2010: The Trend is Upward

Throughout 2008 and 2009, many conservative pundits spent some effort in trying to convince us that the world was in a “cooling trend.” 2008 and 2009, while still among the warmest years on record, were a bit cooler than a few of the other years in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Arctic Ice Cap (courtesy NOAA)

Any natural process is going to have random-walk anomalies. So climate scientists remained convinced that the trend in global temperatures remained upward. What does 2010 do to the picture?

Although the December data has yet to be released the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that for January through November, “the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was…the warmest such period since records began in 1880.”

How about “Climategate?” Didn’t those leaked emails prove the historical data had been fudged? No, they didn’t. This is a persistent meme, but it’s not true. The memos showed, if anything, some intra- and inter-agency political rivalries and in-fighting. But there is no evidence whatever of dishonest data manipulation.

But even if we did want to believe the temperature record in the pre-2010 data had been artificially inflated, that would merely mean 2010 was even warmer (in relation to the past) than the accepted data shows. It would mean the Earth is warming even faster than climate scientists had thought.

Even back in July, it was realized we were on track for a record:

Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago, according to two of the world’s leading climate research centres.

Scientists have also released what they described as the “best evidence yet” of rising long-term temperatures. The report is the first to collate 11 different indicators—from air and sea temperatures to melting ice—each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s.

And, for your amusement, here is a really cool interactive map from NASA, showing global temperature changes by decade, 1880–2009. It’s hard to argue with scientific data in visual form.


About dcpetterson

D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He lives with his wife, two dogs, a cat, and two lizards, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts for fun.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to 2010: The Trend is Upward

  1. shortchain says:

    Global warming drives climate change (as well as more energetic weather). The local weather service has now recognized this.

    This does not bode well for the Red River Valley of the north. It’s going to be bad up there this spring. (As it has been for about two years out of three in the last couple of decades.)

    Of course, this does not prove that AGW is a fact. It merely is another bit of evidence which supports the only theory that currently explains the observations.

  2. Monotreme says:

    Also, the so-called “Climategate” emails only pertain to attempts to correct pre-1880s data to “fit” the post-1880 direct observations. They have no effect on the direct temperature database, which is sound and shows a steady upward trend.

    So, to summarize:

    1. Are we in the warmest period since records were kept, going back about 150 years? Yes, certainly.

    2. How does this fit into the larger context, going back thousands of years? We’re pretty sure it’s warmer than ever, but there is a statistically insignificant doubt, less than 5%.

    3. Is this caused by mankind’s activities? Again, almost certainly, but with the same small element of doubt caused by our as yet incomplete understanding of the underlying processes.

    Even if we were to accept the boldest claims of Koch-funded AGW deniers regarding the stolen University of Cardiff emails, it would only cast a slight element of doubt on the answer to question #2 and would not affect any of the rest.

  3. Bart DePalma says:

    Stuff and nonsense.

    After the whitewash “investigations” of the scandal by AGW proponents, the University of East Anglia MET is taking three years to review, rebuild and rehabilitate their database against government desires.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

    Go to my blog and search for “CRU” to get reams of linked detail showing how MET leaked date demonstrates how they fudged the old temperature database.

    Even using this completely discredited temperature database, MET head Phil Jones admitted that there has not been any statistically significant global warming for over 15 years.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    Meanwhile, NASA has been caught fudging their latest US temperature data before and NASA was forced to revise it to show that half of the warmest temperatures over the past century occurred before 1940 and the highest in the 1930s, despite its far, far lower amount of manmade CO2 emissions.

    http://www.nysun.com/opinion/inconvenient-truth-2007-08-13/60355/

    Here are FOIA compelled NASA emails chronicling their game playing on this issue:

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/

    Hanson tried to spin this correction here with new graphs:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    The revised graph of US temperatures falsely implies that NASA can provide a statistically accurate temperature reading for the United States. In fact, a FOIA released email admits that the noise inherent in the rather comprehensive US data makes it impossible to discern any temperature change in the United States. See Email from Dr. Reto Ruedy to Brazilian journalist Leticia Francisco Sorg (August 15, 2007) (.pdf pages 79-80)

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf

    A couple years back, NASA was caught again with bad data, again making the overall figure rise.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

    Notice how all these errors go in one direction – up?

    The GOP House needs to make a priority in investigating NASA/GISS to make public this nonsense.

  4. Bart DePalma says:

    Monotreme says:

    Also, the so-called “Climategate” emails only pertain to attempts to correct pre-1880s data to “fit” the post-1880 direct observations. They have no effect on the direct temperature database, which is sound and shows a steady upward trend.

    Not even close.

    http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/11/devil-is-in-coding.html

    http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/11/devil-is-in-coding-part-ii.html

    http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/12/devil-is-in-temperature-data.html

    http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2010/09/uk-parliament-investigation-of.html

  5. dcpetterson says:

    Bart, why would all the world’s climate scientists conspire to fudge data? It’s nonsense.

    By the way, quoting yourself as proof of anything is also unconvincing. Just letting you know.

    I think your posts get moderated because they look like spam to the blog filters, having more links than text.

  6. shortchain says:

    Bart needs some new material. He just keeps posting the same old crap, even after it’s been pointed out several times that it’s been debunked, already.

    And as DC points out, linking to pieces of garbage like “citizen pamphleteer” or the the NY Sun is pointless, except to obscure where the data really comes from. Bart only does that to make it harder to find the origin of the baloney.

  7. dcpetterson says:

    In fact, a FOIA released email admits that the noise inherent in the rather comprehensive US data makes it impossible to discern any temperature change in the United States.

    You’ve been smacked down for this particular false statement before. When we looked at the particular email you linked to, it didn’t say what you claimed it did. Why do you repeat false statements that have already been shown to be false? Do you think you’ll become more convincing the more often you repeat a lie?

    Since this one statement of yours has been shown to be completely false, there seems to be little reason to even consider any of your other statements.

  8. drfunguy says:

    “the noise inherent in the rather comprehensive US data makes it impossible to discern any temperature change in the United States”
    This is irrelevant to detecting trends at larger scales.
    As is pointed out in the actual emails you linked to last time.
    Relying on the blogs of wingers like yourself and the mainstream (or peripheral) media will get you nowhere on this topic. Let us know when you’ve looked at some of the primary literature yourself.

