Make up your minds!
Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate – NYTimes.com — More research that will be rejected in favor of the “man caused it” theories. The NY Times seems to have switched sides, though, so that could make a difference.
The scientists said their data showed that significantly warmer periods and significantly colder periods had occurred during the last interval between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago. They said they could not tell whether that meant similar changes were in store. Their findings were reported today in two papers in the journal Nature.
Previous studies had shown that there were abrupt changes in climate during glacial epochs, but the new results show that the same was true in the periods when glaciers had retreated. In one “catastrophic event” during the last interglacial period, the average temperature plunged 25 degrees Fahrenheit to ice-age levels for about 70 years, the scientists reported.
The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been “strangely stable.”
related link: Global Cooling predicted in the 1970′s
Yo, RGB, you copy and pasted a quote from a nano-scientist (who in the end, didn’t discount the possibility of warming partially caused by carbon dioxide) and attributed it to a major climatologist and his research.
By all means, please lecture the scientists about ethics.
I’m definitely not defending the scientists but when the other side seems willing to take their life’s work and twist it to whatever they want, they may not want to release the raw data.
I don’t know if CO2 is a major cause of global warming or not. I don’t know if cap and trade will fix it. But based on the the mistakes, unsourced crap and outright lies posted over the few days on the blog, I haven’t seen anything that would dissuade me.
Re#78 Hyph3n, I don’t know if CO2 is a major cause of global warming or not. I don’t know if cap and trade will fix it. But based on the the mistakes, unsourced crap and outright lies posted over the few days on the blog, I haven’t seen anything that would dissuade me.
You mean outright lies like the famous hockey stick graph… that everything IPCC hinges on? After all, if there’s no abnormal sudden rise in global temperatures, what are they so panicked about?
What do you think of the graphs in my post #48? Do you forgive a deception of that magnitude but discredit scientist skeptics because of a few laymen bloggers?
And what do you think of our “must have a gas guzzeling limo and eat caviar” summit leaders? Post #77.
If you only challenge the posters who have made errors in their posts, concentrate only on those errors, and avoid the valid and pertinent arguments that you are at a loss to explain… and think THAT somehow puts you on the right side of the argument… you are only deluding yourself.
The trouble with the Medieval Warming Period is that they don’t know if it was a regional thing or global. Your link n #48 is interesting, but the graphs unsourced, they aren’t normalized so it’s difficult to compare, and there are references to a studies that are not sourced or linked to.
And in the end, this is all AGW folks seem to have… interesting data that might show something, but it’s hard to trace back the original info.
Global warming is not Al Gore and his mansion or the IPCC crowd and their limos any more than Christianity is about Ted Haggard, homosexual sex and meth. The hacked scientists’ email don’t help their cause, but I have yet to find anything in there that disproved GW. At most it’s massaging data (which scientist do everyday for good and ill reasons) and trying to control the message.
Dvorak screwed up this post by implying the article was new and the NYT was swinging to the AGC crowd. RBG got caught in a blatant lie and has yet to say “sorry” or “my bad.” Yes, I put those on the same level… honesty and accuracy are honesty and accuracy.
For what it worth, I appreciate your posts. I think you have an interesting view of this… and you may be right. Global warming may be a 150 year blip on climate cycles we can’t control. I think it’s the best out of a bunch of bad scenarios. But hoping doesn’t make it so.
JimR, why don’t you challenge your own side for better data?
The graphs on the wattsupwiththat blog could have easily been made the same scale and units. Why weren’t they? I’m wonder if they would have shown too much similarity outside of the Medieval Warming Period. Why isn’t the bottom one sourced?
From: Obamaforever per #6
To: All anti-Climate Change Retards
To: Cursor per per #60 (Also known as Mr. hit and run)
I will be addressing you Retards shortly, but first I will eviscerate Mr. hit and run. I find that hit-and-run is a favorite tactic of the creationists. They pull an anti-evolution post out of their ass. The post is one big lie. You never see them again.
Mr. hit and run, you called me a troll for what I posted in #6. All I did was to point out that the date of the NY Times article was 1993. I bit dated wouldn’t you say, Mr. hit and run? The problem was that Johnny did not back-up the 1993 article with an up-to-date article.
How many Retards took the trouble to read the article-not many. How many Retards would have said anything about the 1993 date-zero.
If pointing out the obvious makes one a troll than I am a troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. hit and run, you have been captured, tried, convicted and sentence to a lifetime of having your head up your ass.
Speaking of which, Dvorak is absent from this post. He post the article and he does a hit and run. Embarrass are we, Johnny?
Re: Hyph3n, “Your link n #48 is interesting, but the graphs unsourced, they aren’t normalized so it’s difficult to compare, and there are references to a studies that are not sourced or linked to.”
Excuse me? Did you even read the page? There’s not a lot of copy.
Reference for source and data… “Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demolished the hockey stick graph in a number of papers that established that almost any numbers would produce the same configuration.” So look them up.
