A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

Strawman Part the First: You know I meant your crazy creationist conspiracy website, not UAH.

I didn't cite any crazy creationism, I cited UAH using an image which just happened to be hosted on the same site as the crazy.

Strawman Part the Second: Bill Nye was considered a full member of the Cornell science faculty during his professorship.

He was not an academic researcher, he was not appointed for his academic work. He was appointed for his media profile as a reward for his efforts in making educational TV.
You know this.

Janet Reno does in fact actually have a science background (she has a Cornell degree in chemistry) though by her graduate studies she had moved on to the law.

Now you might be onto something, if it were not for your propensity for strawmen.

Janet Reno is probably not a scientist.

And neither is Bill Nye, he's a mechanical engineer with no research publications who became a TV presenter.

[Cullion]

I think there is a legitimate issue when you argue on one day that the full historical data-set climate modelers are working with is insufficient, but on another day you argue a subset of that data is definitive.

But the sources you and other AGW proponents have cited isn't the full historical data set, that's the whole point. The warming trend being shown over the last few centuries disappears if you go back as far as the mediaeval warm period, reappears when you go back as far as the last ice-age and then disappears again when you go back millions of years. That's why you keep being taken in by assertions like 'temperature always increases with CO2' it clearly doesn't.

The reason 15 years is significant in this context, is because it falsifies models which predicted it should have warmed during this period.

This is what a long term graph of temperature anomalies looks like:
Attachment 14217

That is what a slightly longer term graph of temperature anomalies looks like which, as mentioned above, is swamped by other trends over longer time periods, and more importantly does not restore the validity of the models used to predict disaster when temperatures for the last 15 years have been outside their error-bounds.

You are cherry picking a small flat spot in an upward trend, from one axis of measurement.

You are cherry picking a small upward trend since the paleocene. You are panicking about a short uptick in the rate of warming in a warming trend since the last ice age.

What you have not done, is restored the validity of alarmist predictions.

Is near surface sea temp also flat? Deep sea? What about over-ocean temp? over-land? How does the data look when decomplied?

If you have a point to make here, why don't you demonstrate it?

Are you now claiming that the primary parameter of the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' hypothesis is not global average temperatures ?

Also, surely a patent-holding mechanical and aeronautical engineer has some claim to a "scientist" hat?

Not if they haven't published original research in the natural or physical sciences.

Boeing probably doesn't do "peer review" on everything its employees apply the scientific method to, but the planes flew which would seem to me to be a rough and ready review of his aerospace credentials.

If you think all engineers are scientists then that makes me a a scientist. I think it's absurd to claim somebody who has never undergone peer-review or published scientific research is a higher authority on the peer-review or academic publication process.

Would you say a medical doctor is a scientist if she's never worked on a paper?

How about a nurse? Is a nurse who has never published any research also a scientist ?

Would you think a medical doctor who made assertions in a debate about climate change or astronomy was full of **** if they kept saying 'I am a scientist and you are not'? Wouldn't it be especially silly if they kept claiming to understand the peer-review process and the scientific method if they'd never conducted research or had any academic work published ?

I would think that was fucking silly.

[JohnnyCache]

So unqualified people like yourself can't make assertions, accept for you and deniers, gotcha

[Cullion]

So unqualified people like yourself can't make assertions, accept for you and deniers, gotcha

No, unqualified people like me or rabbit can't dismiss other people's points by saying 'I'm a scientist and you are not!' when they aren't in fact scientists.

I didn't do that.

Nor is Bill Nye a scientist. He's a fucking pop-science TV presenter. Get a grip.

[W. Rabbit]

No, unqualified people like me or rabbit can't dismiss other people's points

Then you reveal yourself as a massive hypocrite.

You keep dismissing the work of every major scientific body on the planet involved in AGW: NASA, EPA, NSF, IPCC, Nature. No matter the authority, you have your denial ready to go like a reflex action, almost like you've been..conditioned.

Then you go on rant about my "qualifications" because YOUR unqualified opinion is questioned?

I will keep naming and posting (well qualified) sources, and you keep telling me that's just me giving out my unqualified, scientific opinion...illustrating you are a poor judge of what's qualified or unqualified, or scientific or unscientific.

"Do you believe?"

"Their X is flawed"

"I've refuted"

"I've proven fraud "

Those are your words not mine.

You've refuted nothing about AGW, and you've only proven that you have very poor Google fu when searching for images to support your arguments.

You obviously "believe" in AGW denial, which is why you'll keep this shell game going until we get bored with this absolutely pointless thread (again).

[W. Rabbit]

Nor is Bill Nye a scientist. He's a fucking pop-science TV presenter. Get a grip.

By your flawed logic then, Thomas Edison wasn't a scientist either. Oh bother, I guess we have to call him a "pop science inventor" with no real scientific credentials.

To be a scientist in Cullion Land, you need a laminated ID card and can't do any research under non-disclosure agreements or for private investors as opposed to nonprofits and academia, and ONLY engage in the pure sciences at ALL times....those who engage in applied sciences shall be burned at the stake!

Burn the heretic!!

[Cullion]

Then you reveal yourself as a massive hypocrite.

You keep dismissing the work of every major scientific body on the planet involved in AGW: NASA, EPA, NSF, IPCC, Nature. No matter the authority, you have your denial ready to go like a reflex action, almost like you've been..conditioned.

Because authority is always trumped by comparing testable predictions against observations when evaluating a scientific claim, which is exactly what I've been doing. Your only argument with the data so far is to point out that you don't like unrelated stories hosted on the same server that the particular instance of the UAH graph image was hosted on.

Is that really your best argument?

Then you go on rant about my "qualifications" because YOUR unqualified opinion is questioned?

No, I'm going on about your qualifications because you claimed to be a scientist and have a scientific education others on the thread lacked, to try and give your words more authority, when you don't.

I will keep naming and posting (well qualified) sources, and you keep telling me that's just me giving out my unqualified, scientific opinion...illustrating you are a poor judge of what's qualified or unqualified, or scientific or unscientific.

No, I keep telling you that you're making arguments from authority that don't tally against observation and pointing out that your own claim to be a scientist was silly in this context.

Those are your words not mine.

You've refuted nothing about AGW, and you've only proven that you have very poor Google fu when searching for images to support your arguments.

So I'll ask you again, do you believe the following hypothesis:-

'Global average temperature is expected to increase as CO2 increases'.

[Cullion]

By your flawed logic then, Thomas Edison wasn't a scientist either. Oh bother, I guess we have to call him a "pop science inventor" with no real scientific credentials.

To be a scientist in Cullion Land, you need a laminated ID card and can't do any research under non-disclosure agreements or for private investors as opposed to nonprofits and academia, and ONLY engage in the pure sciences at ALL times....those who engage in applied sciences shall be burned at the stake!

Burn the heretic!!

By your definition every engineer on Bullshido is a scientist. Everybody with an undergraduate degree with 'science' in the title is a scientist. Everbody who is interested in science is a scientist. I'm a scientist. JonnyCache is a scientist. Everybody in the thread is a scientist.

You're making the word 'scientist' meaningless by trying to elimate all objective criteria for possessing the title so that you can feel like a scientist and so that you can continue to believe that your favourite TV presenter is a scientist. It's nuts.

Bill Nye is a TV presenter who has not made any scientific discoveries. None.

[Bneterasedmynam]

@cullion do you believe that co2 is not in fact a greenhouse gas??

[W. Rabbit]

The shells move around and settle yet again.

All praise your most glorious and wondrous Science, Cullion.