  9. dcpetterson says:

    For Bart:

    Take a look at these charts from NASA. There is no mistaking the trend. The right-wing blog sites you read are (at best) simply mistaken.

  10. Bart DePalma says:

    dcpetterson says: Bart, why would all the world’s climate scientists conspire to fudge data? It’s nonsense.

    Good question. The answer is that the CRU scandal was limited to a handful of people and everyone else was relying upon their “adjusted temperature” database.

    By the way, quoting yourself as proof of anything is also unconvincing. Just letting you know.

    Then ignore everything I said and look at the posted and linked data. I link to my previous posts simply because they summarize the data and the links in a relatively few places.

    CRU’s own leaked data convicts it.

    dcpetterson says: You’ve been smacked down for this particular false statement before.

    You mistake your own flailing on the ground after being decked as a smack down on your part. The email admits that the measurement margin of error is larger that any temperature trend in the United States and therefore US data cannot be used to prove global warming.

  11. shortchain says:

    DC,

    I heartily agree. There’s really no need, and not much point, in debunking, yet again, already-debunked garbage. But I’ve got time on my hands this morning, so, just to show how easy it is, let’s provide a few links. First, to get a sense of where garbage from Christopher Booker should be placed, go here.

    You’ve already mentioned the “emails” issues, which are tied in with Bart’s inability to read and comprehend simple English.

    And as for the “there has been no global warming since 1998” lie, see here. It’s associated falsehood, that This was admitted, relies on Bart’s incapability of understanding how statistical inference works. If you pick your endpoints right, and insist on a .05 or lower probability to reject a hypothesis, then there have been points in the last several years where one could not reject the hypothesis that there has been no “significant” global warming, generally because the probabilities turn out to be in the .06 range that the observations we see could occur without any warming.

    And now I have to go do some stuff.

  12. dcpetterson says:

    Here is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis page. Despite noise from the right-wing bloggers, any adjustments NASA has made certainly still show massive global climate change.

  13. Mr. Universe says:

    Spam filter automatically quarantines posts with too many links. Half dozen or more, I think.

  14. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “the noise inherent in the rather comprehensive US data makes it impossible to discern any temperature change in the United States”

    DRF: This is irrelevant to detecting trends at larger scales.

    It is true that you cannot project an average global temperature from a sample gathered in the United States because the US has insufficient landmass. Indeed, insufficient common temperature measurement across the world is a primary reason why it is impossible to calculate a statistically accurate average global temperature.

    The reason why this admission by NASA is important is because, if the comprehensive and relatively well maintained US temperature measurement system produces a product which is too noisy to discern any temperature trends, then the far more sparse and less well maintained world wide temperature data base used by MET before they discarded it must be even noiser and thus useless to calculate a statistically accurate average global temperature.

  15. drfunguy says:

    Bart,
    If this is the same 215 pg. email you linked to before (apparently without reading), it explains in detail why your point focusing on the measurement error within the US is irrelevant to the use of that data, along with lots of other data, to determine global trends. Maybe you should, like, read it, instead of taking the word of the bloggers you link that it means what they claim.

  16. dcpetterson says:

    The answer is that the CRU scandal was limited to a handful of people and everyone else was relying upon their “adjusted temperature” database.

    There is more than one source for temperature data. NASA, tree-ring studies, core samples, and a variety of other databases are involved. Your contention that CRU is the one source for the data is simply wrong.

    Then ignore everything I said and look at the posted and linked data.

    Your posted links are to other data-negative right-wing bloggers and reports on right-wing bloggers. Link some actual data and I’ll consider it. (I notice that when you do link to actual data, it usually disproves your arguments, so I do find that both worthwhile and amusing.)

    The email admits that the measurement margin of error is larger that any temperature trend in the United States and therefore US data cannot be used to prove global warming.

    We’ve been through this before; 1) the US is about 3% of the Earth’s surface, 2) even with large amounts of noise, trends can still be discerned 3) the email in question, particularly taken in context of the entire email thread it was part of, did not say what you pretend it does. Go back and re-read the discussion on the earlier thread.

  17. dcpetterson says:

    Oh by the way Bart, not only is your contention that CRU is the only source for the data wrong — but three independent studies have shown the CRU data is entirely reliable. So even if it was the only source for the data, it still shows undeniable global temperature increases.

  18. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ Stuff and nonsense. ~ Please remove my post from moderation purgatory ~ Not even close. ~ Then ignore everything I said …

    Waaaahhhh! :::sniffle::::Waaaahhhh!

    New year ~ same obsessive whining about Obama/Dems/Climate Change yada, yada, yada. Bartles, it would be easier to ignore everything you say, if you wouldn’t post your disingenuous misinformation, one~trick~pony nonsense daily.

    solo estoy diciendo

    btw, the Dow today: 11705.11 +127.60‎ (1.10%‎) Jan 3 12:11pm ET as Obama must be out of the country, eh. 😛

    Bart, you can have the last :::sniffle:::

  19. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: The answer is that the CRU scandal was limited to a handful of people and everyone else was relying upon their “adjusted temperature” database.

    There is more than one source for temperature data. NASA, tree-ring studies, core samples, and a variety of other databases are involved. Your contention that CRU is the one source for the data is simply wrong.

    NASA/GISS provides US raw data to CRU and relies upon the CRU adjusted temperature database for its global projections.

    Tree rings, core samples and the like are used to estimate temperatures before widespread thermometer measurement. These are not even remotely statistically reliable.

    Pardon me for shouting but…

    ALL OF YOUR CITES CLAIMING GLOBAL WARMING ALL COME BACK TO A FAULTY AND ARBITRARY CRU DATABASE. ALL OF IT.

    Link some actual data and I’ll consider it.

    You are now being willfully ignorant. I have linked to the MET data, notes and emails. For those of you who need things drawn in pictures, there are repeated charts showing how CRU manipulated raw data showing flat or dropping temperatures into wild warming spikes.

    The email admits that the measurement margin of error is larger that any temperature trend in the United States and therefore US data cannot be used to prove global warming.

