context of other papers.
Why you say? Well if you try to compile and understanding of how nature works from the 450 list you will only get confused. For example some of the arguments include:

• Global temperature has risen naturally
• Global temperature hasn't risen
• Global temperature doesn't exist
• The greenhouse effect is saturated
• The greenhouse effect doesn't exist

They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once. Try to divide the arguments into separate compartments in your head so they won't merge into one another in a baffling contradiction. You can still throw all of the above arguments at warmists, it's bound to confuse them. Make sure you assert the papers have "shown" or "proven" the argument is true. There are also some great political speeches in some of the papers and one uses an introduction quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Have you actually got an argument for your side that is in any way respectable?

And on Jo Nova, well its similar to having a railway engineer as the chairperson of the ipcc. Nice corner you've argued yourself into there.

There is a simple way of showing you this thanks to a handy little chart.

The ipcc uses the actual method listed above. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of their findings.

And here's a chart that shows how Blog Science is done, not that discredited laboratory science, with its corrected data and hidden inclines, no we're talking about science for the REAL world, done by REAL bloggers.

So the un's own weather agency has supported the un's own ipcc in their propaganda. While we're at it, why don't we get the alp's official line on how great krudd is as pm.

Yes, because the UN is taking over the world to install a Communist One World State. I know all about that one, Christopher Monckton told me all about it.

For your education, have a read of this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/on-the-march-of-the-thermometers/
Once again the labour fanbois have been unable to support their own arguments with anything resembling scientific evidence. The score on this on this issue: rabbot 1 - kruddy 0. Game over.

Because bloggers are educators. Maybe we should do what they are doing in Texas, we should get the bloggers to write the school textbooks that perpetuate this lie that scientists are putting out there. We could have all textbooks vetted publicly on a blog. We would democratise science rather then letting all of these "experts" fill our children's minds with all of these so-called "facts", and hamstringing Citizen Scientists with all this "scientific method" ("they call it peer-review, we call it Stalin-esque censorship!"). We can report and let out kids decide! We truly would usher in a new post-Enlightenment Utopia, were can run around naked and free, unbridled of concerns like qualifications and stifling titles like doctorates. After all, anyone on the net can call themselves a scientist these days!

 

[shiznit]

Abbott didn't do this either. That's a very weak effort.

He may as well have done, after all, he relied on another book that is nearly an as audacious work of pure fantasy as the Bible.

 

[TheBloods]

As I thought - pissweak. You havent got a clue and make even less sense.
The last 10 years are the hottest in recorded history. Can you explain that? Doofus.

You really think that is an argument for global warming? That's just embarrassing.