The article refrences 3 other scientific and historical sources, but you have to Google them. Is that too much to ask? And this isn’t the only article discussing these graphs. Others are more scientific in nature… but I suppose if you don’t want to know, you don’t want to know…. (I’m taunting you
)
Also, where did Dvorak imply that the article was new? Glaciers don’t suddenly decide to change their history of 150,000 years, just 16 years after we sample their data. What made you say The science may or may not STILL be valid in your post #15. it seems to me you are in denial and are being irrational in order to keep your current belief. I don’t mean that in a nasty way Hyph3n, I have caught myself doing that at times as well. Human nature.
Re:# 81, Hyph3n…Sorry, missed one of your points…”Global warming is not Al Gore and his mansion or the IPCC crowd and their limos any more than Christianity is about Ted Haggard, ”
I have to strongly disagree with that analogy. The IPCC crowd is pushing for global economic upheaval, and they are in a position to force it to happen. Ted Haggart or any other evangelist never had, nor ever will have that much power over you and I.
#83 A guy who writes every post in the form of a letter calling everyone else a retard. Rich.
Hyph3n,
The entire ongoing Hockey Stick saga, papers (data) and correspondence to date.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Exerpt:
“A major investigation into the hockey stick, the Wegman Panel Report, was headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also past Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed our findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work. Wegman makes a good recommendations about the need for higher standards of disclosure and review scientific research is used in public policy.”
Pedro… LOL.
http://uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Okay, I’ll make it even easier for some of you…
Published scientific paper that destroys the hockey stick graph. The one that started it all. Contains all data and sources.
http://uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
From: Obamaforever
To: pedro-King of the Retards per #86
Quote:
#83 A guy who writes every post in the form of a letter calling everyone else a retard. Rich.
End of quote.
pedro, you read as good as you think- very poorly.
The “everyone else” phrase I am thinking is your crowd-the anti-Climate Change people. If the phrase refers to the entire population of the world then you are wrong.-as ever! My phrase “anti-Climate Change Retard”. ONLY includes the people who deny the evidence of Climate Change.
pedro, King of the Retards, please return to the interstate and pick-up the cans you need to get your mule.
#90 Haven’t you noticed? People in here don’t laugh with you, but they’re definitively laughing.
78. Give it up Hyph3n,
Read RBG 42 closely this time. Ditto 14 RBG.
The links identify themselves clearly including NOAA and even the original source data is provided as a link. You can lead a horse to global cooling but…
RBG
From: Obamaforever
To: pedro-King of the Retards per #91
I bask in the laughs of Retards.
So keep them laughs acoming!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many cans so far, pedro?
Okay, last one first…
JimR said “Also, where did Dvorak imply that the article was new?”
Dvorak said “The NY Times seems to have switched sides, though, so that could make a difference.”
I choose my words carefully. He implied that it was a new article. At the very least, he didn’t say that it was 16 years old. (Hopefully, he didn’t realize.)
JimR said “The article references 3 other scientific and historical sources, but you have to Google them.”
If you are going to play Jr. Scientist then you really need to play by their rules. It’s not my job to seek out the references they make (what if I get the wrong one?) It’s their responsible. Oh, I did follow a few links leading to another backwater blog with the same info. That ain’t science, that’s a reach around. If you are referencing a study, tell me where can find it.
JimR said “Reference for source and data… ‘Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demolished the hockey stick graph…’”
I know about the McIntrye and McKitrick argument. They say that you can take random number and mathematically still get a “hockey stick.” And they may be right. Of course, they may also be right (or wrong for that matter), but the data is still valid.
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
RBG- I read your freakin’ article. How else would I know that the guy is a nano-technology research (shilling for research dollars, BTW)? And even he said CO2 may have some part to play even if there are other causes. Your original post has been altered to make the links a bit more clear, but you made it seem that the quote was from Alley. Why include the wikipedia link and a short bio of him in your post?
(The article itself was again– everyone say it– interested. But he’s not a climatologist and it would take 2 weeks to dig into the facts and figures he presents. Honest, if I have the time, I look at the links posted.)
#93 It’s a good thing you bask on them. It helps lessen the scorn.
Some food for thought: if there are so many more retards that laugh at you yet barely anyone besides you, whom do you think the retard really is? My money is on the few not laughing.
From: Obamaforever
To: pedro-King of the Retards per #95
Quote:
Some food for thought: if there are so many more retards that laugh at you yet barely anyone besides you, whom do you think the retard really is? My money is on the few not laughing.
End of quote.
King of the Retards, the paragraph in question makes no sense (like you, hee, hee). I suggest you revise said paragraph. I think it might help if you pulled your head out of your ass first.
It might help to get some fresh air. Look for cans maybe? Yes? No?
#87, JimR,
The Wegman Report is a fraud. Two Republican Congressmen, in denial already, asked Wegman, also a Republican and Bush supporter, to write the report. Wegman claimed it was peer reviewed by some friends. Shortly after its release it was derided for the garbage it is.
Wegman, a Statistician, presented his report at the American Statistical Society. It was debunked there as bad science.