    We’ve been through this before; 1) the US is about 3% of the Earth’s surface, 2) even with large amounts of noise, trends can still be discerned 3) the email in question, particularly taken in context of the entire email thread it was part of, did not say what you pretend it does. Go back and re-read the discussion on the earlier thread.

    Now you are simply lying. From the email:

    To answer your question, given the existing sampling error (.1-.2C): No – we cannot draw any conclusions about the planet from the US data…

    The sampling error noise makes the US data useless.

    The US has been warming in the period 1980-2006 similarly to the period from 1920-1934, that earlier 15-year period was followed by a cooling period and the same might be true for the current 25-year period.

    This was before NASA was forced to correct its measurement error and concede that the 1930s had four of the centuries warmest years. Even under the erroneous data, NASA is admitting that there is no correlation at all in the United States between exponentially rising human CO2 production and warming.

    The US-mean changes are still large compared with an CO2 effect.

    NASA is admitting that the warming and cooling changes it just discussed are within the existing sampling error and are this statistically insignificant.

    However, the global means show a totally different picture (global mean year-to-year changes being much smaller than US-mean year-to-year changes)…

    NASA is referring to the CRU adjusted temperature database here. You can tell because the sampling error has been artificially reduced below US raw data. Given that its own data does not show statistically significant temperature change, NASA relies upon CRU for all of its claims of global warming. However, because the CRU database is whacked and East Anglia is rebuilding it, all NASA claims of worldwide global warming are similarly whacked.

    NASA could rely upon its extraordinarily accurate satellite temperature measurements, but those show no statistically significant net warming within the range of warming and cooling. That is why NASA ignores this data in favor of the CRU manipulated temperature database.

    http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/04/partying-like-its-1988.html

  20. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ Now you are simply lying.

    Pot/Kettle as that’s your sole purpose at 538 … ok, comic relief is also a purpose!

  21. drfunguy says:

    “The sampling error noise makes the US data useless.”
    This is just wrong. Learn some statistics relevant to analyzing large dataset using time-series and other appropriate techniques.
    And you have the nerve to accuse others of willful ignorance?
    Have you read a single article on the topic from a peer-reviewed journal yet?
    Hint: try google scholar or another academic database.
    Read several actual primary research papers.
    Provide a citation. Until then _you_ are willfully ignorant.

  22. Bart DePalma says:

    dr funion:

    Are you seriously contending that NASA is wrong and that trends within the sampling error are statistically reliable?

    If so, provide your authority.

    If not, then you have admitted that you are willfully ignorant at best.

  23. drfunguy says:

    As I said above [the NASA letter] explains in detail why your point focusing on the measurement error within the US is irrelevant to the use of that data, along with lots of other data, to determine global trends. Also as D.C. noted US data covers about 3% of the earth’s surface; you can’t determine a global trend from 3% of the globe, you have to use all of the data. Read the whole email trail and try to understand the points made by the scientists. Hint: you have to read complete sentences and paragraphs instead of cherry-picking.
    Have you read even one peer-reviewed journal article on this? I have read several but I am not doing your homework for you. I have work to do.

  24. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    This was before NASA was forced to correct its measurement error and concede that the 1930s had four of the centuries warmest years.

    Bart, check the NASA sites I linked earlier, and take a look at what you claim is the “corrected” data. The trend is undeniably upward. Simply claiming it’s not doesn’t get you anywhere.

    Do you know how to read a graph?

  25. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: Are you seriously contending that NASA is wrong and that trends within the sampling error are statistically reliable? If so, provide your authority. If not, then you have admitted that you are willfully ignorant at best.

    dr funion: As I said above [the NASA letter] explains in detail why your point focusing on the measurement error within the US is irrelevant to the use of that data, along with lots of other data, to determine global trends.

    NASA does not seem to think so: “given the existing sampling error (.1-.2C): No – we cannot draw any conclusions about the planet from the US data…”

    As I figured, no authority, a red herring and thus willful ignorance, unless you know better and are actually lying.

    Read the whole email trail and try to understand the points made by the scientists. Hint: you have to read complete sentences and paragraphs instead of cherry-picking.

    I quoted every relevant sentence from the email to correct your error.

    You are free to quote a sentence in the email where the NASA scientists contradicted what he says here: “[G]iven the existing sampling error (.1-.2C): No – we cannot draw any conclusions about the planet from the US data…The US-mean changes are still large compared with an CO2 effect.”

    Have you read even one peer-reviewed journal article on this? I have read several but I am not doing your homework for you. I have work to do.

    No, you offer no peer reviewed journal article which contradicts NASA’s admission because there is none. NASA did not make this admission until this year.

  26. dcpetterson says:

    Here’s the latest NASA data, 1880-2009. A very definite trend.

    Simply denying it doesn’t make it go away.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your talking points, Bart. But it clearly is not an accurate description of the actual data.

  27. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    An obsession with focusing on minutia that you can willfully misinterpret really isn’t going to convince anybody of anything — except that you are, on the subject of global warming, functionally insane.

    And you are delusional if you imagine that your pathetic copy-and-paste-troll performance this morning convinces anyone of anything different.

  28. dcpetterson says:

    Barted:
    we cannot draw any conclusions about the planet from the US data…”

    Can you read?

    The US is 3% of the Earth’s surface. No one in their right mind could possibly imagine that one could draw conclusions about the planet as a whole from a sample of 3% of the Earth’s surface.

    Local climate variables are a completely different thing from global climate shifts.

  29. dcpetterson says:

    Barted:
    NASA relies upon CRU for all of its claims of global warming.

    Prove this statement. Show us that NASA does not use any of its own satellite data, or any other source of data.

    Then show us in what way the CRU data is inaccurate, despite three separate and independent audits showing that it is entirely reliable.

    But you won’t. You’ll refer us back to your own blog or to other right-wing non-scientists. You don’t have a single peer-reviewed article, not a single link to actual data, to back up your statements.

