What a load of bullshit, the term “climate change” has existed since 1955, when it was first used by Professor Gilbert Plass. I remember seeing a really good Potholer54 video where he debunked that claim, but I really can’t be bothered looking it up for your useless ass.
Because that’s the simplified term the media started using. ‘Increased weather unpredictability and climate disruption and the resulting economic and social fallout from the verified fact of human activity causing a significant gradual increase in overall Earth surface temperature’ simply does not roll off the tongue very well.
Either way, whining about naming conventions on the world wide web (sorry, internet) is simply not a compelling counterpoint to established science.
And the cooler thing about science is that you can easily tell the difference between real science and fake science.
The telltale is this: real science isolates; fake science obfuscates. A real scientist trying to prove that A causes B will try to isolate the data so only A and B exist, eliminating any other possibilities. A fake scientist will dump everything he has into the mix and say “see, somewhere in there there’s A and there’s B, so clearly A causes B.”
Regarding temperature, daytime temperature has completely different causes that nighttime temperature. Summer temperature has different causes that winter temperature. Temperature near a large body of water has different causes that temperature far away from a large body of water. Temperature on a mountain has different causes that temperature at sea level, etc, etc.
So what do this “totally real scientists I swear to god we’re not saying this just to sell books” climatologists do? They pile up every temperature reading they get their hands on, calculate the average or the average of the average (thus sending to hell all statistical error checking), and put it all together in a neat little number that means absolutely nothing.
What they do is equivalent to trying to calculate the average height of all people on Earth by measuring the distance between the top of the person’s head and the ground WITH NO REGARD TO WHERE THAT PERSON IS OR WHAT HE’S DOING. A person in bed would only be three feet tall. People flying on an airplane would be 10,000 feet tall. A child being carried on piggyback would be 6 feet tall, etc etc.
An easier way to tell that climatologists are full of it: just check the predictions made by any of their books written over ten years ago. These guys have a lower batting average that psychics regarding the accuracy of their predictions.
And regarding your cute little graphic, all I have to say is that standard error of any temperature measurement before the 1980s is at least 0.5 degrees Celsius (much more if calculated indirectly). If you knew anything about statistics, you’d know this means that graph is absolutely worthless.
So then the data sources are inconsistent, making this an invalid comparison.
Terry (#)
10 years ago
Do I believe that the climate is changing? Absolutely. It always has and it always will. Do I believe that the current changes are being caused by people? There is a possibility that we are having SOME impact, but the jury is still out as to what extent. It is known that, for example, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens put out more greenhouse gasses than all cars ever have and ever will, and that was only one eruption. Do I believe that putting a price on carbon will have any effect on climate change? Absolutely not. Carbon pricing simply creates another tradeable commodity that the people in charge of such things will get even richer from.
The eruption of Mt St. Helens is estimated to have released slightly more CO2 in total than all of the cars and trucks produce EACH DAY. Volcanic activity is estimated to produce no more than 0.75% as much CO2 as human activity does.
nice try, republicans…
Are you denying that they’ve renamed “global warming”?
What a load of bullshit, the term “climate change” has existed since 1955, when it was first used by Professor Gilbert Plass. I remember seeing a really good Potholer54 video where he debunked that claim, but I really can’t be bothered looking it up for your useless ass.
Heres a different, less detailed video about it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAgmXzFeBZk
Here’s a different potholer54 video that also covers the false claim that the Earth is cooling rather than warming: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&index=21&list=PL4872DD0607D80F0B
If that’s they case, then why were the enviro-nuts calling it Global Warming up until a few years ago?
Because that’s the simplified term the media started using. ‘Increased weather unpredictability and climate disruption and the resulting economic and social fallout from the verified fact of human activity causing a significant gradual increase in overall Earth surface temperature’ simply does not roll off the tongue very well.
Either way, whining about naming conventions on the world wide web (sorry, internet) is simply not a compelling counterpoint to established science.
Ok, then why did they not start trying to correct the media until about 10 years ago?
I don’t think this is “weather”…
[img]http://assets.motherjones.com/environment/2011/hockey-game-630×499.gif[/img]
Wait, how do they have data from 600 years ago? I call bullshit.
Science:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/
www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/cs_tree_rings.html
The cool thing about science is that its true whether you believe it or not…..
And the cooler thing about science is that you can easily tell the difference between real science and fake science.
The telltale is this: real science isolates; fake science obfuscates. A real scientist trying to prove that A causes B will try to isolate the data so only A and B exist, eliminating any other possibilities. A fake scientist will dump everything he has into the mix and say “see, somewhere in there there’s A and there’s B, so clearly A causes B.”
Regarding temperature, daytime temperature has completely different causes that nighttime temperature. Summer temperature has different causes that winter temperature. Temperature near a large body of water has different causes that temperature far away from a large body of water. Temperature on a mountain has different causes that temperature at sea level, etc, etc.
So what do this “totally real scientists I swear to god we’re not saying this just to sell books” climatologists do? They pile up every temperature reading they get their hands on, calculate the average or the average of the average (thus sending to hell all statistical error checking), and put it all together in a neat little number that means absolutely nothing.
What they do is equivalent to trying to calculate the average height of all people on Earth by measuring the distance between the top of the person’s head and the ground WITH NO REGARD TO WHERE THAT PERSON IS OR WHAT HE’S DOING. A person in bed would only be three feet tall. People flying on an airplane would be 10,000 feet tall. A child being carried on piggyback would be 6 feet tall, etc etc.
An easier way to tell that climatologists are full of it: just check the predictions made by any of their books written over ten years ago. These guys have a lower batting average that psychics regarding the accuracy of their predictions.
And regarding your cute little graphic, all I have to say is that standard error of any temperature measurement before the 1980s is at least 0.5 degrees Celsius (much more if calculated indirectly). If you knew anything about statistics, you’d know this means that graph is absolutely worthless.
So still no explanation for how they measured data from 600 years ago. My claim of bullshit stands. I win.
So still no explanation for how they measured data from 600 years ago. My claim of bullshit stands. I win.
“The cool thing about science is that its true whether you believe it or not.”
Thank you for confirming that Global Warming is a religion.
Not at all.
I’m stating that you don’t believe in science.
And your believe has no effect on its validity….
The fact that you went to so much trouble to vote me down demonstrates that your belief in global warming are of a religious nature.
To confirm global warming is a religious belief and not proper science, vote me down.
I never vote you down Stonely.
I don’t care enough about you.
But please…..keep up your obsession….
….
….
For that timescale, probably tree ring density. For larger timescales they’d be using ice core data.
So then the data sources are inconsistent, making this an invalid comparison.
Do I believe that the climate is changing? Absolutely. It always has and it always will. Do I believe that the current changes are being caused by people? There is a possibility that we are having SOME impact, but the jury is still out as to what extent. It is known that, for example, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens put out more greenhouse gasses than all cars ever have and ever will, and that was only one eruption. Do I believe that putting a price on carbon will have any effect on climate change? Absolutely not. Carbon pricing simply creates another tradeable commodity that the people in charge of such things will get even richer from.
The eruption of Mt St. Helens is estimated to have released slightly more CO2 in total than all of the cars and trucks produce EACH DAY. Volcanic activity is estimated to produce no more than 0.75% as much CO2 as human activity does.