A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

Do you really believe those graphs in any way show "global warming has stopped"?

Did you know I just linked your graph+argument to AGW denier, fringe blogger, and former "Watt's Up With That" guest author Steven Goddard?

Did you know it took me eleven seconds to find UAH data that might cause a reasonable person to doubt your selective choice?

Showing the graph over a long timescale doesn't change what it shows in the last 15 years. If you want to claim a trend over a longer time period, by all means do so, but I'll then show you cooling trend by pulling out an even longer-term graph. Where does it end?

It ends when the observations disagree with the predictions, and currently observed temperatures are outside the error bounds of the models used by the IPCC. They just show that what was predicted to happen, didn't happen. They show that what's currently happening now is outside the error bounds of the models which were used to predict disaster by the IPCC.

[JohnnyCache]

Rabbit, look at the graphs yourself. Do you honestly believe the data shows it has been getting warmer for the last 15 years ?

What are "monthly global temperature anomalies" and what do they have to do with deviation from average temp?

[Cullion]

What are "monthly global temperature anomalies" and what do they have to do with deviation from average temp?

Monthly global temperature anomalies are the deviation in that month, from the average temperature for that month over the course of a defined period. It's so you compare this december with 'the average december in some time period', rather than 'this december' with 'average temperature readings taken in different months in all the other years', or 'comparing december avg. temps with annual avg. temps', for obvious reasons.

Some sources take an average for that month by looking at all the data for the 20th century, some compare since the late 70s etc.. the UAH will say which period they use somewhere. I can't remember what it is, but all the anomalies on the graph will essentially be a 'like for like' comparison.

[W. Rabbit]

...Is this taken from a poorly made Bible website?

This is the server that he (hot) linked his latest graph.

When you hot-link, it takes the fun away. :(

http://www.qsc.cc/page44.htm

Great sources you've got there Cullion. You are officially making me laugh...good show, old chap.

[Cullion]

Rabbit, do you actually believe the data shown in the graph to false, and not the genuine UAH data, or do you believe that the UAH data becomes false when it gets hosted on the same site as a different story which happens to be false?

Because the former would be simple for you to demonstrate (you won't, the same graph is hosted in lots of places), and the latter assertion is flat-out insane. It's an utterly nonsensical way to try and refute data.

[W. Rabbit]

the same graph is hosted in lots of places

Yet you didn't post it from a place of science or science news (which is where I went to get every source I've posted in this thread)....you got it from right-wing evangelical crazy people.

I know...it stings a bit that you've associated yourself with their "reasoning".

Bill Nye is an entertainer with a BS in mechanical engineering, not a scientist.

Did you just claim Bill Nye, one of the most respected science educators on Earth, and colloquially around the world as "The Science Guy", is not a scientist, even though his job on the Curiosity team was to help build scientific instrumentation?

Your standards are high, to say the least. I'm beginning to think you might be as well.

It's just nuts to believe that because one team at NASA can land a robot on Mars that their predictions about climate must be accepted regardless of how they diverge from observation.

Call me a nut then.

Do you believe the moon landings were fake?

The source you just used claims it was faked by, and I quote:

the new communist State religion created by the mass media after the fake Presidential assassination in November 1963

http://www.qsc.cc/fakemoonlanding.htm

[Cullion]

Bill Nye is an entertainer. He has a BS in mechanical engineering, has published no original scientific research. His contribution to the curiosity team was to provide the celebrity input on a sundial. He's not a scientist, he's a TV personality who looks like a scientist.

No, of course I don't think the moon landings were faked, nor did I use the story on that site as a source.

Do you really believe that you can refute any piece of scientific research on the basis of who hosts a copy of it on their site? Are you out of your mind ?

[W. Rabbit]

Bill Nye is an entertainer. He has a BS in mechanical engineering, has published no original scientific research. His contribution to the curiosity team was to provide the celebrity input on a sundial. He's not a scientist, he's a TV personality who looks like a scientist.

Bill Nye hasn't been a "tv celebrity" since the 1990s.

In fact Bill has been a science and sundial enthusiast from childhood, and it was his interest in the science of sunlight falling on Earth and other planets that led to his work on Curiosity.

Not to mention he was once Carl Sagan's student.

Not to mention he was the Vice President of The Planetary Society, one of the most respected bodies of astronomers in the world, which Sagan co-started.

Not to mention he's such a Science Guy, he has multiple honorary doctorates in science.

I guess he and I have more in common than I thought....we both fail to meet the Cullion Science Standard.

Do you really believe that you can refute any piece of scientific research on the basis of who hosts a copy of it on their site? Are you out of your mind ?

I haven't refuted any scientific research, just you.

[Cullion]

In fact Bill has been a science and sundial enthusiast from childhood, and it was his interest in the science of sunlight falling on Earth and other planets that led to his work on Curiosity.

Not to mention he was once Carl Sagan's student.

Not to mention he's such a Science Guy, he has multiple honorary doctorates in science.

You're out of your mind.

Carl Sagan taught a lot of people who aren't scientists. I can see that you're trying to redine 'scientist' to cover 'engineers with undergraduate degrees who are interested in science but who have never done scientific research'.

I wonder why that might be, eh Rabbit ?

I haven't refuted any scientific research.

Just you.

Um, no. You've tried to claim a graph used as a source was invalid because of the server it was hosted on, and avoided discussing any of the actual data. I used that link because it was the first instance of it I saw on google images. I've seen it in lots of places. No, it's not an endorsement of any of the other views on the site. Weak sauce.

[submessenger]

I gotta go with Cullion on the Bill Nye thing. He's a smart guy, sure, but he's a scientist about as much as Penn Jillette is a magician.