  30. drfunguy says:

    Barf
    Here is the money quote from the NASA emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf).
    Which you either never read or ignored.
    Now who is wilfully ignorant?
    “The blog you attached is a prime example of what gives bloggers a really bad name; somebody with no idea what he is talking about is spouting absolute nonsense, making no distinctions between what is essential (the facts he conveniently omits) and what is pure noise (which he is concentrating on exclusively.
    He omits that the global mean time series (which is generally considered the standard measure for global warming) is unaffected
    He concentrates on US time series which (US covering less than 2% of the world) is so noisy and has such a large margin of error that no conclusions can be drawn from it at this point; showing the plot of annual means before and after the correction would have made the whole article a joke since the differences are barely visible.”
    Reto Rudy, 10 Aug. 2007

  31. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Sorry, guys. I was at the course this morning so wasn’t able to do my job here properly.

    Bart said “____________”

    In other news:

    On his two favorite subjects, Bart can argue and piss and moan and lie all he wishes. But two EMPIRICAL facts are completely irrefutable:

    1) SOMETHING is SHRINKING the polar ice caps/arctic sea ice and the glaciers over the past 25 years or so. And it DAMN sure ain’t because the Earth average temperature is getting COLDER! Maybe it’s because invisible giant aliens are licking it down like a giant pop cycle.

    2) After the first 6 weeks of the Obama administration, the Dow has been on an almost continuous 20 month INCREASE. The longest bull market run since the Clinton years.

    Counterintuitive according to Mr DeLiar’s arguments, ain’t it? Ain’t facts a BITCH?

  32. Number Seven says:

    All anyone has to do is look at those two pictures at the top of the thread. And that change is just in 30 years. THIRTY YEARS FOLKS, I MEAN BART!!! What more evidence do you need, sir?

    Looking at the second photo, it seems clear now that one could circumnavigate the world and stay within a few hundred miles of the Arctic Circle. Has that ever happened in 5000 years of recorded human history?

    Maybe you are trying to debate what is causing it. If so, fine. But to deny the oceans are getting warmer on a GLOBAL scale is to just plain be obtuse.

  33. dcpetterson says:

    Max aka Birdpilot
    Ain’t facts a BITCH?

    It’s often said that reality has a liberal bias. But I think that’s backwards. Liberals have a reality bias. We base our worldview on the actual world.

    Increasingly, conservatives seem to base their worldview on private fantasies and political dogma.

  34. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    As a tie to what #7 just said:

    Bart, if he had the sense God gave a goose, COULD argue the REASONS for the warming.

    But his attempting to refute the irrefutable is tantamount to attempting to sell his wife, who just caught Bart and his mistress in flagrante delicto and waiting a couple of minutes before “ahemming” on:

    “Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes!?!?!?!?”

  35. dcpetterson says:

    The blog you attached is a prime example of what gives bloggers a really bad name; somebody with no idea what he is talking about is spouting absolute nonsense, making no distinctions between what is essential (the facts he conveniently omits) and what is pure noise (which he is concentrating on exclusively.
    He omits that the global mean time series (which is generally considered the standard measure for global warming) is unaffected
    He concentrates on US time series which (US covering less than 2% of the world) is so noisy and has such a large margin of error that no conclusions can be drawn from it at this point; showing the plot of annual means before and after the correction would have made the whole article a joke since the differences are barely visible.

    Okay, what’s happening here is that a right wing blogger had used some old data files in an attempt to disprove the existence of global climate change. The author of this email (not “NASA” as Bart says, but a particular person notes that

    1) further calculations have improved the data, showing the blogger’s argument to be meaningless, and

    2) even if the blogger had a point (which he didn’t), the data he used was from the US only. And since the US is so small in relation to the rest of the world, the noise level would be large enough that the blogger’s argument wouldn’t hold water for that reason alone.

    In other words, the email as a whole, taken in context, says exactly the opposite of what Bart wants it to say. Bart is pretending that this email is some sort of “admission” that NASA’s data doesn’t prove global warming. In fact, the email is an argument against someone like Bart, who had been trying to misuse NASA’s data to disprove global climate change.

    Far from this email being some sort of “admission” that NASA’s data does not support the conclusion that the Earth is warming, this email is actually a strong argument in favor of that conclusion — and, not incidentally, a strong slapdown to someone who sounds like Bart’s twin.

    It also shows, starkly, either Bart’s inability to read, or his overreliance on other right wing bloggers who can’t read, or perhaps an inability to read more than one sentence and then follow an argument across a couple of paragraphs.

  36. mclever says:

    dcpetterson,

    Though surprising, it’s actually not that uncommon for someone to come to a conclusion that is the complete opposite of an expert’s stated conclusion based on a misreading of the expert’s words. I think this is partly because intelligent people often couch things in conditional phrases and some people struggle with complex logical constructions, but also because our understanding of new information is always based on our initial frame of reference. We should all be cognizant of how our own preconceptions color our understanding of new information.

    As to the Global Climate Change debate, I have little to add to what’s already been said on this thread. So, I’ll simply express my appreciation for this exploration of the topic. All of the contributors here have helped me to get a better handle on the current information and the ways that information is being interpreted, for better or worse.

  37. dcpetterson says:

    mclever,

    Thank you for your insightful comments.

  38. Todd Dugdale says:

    dcpetterson wrote:
    It also shows, starkly, either Bart’s inability to read, or his overreliance on other right wing bloggers who can’t read, or perhaps an inability to read more than one sentence and then follow an argument across a couple of paragraphs.

    Hey, good work.
    I’m noticing a pattern here. It seems that whenever BDP’s outrage-du-jour is actually examined, he is found to be completely wrong. Perhaps “misled” is the more correct term here, since he seems to be prone to parroting others’ talking points without engaging in any critical thinking.

    It reminds me of a quote I overheard from a wingnut recently:
    I’m right. The facts are wrong.”

    Wingnuts have to buy into all of the rhetoric. Much like a cult, there is no “halfway”. And what that rhetoric is comprised of is increasingly “up for grabs”, without the Party to control it.

  39. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    In light of many of Bart’s complete disregard of facts, perhaps Bart should simply ask his wife (see above 11:19):

    “WHAT woman?”

  40. Bart DePalma says:

    dr funion:

    Here is the money quote from the NASA emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf).

