But the text says no change!
Therefore, ■■■■ everything else ever!
I have an open mind, you see.
It’s just trust in this, largely people trust science. The moment there was an economic component (despite the economics supporting transition to renewables) and it threatened the bottom line of some of the worlds biggest companies, it became a problitical debate. I actually feel societies failing was to let that happen, allowing it to be politicised, is actually a bigger failing of the modern age than failure to act fast enough.
I hope sorfed and these other deniers are actually right. I have 2 children, 6 nieces and nephews. I want them to live in a habbitle world.
But if I’m right I hope it’s a Monty burns and the fish situation, and all these deniers are the first motherfarkers to burn
What about anti vaccine loonies
They don’t disbelieve science broadly, they just think there is a conspiracy at play
then why are you posting it?
Fixed it for you.
Ah, but this graph, this graph is a thing of beauty, in a way. It should be framed and hung in the Royal Australian Bullshit Museum, it’s such a perfect example of the climate denier’s art.
Let me count the ways…:
- cherry pick a weird starting point for the graph. Why was a mid-1997 start point chosen? Surely a more logical starting point would be a round number year, or perhaps a round number like 20 years before the current date? Obvious answer, cos that goes back JUST long enough to include the 1998 temperature spike in your time series which helps flatten the trend line, but not far enough. that it includes some of the cooler years before 98 which would angle the trend line up again.
- Cherry pick your end point for the graph. Convenient it ends in 2014, isn’t it, when by pretty much all measurements, 2015, 2016, and 2017 were the hottest years on record?
- Cherry pick your data set, and omit relevant information about your data set. As a standard, global temperatures are generally based on something like the NOAA data set, which brings a bunch of different measurements from sea, land stations, atmospheric measurements, satellite measurements etc etc together in order to get as comprehensive a picture of global temperature as possible. That’s what real scientists do, after all, try to get as much data as possible. Why didn’t you do this? You however, have chosen the REMSS data set, which only covers satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures. And the REASON you’ve chosen that, and chosen a REMSS set from 2014, is that in 2017 REMSS discovered they’d been doing their calculations wrong and hadn’t been accounting properly for orbital decay in their satellites. The result of this was that they’d underestimated warming between 1998 and 2017 by 140%. Their later data sets account for this correctly, but you’ve carefully and deliberately chosen a data set with a known error in it. Why?
And that’s just the graph. Then there’s your own arguments.
- You claim this graph shows temperatures have not increased this century. You are not telling the truth, even from the dodgy numbers you base your claim on,l it’s very clear that if you started the graph from 2000, without the 1998 peak, and included the 2015, 2016, 2017 record heat years, there would be warming.
- You wriggle and dodge when your bullshit is called out, and refuse to back up your ludicrous claims. I’m still waiting for any sort of reference that credibly says that temperatures in the last 500 years have been hotter than now, for instance. This is an old tactic, generally named the Gish Gallop after the crfeationist loon best known for it. Make a bunch of garbage claims off the top of your head based on nothing, then while honest debaters actually laboriously produce evidence to refuste your claims one by one, you’ve moved on to make a whole bunch of new claims and simply ignore all the proof that you’re spouting manure.
- You seem to believe your making some sort of profound postmodernist point with your whole ‘well, who knows what truth is really, and everything’s opinion, and we can all
fake upfind graphs to back up our preconceived notions if we google far enough down the online conspiracy theory rabbithole anyway’. That’s hardly original, but it ain’t science. Science deliberately tries to look at the biggest, most complete data sets possible, Propaganda, on the other hand, does stuff like choosing a data set that’s known to contain errors biasing it towards your preferred outcome, then cherrypicking the start and end points to use in order to come up with an oversimplified and misleading graph. This is the sort of thing you do when you care a lot about winning an argument, and not very much about the truth.
Of course, right of reply is important - if it’s done in good faith. So:
Why did you choose a data set that only contains satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures, and not one of the more comprehensive data sets like NOAA?
Why did you choose a data set known to have a systematic error that underestimated warming?
Why did you neglect to include the years 2015-7 in your data set?
Why did you start your data set some time in mid 1997?
If this graph was NOT your own work, where did you source it from and how long did you spend scrolling through graphs of temperature vs time before you found one that said what you wanted?
What evidence do you have for your previous claims that temperatures have been much hotter in the past 500 years than they are now?
8 Likes
After reading all that, anyone who is not a troll but is honestly incorrect, will just have to concede they are wrong.
No they won’t.
There’s a lot of psychological research around that states that people cannot be convinced that passionately held opinions are wrong by use of facts or evidence. In fact, producing evidence that contradicts their passionately held beliefs seems to result in them clinging on to those beliefs all the stronger.
Depressing, I know.
I don’t post on this thread to convince sorfed or 1408 or whoever that they’re wrong. Either they’re trolls and they don’t care about truth, or they’re passionate believers and evidence won’t sway them. I only post on here to try to prevent anyone who’s on the fence and reads the thread from falling for the snake oil.
6 Likes
That’s very true. Passionate beliefs can trump verifiable facts, and yep, I’ve read a lot of that psychological research also. I guess I was hoping against hope!!
Your efforts are appreciated, by the way.
1 Like
I don’t mind differing views, and discussion is good, and to be fair to @Bomber1408 he has come in here think with the intent to discuss things, it did trigger me a little when he said he gets most of his info on this topic from skeptic sites, why would a person do that, thats like getting all your info on lung cancer from Phillip Morris, but anyway. At least him sharing this stuff gives us something to do.
Sorfed is just a troll.
Like I have always maintained, I have an open mind and have stated multiple times I believe that the crap we pump into the atmosphere can’t be all good and yes, it probably contributes to warming and ■■■■■■ weather.
However, I don’t think that is the whole story and genuinely believe the Sun’s rays and for that matter Cosmic rays also play a major part and maintain that historical comparisons indicate we could get a lot cooler in the coming decades possibly mitigating the increases in global warming for the Northern Hermisphere.
I have posted in this thread only to try and open your minds to the other reasons that I believe also contribute to our mad climate that is occurring globally.
Yes I admit to posting some very ordinary statements & graphs…please accept my humble apology. Guilty as charged !
Have a great end of year everyone, go Bombers…
Fark Carlton !
3 Likes
Gamma rays affecting climate?!? :headbash:
At least we can agree on FCFC
1 Like
Good onya B14
1 Like
Another set of broken temp records in the past 24 hours, but read this if you want to really blow your own top. It’s ffucking infuriating
1 Like
Also more broken rain records in Nth Queensland at the same time.
I think even NASA discusses the possibility that increased cosmic rays, due to lessened solar activity, can lead to increased cloud cover, rain fall and lightning…maybe not the cooling other sites claim though. I’ll see if I can find a few more legitimate reference site that talk about it. The below are where I 1st read about it:
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
We just landed a robot on a 20c piece on a planet millions and millions of KMs away. I don’t think anyone truly distrusts science. Fossil fuels have run disinformation campaigns against AGW for most of the 20th century as did the Tobacco and Lead industries.
Well if the JCU ever game enough to go to court we will find out if he has the data, we will also find out if the JCU has the data to back up their stance on Global Warming and the resultant degredation and death of the GBR which in my lifetime has died at least 5 times.
Half of the GBR has died since 2016. If you don’t care or think it’s not related to anthropogenic climate change then ■■■■ off or back up your ■■■■. “Which in my lifetime has died 5 times”, mate everyone has a relative who says crap like that, we know the routine.
Cosmic Rays and weather/climate, couple of images that simplify the concept. There are plenty of info on this and yes from legitimate sites / organisations:
What on earth is that? Two graphs pasted on top of each other?