    “The blog you attached is a prime example of what gives bloggers a really bad name; somebody with no idea what he is talking about is spouting absolute nonsense, making no distinctions between what is essential (the facts he conveniently omits) and what is pure noise (which he is concentrating on exclusively.
    He omits that the global mean time series (which is generally considered the standard measure for global warming) is unaffected
    He concentrates on US time series which (US covering less than 2% of the world) is so noisy and has such a large margin of error that no conclusions can be drawn from it at this point; showing the plot of annual means before and after the correction would have made the whole article a joke since the differences are barely visible.”
    Reto Rudy, 10 Aug. 2007

    Page please? Reto is probably raging against McIntyre, the gentlemen who has exposed NASA’s warmest year error. McIntyre won and NASA revised its data.

    BTW, you are shoveling red herring again to avoid the NASA email from which I quoted. You are now graduating from willful ignorance to intentional disingenuousness.

  41. Bart DePalma says:

    DC:

    Unlike most here, I have no problem admitting my errors. I was wrong to state that NASA relies upon CRU. The UN relies upon CRU. Instead, NASA relies upon GHCN’s adjusted temperature database.

    GHCN is having their own climategate problems with arbitrary manipulation of the data.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

  42. dcpetterson says:

    The emails that Bart likes to quote are on pages 36 – 38 of the document. Those very emails answers all of Bart’s points. For instance, Bart says that NASA’s correction to its data (which he claims was forced by an FOI request) reverses the ranking of years 1934 and 1998. The email itself, however, points out that the “corrections” only covered years 2000 – 2006, so both 1934 and 1998 were unaffected.

    Further, the “correction” involved some improvements to the calculations which were made in prior years, and had not (yet) been made for the period 2000-2006. That oversight was corrected. The adjusted and improved data still shows a global warming trend (but, as mentioned, did not affect either the data for 1934 or 1998). The upshot is, there was not some nefarious and sneaky data manipulation going on, nor was there some brave and wonderful whistle-blower who forced NASA to stop fudging data. There was an innocent oversight which was corrected as soon as it was noticed, and the result did not substantially alter the previous conclusions.

    Point after point, Bart’s nonsense is completely answered by actually reading the emails. And in fact, the emails here prove precisely the opposite of what Bart claims. And, in addition to matters of substance, the emails even show Bart’s ugly spin to be no more than partisan posturing.

    This doesn’t matter because of Bart. It matters because these are the falsehoods and the despicable propaganda being put out by the right wing megaphone, and being echoed by “news” organizations throughout the country. We must be diligent in combating all this nonsense, and in standing up for reason, for science, for fact — and for the health of the nation and the world.

  43. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    NASA very quietly released its study that the melting arctic ice was caused by a wind shift.

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

    Down south, Antarctic ice is expanding.

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/antarctica-ice-growing-while-arctic-ice-shrinks-100617.html

  44. Bart DePalma says:

    DC:

    The email dump does not include NASA’s corrections, which are summarized and linked here:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

  45. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    GHCN is having their own climategate problems with arbitrary manipulation of the data.

    The Global Historical Climatology Network is not having “problems with arbitrary manipulation of the data.” They are continuing to improve their data collection and analysis capabilities. I guess you didn’t realize that scientists are constantly improving what they do, huh?

    Poke around their site a little. fascinating stuff there

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ghcn-gridded-temp.html

    Bart, you like putting an unsavory partisan spin on things. Try, just once, to be accurate rather than destructive.

  46. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    NASA very quietly released its study that the melting arctic ice was caused by a wind shift.

    In point of fact, the article you linked says “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds.” These winds, in turn were caused by global warming, a shift which began early in the last century and continued throughout.

    Down south, Antarctic ice is expanding.

    Not “expanding.” The ice in the center of the Antarctic continent is getting thicker. That’s because the atmosphere contains more moisture due to global warming, and it falls as snow in the few areas on Earth that remain cold. The thickening of Antarctic land ice is absolutely in keeping with global warming climate models.

    If you look at NASA”s global temperature maps as linked at the bottom of my article, the Antarctic is the only place on Earth that is cooler. Again, this is in accord with the global warming models. Since it is cooler, that’s where the increased moisture precipitates out as snow.

  47. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    The email dump does not include NASA’s corrections, which are summarized and linked here:

    You didn’t actually post a link to the data. You posted a link to a right wing blogger. The data is here, which is detailed data for graphs presented here.

    The particular blog you linked to may actually be the one that the NASA emails we saw addressed and dismantled. It seems to be precisely what the emails are describing. The emails explain why that blog is sheer nonsense. Please read the NASA emails.

    The emails describe this blog post as “a prime example of what gives bloggers a really bad name; somebody with no idea what he is talking about is spouting absolute nonsense, making no distinction between what is essential (the facts he conveniently omits) and what is pure noise (which he is concentrating on exclusively).”

    The very title of the blog post — “1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA” — ignores the fact that the “correction” on which the post is based didn’t even affect 1998.

    Thanks for confirming that you have neither data nor logic on your side, and that you’re merely taking your talking poits from other right-wing bloggers.

  48. shortchain says:

    The blog in question is “watts up with that” and is infamous as a source of baloney, so often wrong in fundamentals of science that they’re used as examples of how not to do things.

    It’s beyond pathetic that a pathological fabricator like Bart would link to a pathologically anti-science blog for scientific evidence.

  49. drfunguy says:

    Barfed “Page please? ”
    You got that last time we discussed your mis-reading of this email dump. You ignored it then, why should I think you’ll pay attention now?
    The red herring is your continued pointing to US data in isolation.
    As the emails from the NASA scientists describe, and as several have reiterated here, those data are not useless. They are combined with other data to show statistically meaningful global trends.

  50. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Thank you, dc. You nailed it before I had the chance.

    Bart, why don’t you read the entire article before you post the link? You get busted on this time after time after time. And each time it makes you look a worse idiot than you do currently.

    Bart said: “______________________”

  51. dcpetterson says:

    The amusing part is that a week from now — maybe a month — Bart will trot out the same quotes, the same talking points, and the same websites to support the same partisan propaganda.

    This politicising of straightforward science is truly despicable.

    Mr. Bart DeNero, Rome’s on fire. Would you like more rosin for your violin?

  52. dcpetterson says:

    Bart has been going on and on about U.S. temperature data. A discussion of the issues involved can be read in a fascinating and informative article here. Amusingly, Bart even linked to this article in one of his notes above, but he dismissed it without real comment. I suspect he didn’t actually read it.

    The article in question was published in 1999, and it addresses such questions as why data about US temps don’t show the same global warming trend as does data from the rest of the world. Many of Bart’s questions about the topic are answered in this one article.

    The uninformed (or perhaps disinformed) comments from wingers questioning global warming have all been answered, repeatedly. This clearly won’t stop the noise. But if you want some truth to respond to the silliness next time it comes up in discussions with friends and co-workers, it can easily be found.

  53. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: GHCN is having their own climategate problems with arbitrary manipulation of the data.

    DC: The Global Historical Climatology Network is not having “problems with arbitrary manipulation of the data.” They are continuing to improve their data collection and analysis capabilities.

    It would be encouraging if they would stop manipulating data to create warming where there was none before. However, what is your basis for believing that this is so?

    The GOP House should make its second priority after repealing Obamacare enacting legislation requiring that all NASA/GISS/GHCN data, emails, documents and coding publicly available, solicit public comment and then subpoena and put under oath the key personnel starting with Hanson.

    I guess you didn’t realize that scientists are constantly improving what they do, huh?

    Poke around their site a little. fascinating stuff there

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ghcn-gridded-temp.html

    Bart, you like putting an unsavory partisan spin on things. Try, just once, to be accurate rather than destructive.

    BD: NASA very quietly released its study that the melting arctic ice was caused by a wind shift.

    DC: In point of fact, the article you linked says “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds.” These winds, in turn were caused by global warming, a shift which began early in the last century and continued throughout….If you look at NASA”s global temperature maps as linked at the bottom of my article, the Antarctic is the only place on Earth that is cooler. Again, this is in accord with the global warming models. Since it is cooler, that’s where the increased moisture precipitates out as snow.

    Is this the same global warming which caused record low temperatures in the UK, Florida and Cancun this year. Where do you get this fiction from?

    BD: The email dump does not include NASA’s corrections, which are summarized and linked here:

    You didn’t actually post a link to the data. You posted a link to a right wing blogger. The data is here, which is detailed data for graphs presented here.

    Anthony Watt is a meteorologist and I have not the vaguest idea what his politics might be. Since when is requiring evidence restricted to “right wing bloggers?” In any case, Watt provided the links to the NASA data. The reason why I linked to Watt’s post is because he also included side by side charts of the changes which put the lie to the claim that they were just tweaks of a couple years.

    The particular blog you linked to may actually be the one that the NASA emails we saw addressed and dismantled.

    McIntyre of Climate Audit and not Watt was the one taking NASA (and CRU) to task for its errors.

    shortchain says: The blog in question is “watts up with that” and is infamous as a source of baloney, so often wrong in fundamentals of science that they’re used as examples of how not to do things.

    And your evidence for this slander is what?

    DC: This politicising of straightforward science is truly despicable.

    Spare me. You folks are the biggest cheerleaders around for fraud posing as science. Rather that condemning or even questioning IPCC’s political negotiations of what facts” to put in its reports and the reams of evidence – much of it primary sources from within CRU or NASA – that these folks have been manipulating data to achieve their desired results, you come up with the most absurd claims to defend them.

  54. dcpetterson says:

    Bart
    Is this the same global warming which caused record low temperatures in the UK, Florida and Cancun this year.

    Please provide a link for the UK, Florida, and Cancun data.

    But the general answer is, Yes. You still haven’t learned the difference between weather and climate. Nor have you learned the definition of the word “average” (as in “global average temperature”) which implies that particular data points (perhaps UK, Florida and Cancun) would be below that average whereas others are above.

    The global warming data does not show that every spot on the Earth is warmer this year that it was last year. Geez, we went through this with you two years ago, Bart!

    Globally, 2010 is turning out to be the warmest year on record, certainly going back to the nineteenth century, and probably far longer than that. And the trend has certainly been in that direction.

    And yes, conservatives have been fudging the science on this issue, along with many others, for decades, simply to pursue political ends. It is despicable.

  55. shortchain says:

    DC,

    The mindless repetition of the same stale and debunked talking points is why I say Bart is functionally insane on the topic.

    Bart, weren’t you the guy who didn’t think it was sensible to play “credential one-upmanship”? You’ve really laid it all out in this thread, from blatant dishonesty, through pighheaded willful ignorance, and into obvious hypocrisy.

    Pathetic doesn’t begin to capture the stomach-turning inanity of your comments.

  56. dcpetterson says:

    By the way, as far as temps in FL, UK, and Cancun, please read one of the articles you previously linked.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    You’ll notice that some portions of the Earth are (c. 1999) actually cooler than average. This is to be expected. One mechanism is the melting of the Arctic icecap, which will inject a great deal of cold water into the North Atlantic. This will certainly account for lowering of temperatures in the UK, and (as the Gulf Stream and its associated winds circle these waters through the Atlantic) probably Cancun and Florida as well.

    You might want to learn something about climate — or at last, prevailing wind patterns — before you comment again on this matter.

  57. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “________________”

    Bart, go to the dictionary. Yes, that’s that big blue book that says “Websters” on it. (You do have one don’t you?) Now look up these two words: “climate” and “weather”. Write down those definitions. Every day, read one aloud. Do this until you have BOTH of them memorized. Perhaps then it will sink in why temps in any particular year in a particular country have no bearing on the world’s climate.

    Not that this exercise will help you. I believe you are too far gone for that. But maybe it’ll keep you busy and off those winger sites.

  58. Mr. Universe says:
  59. Brian says:

    While it looks like I’m a little late to the Bart bashing, I’d just like to toss this bit of anecdotal evidence in there. I’m in graduate school with about 150-200 students in my program. I probably know about half of them, and not a single person I know doesn’t believe AGW is real. Best as I can tell from various conferences and what not, the vast majority of real scientists believe global warming is real and it is man made.

    I suppose it’s possible that they don’t want to take the unpopular side and aren’t saying anything, but it’s also possible they believe the Earth is 5000 years old and aren’t admitting to that either. But I don’t think so.

    I’ll let you guys go back to beating Bart like a redheaded stepchild now.

  60. shiloh says:

    maybe it’ll keep you busy and off those winger sites.

    To be sure, 538 is Bartles soup du jour political blog as “we” don’t hold his ad nauseam ignorance against him and continue to play w/him anyway! 😛

    He only frequents winger sites for their daily talkin’ pt. misinformation as Bart’s routine is quite rigid er conservative …

  61. Monotreme says:

    @Brian,

    One of my best friends is a climate scientist who works for NOAA.

    She thinks the jury is still out on AGW. I respect her opinion, which I think is mainstream. That is, a scientist requires a level of proof that is much higher than that of the population as a whole.

    Two important points that will be lost on Bart but are important for the others on this thread:

    1. Even though she’s in the “not sure” bin on AGW, she’s on the “absolutely, 100% proven” bin on GW. That is, global warming is real, but the mechanisms are still subject to some degree of debate.

    2. Her occupancy of the “not sure” bin on AGW I would say is in that 5% that lies outside the 95% confidence interval. That is, like almost all scientists, she would accept that there’s a 95% that mankind’s activities are causing global warming (AGW) but she would also say (and I’d agree with her) that there’s a small, let’s say 5%, chance that GW is non-A.

    It’s important to note that reducing the use of carbon-based fuels is good for many, many reasons not necessarily related to global warming, so no matter how you slice it, reducing our carbon usage (say, with a rationally applied carbon tax) produces a lot of good even if it has nothing to do with AGW.

  62. Number Seven says:

    Bart is beginning to remind me of the Tellarites from Star Trek. You know, the pig faced guys, lol.

    Spock’s father made the comment ‘Tellarites do not argue for a reason, they simply argue’ in the episode ‘Journey to Babel’. I truly believe this applies to Bart.

    Bart, you should run for office. You would fit right in with the other Public Cons.

    Hey everyone, did you hear that the Public Cons will NOT be trying to bring back jobs to the US as a first agenda item. No, they want to kill the few health care reforms we have put into place.

    In thirty days, I ask everyone to post messages saying: ‘Hey, it has been thirty days, were are the jobs?’.

    Maybe we should flood the R’s home town gatherings with this theme also.

  63. dcpetterson says:

    @Monotreme

    Important points. Thank you. Most non-scientists would take 95% as “proven” — unless they had some overwhelming reason to want it to be otherwise. Mark Twain said, it’s really hard to convince a man of something if his income depends on not believing it.

    @Number Seven

    Symbolic gestures that don’t actually mean anything and are completely ineffectual are exactly what the Republicans are all about. PPACA will not be repealed — it’ll never make it past the Senate, and the President would never sign the repeal anyway. But they’ll waste time ramming it through, and then waste more time trying to repeal pieces of it. While the jobs continue to lag.

    Republicans hate America. That’s all there is to it.

  64. dcpetterson says:

    By the way, Gallup reports Obama’s job approval rating in its three-day rolling average at 50%. At this point, Reagan was at 37% and still dropping. Clinton was at about 47%.

    The public likes Obama to stand up to the Republicans.

  65. Brian says:

    @Mono,

    I don’t know, I could see a lot of people being right on the brink of that 95% confidence interval, but I would say most scientists are more confident man made global warming exists than not. I’m sure your friend at NOAA has more data not only available to him/her, but can analyze it better than the scientists I know. I suppose I’d err on the side of caution in that case.

    @dc,

    It might just be people like that Obama is standing up. The whole “strong and wrong” vs. “weak and right” thing, even though he happens to be strong and right in this instance. I really like that he is fighting for what he believes in, makes me think of G. W. Bush in that instance. I didn’t like Bush, but he fought for what he thought was right, and I respected that.

  66. Jean says:

    Speaking of science, George Will (yes, that George Will!) has some words to the wise for the incoming Republican legislators:

    U.S. undergraduate institutions award 16 percent of their degrees in the natural sciences or engineering; South Korea and China award 38 percent and 47 percent, respectively. America ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering.

    America has been consuming its seed corn: From 1970 to 1995, federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51 percent. On a per-student basis, state support of public universities has declined for more than two decades and was at the lowest level in a quarter-century before the current economic unpleasantness. Annual federal spending on mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering now equals only the increase in health-care costs every nine weeks.

    Republicans are rightly determined to be economizers. They must, however, make distinctions. Congressional conservatives can demonstrate that skill by defending research spending that sustains collaboration among complex institutions – corporations’ research entities and research universities. Research, including in the biological sciences, that yields epoch-making advances requires time horizons that often are impossible for businesses, with their inescapable attention to quarterly results.

    Richard Levin, economist and Yale’s president, asks: Would Japan’s growth have lagged since 1990 “if Microsoft, Netscape, Apple and Google had been Japanese companies”? Japan’s failure has been a failure to innovate. As “Gathering Storm” says: Making the government lean by cutting the most defensible – because most productive – federal spending is akin to making an overweight aircraft flight-worthy by removing an engine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123104129.html

  67. Bart DePalma says:

    Monotreme says:

    One of my best friends is a climate scientist who works for NOAA. She thinks the jury is still out on AGW. I respect her opinion, which I think is mainstream.

    Her opinion is mainstream – and contrary to the Dem Party, the IPCC, EPA, EU and NASA as represented by Hanson. Too bad she and not Hanson is in charge.

    That is, a scientist requires a level of proof that is much higher than that of the population as a whole.

    Why?

    Even though she’s in the “not sure” bin on AGW, she’s on the “absolutely, 100% proven” bin on GW.

    I have no opinion on a slow natural warming trend within the sampling error of the data until I see proof one way or another.

    Upon what evidence does she base her opinion?

    That is, like almost all scientists, she would accept that there’s a 95% that mankind’s activities are causing global warming (AGW) but she would also say (and I’d agree with her) that there’s a small, let’s say 5%, chance that GW is non-A.

    A fact based 95% confidence level is more than sufficient for statistics and science. Thus, when she claims “the jury is still out on AGW,” your friend is saying she does not really trust the IPCC’s claim of a 5% confidence level. She is not alone in her hedging.

    It’s important to note that reducing the use of carbon-based fuels is good for many, many reasons not necessarily related to global warming, so no matter how you slice it, reducing our carbon usage (say, with a rationally applied carbon tax) produces a lot of good even if it has nothing to do with AGW.

    More evidence she really thinks the IPCC’s claim of a 5% confidence level is crap.

    CO2 is food for plants and can only make our world more verdant to the extent that our tiny contribution to the atmospheric percentage of CO2 makes any difference at all.

  68. Bart DePalma says:

    Correction: More evidence she really thinks the IPCC’s claim of a 95% confidence level is crap.

  69. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro says: And so it begins…

    The cuts are coming – either now of when the US reaches insolvency in a decade. If you wish to preserve government subsidies to science, each subsidy must be justified as a critical national interest and then you need to pick other spending from the welfare state to cut deeper than its share of the budget.

  70. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    It doesn’t matter whether some scientist is “mainstream” or not, what matters is what they regard as good science, and whether others regard what they do as good science. Good science produces theory that explains the available observations better than other theories.

    We do not have to have absolute faith in AGW. I certainly won’t go as high as .95 probability that it’s true, for example, but that doesn’t prevent me from observing that:
    1. There’s a limited amount of fossil fuel in the world. Burning it irresponsibly is therefore a bad idea, no matter what the other downsides would be.
    2. Extracting the remaining fossil fuels will result in escalating environmental damage even if no global warming is the result.
    3. But it’s quite likely that AGW is, in fact, true — with a probability somewhere in the high .8X to low .9X range. And the down-side risk of this — mass extinctions, ecological disaster, crop failures and disease — means that it is only prudent, while we wait for the cause to be clarified, to act.

    As for the inane CO2 is a plant food — you are usually pretty comical, but this idiocy is simply sad to observe.

    A fool who falls on his face is funny. A fool who drives his SUV into a crowd isn’t.

  71. shortchain says:

    If anyone believes that the idiots in the teaper cadre in Congress have the ability to evaluate anything scientific, I’ve got some low-lying land in Florida they could buy.

  72. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: Good science produces theory that explains the available observations better than other theories.

    NO, NO, NO! Good science requires the scientist to test and prove a hypothesis in a transparent manner which allows other scientists to repeat the test and confirm the proof.

    Science is not a popularity contest between competing hypotheses.

  73. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Your ignorance is showing again. You say: “Science is not a popularity contest between competing hypotheses.”

    If by “popularity” we mean “best explains the available data” — then yes, that is as succinct an explanation for what science is as any.

    You can look it up in any reputable textbook on science. We’ll wait.

  74. drfunguy says:

    Bart, you are displaying common misconceptions about the scientific method.
    “A fact based 95% confidence level is more than sufficient for statistics and science. ”
    “Good science requires the scientist to test and prove a hypothesis in a transparent manner which allows other scientists to repeat the test and confirm the proof.”

    A 95% confidence level simply means that differences (or trends) observed have 1:20 probability of being due to chance. There is nothing magic about arbitrarily p the theory is refuted”
    -Karl Popper
    Since it is impossible to test all potential examples that might disprove a theory, its actual proof in a positive sense is impossible.
    As evidence gathers that fails to reject a theory it becomes increasingly accepted until a better theory is proposed. A corralary is that given equally valid explainations, the simplest is most likely to be true (Occam’s Razor).

  75. drfunguy says:

    shortchain
    you beat me to it again

  76. shortchain says:

    drfunguy,

    You fun guys have more fun, but I … have a quick response. Being short, metaphorically or otherwise, has its advantages.

    Besides, you said it better.

    It will all go over the head of Bart, but perhaps some budding intellect will read this and at least see what not to do. Bart is, on this thread, a nearly ideal example of how not to present material.

  77. drfunguy says:

    Part o fmy comment was deleted somehow
    There is nothing magic about arbitrarily accepting p<.05 as 'significant'
    For example I doubt if a medical treatment with severe side effects would be widely used its success had a 5% probability of being due to chance.
    I don't know what is meant by "sufficient" for statistics since these are just the methods by which a confidence level is arrived.
    As for proof of a theory, there is no such thing. Experiments are desinged to attempt to disprove the theory: "a theory is falsified if one empirical example is found that contradicts its explanations/predictions the theory is refuted"
    -Karl Popper

  78. Bart DePalma says:

    SC:

    An unproven hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess based upon “the best available data.” Based upon the best available data in 1200, the best minds of the day hypothesized that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. Proof is what separates science from belief and allows us to discern the truth.

    DC:

    A 95% level of confidence may be arbitrary, but it is also the accepted level for proof in statistics and science. This is why IPCC fabricated the number in its report.

  79. dcpetterson says:

    Bart, you clearly don’t know anything about how science works, do you? Even having been told several times on this very thread that scientists do not “prove” anything, you persist in pretending they do. Having been shown that no data was “fabricated,” you insist in pretending it was.

    I guess the Big Lie idea is still alive and well within Teaperdom.

  80. drfunguy says:

    “A 95% level of confidence may be arbitrary, but it is also the accepted level for proof in statistics and science. ”
    Wrong. p<0.05 is generally considered statistically significant. This is not the same a 'proof', see above.

  81. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Strawman alert! Bart now pretends that we were talking about an “unproven hypothesis”. (As if there were such a thing as a “proven hypothesis” in science — see drfunguy’s comment above.)

    In 1200, Bart, there was no such thing as science, nor the scientific method. All knowledge was subject to approval by the Church. And it wasn’t “hypothesized” that the Earth was flat. It was a religiously-held belief, outside of a few free-thinkers and students of Greek science.

    Proof is not what separates science from belief. What separates science from belief is the willingness of science to follow the evidence. Belief is the province of religion.

    It’s not surprising that you got this wrong. It’s at the heart of your problem with AGW. Your beliefs about AGW prevent you from evaluating the actual evidence, because you insist that there must be “proof” that your belief is wrong. This proof will never arrive. No scientific theory, no matter how idiotic, will ever be totally disproved in the minds of everyone.

    Like the “flat Earth” theory, however, the believers of incorrect theories, unable to explain the available evidence, will not gain adherents, at least not in the scientific community, and, over the course of time, the believers will die out, as the theories that do explain the available evidence draw more and more adherents.

    Let me just say, by the way: congratulations! You could have remained silent and left some uncertainty, but you have made it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a fool for the denialist idiocy.

  82. Bartbuster says:

    Blankshot, you really are taking a beating in here. It’s pretty funny that you don’t even seem to realize it.

  83. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said “______________”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s