To those who don't believe AGW is real

[sasguru]

I wasn't goint to join in this, but it looks like fun.

As I have asked before, and you have copletely ignored the data. What about the ice core data (and others) that shows trends over millions of years, not a few hundred?

OK SAS: Lets just accept your point about noise on long term trends.
I would like to suggest that my prefered data of the last 65 million years shows that the long term trend is actualy that of a cooling earth. There are clearly shorter term periods of fluctuation but as you say, they are just noise.

See here http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Change_Rev_png

If you just take the last 5 million years you see a more cyclic global temperature trend with rapid rises and then long cooling periods every 130 thousand years or so.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...rature_Rev_png

Please show me how AGW was responsible for the last 3 peaks on that data.

I am not saying I do not believe in AGW, but I fall firmly into your sceptics camp.
I would hold that GW occurs in natural cycles influenced by all sorts of inputs.
Mankind must be having an effect, but I am not yet ready to accept your argument.
It is clear from more recent data that a plateau is occuring in the data which has not occured before but a cause for this is a long way from certain.

What about the pastafarian belief that GW is caused by a lack of pirates? The decline of pirates does seem to reflect the increase in GW.

That is probably the best sceptic post so far - it took this long for an intelligent posting.

If we're looking at your sort of time frame then obviously AGW is irrelevant. We are probably a not very developed species among many others in the universe and our survival is neither here nor there. And Earth is doomed anyway in the long run.
If AGW is real, as I think, then over the long term of the Earth's existence it obviously counts as noise - there must have been events that had a much greater effect on the climate than CO2 emitted by mankind.
So if you really don't care about your descendants futures then AGW means nothing at all. However temperature is higher now than at any point in the Holocene period during which human civilisation first came about. If we are the cause of that we ought to do something about it, wouldn't you say?

As to pirates, I read somewhere there are now more pirates than ever. Try sailing off some Arab countries, Somalia and some Asian countries. But you are right correlation does not imply causation.

[sasguru]

I am, like you, not a climate specialist. Nor an expert on modelling. But I don't have to be. They pissed on their own chips, and it's tragic types like you who gobble it all up without question that they feed on.

There is simply no way that 115 years is a long enough time frame to use to unequivocally identify climate trends of that nature.

And as for ignorance: I am ignorant when it comes to AGW; but so are the numpties you salivate over.

Part of my job is to identify and assess models (albeit in finance).
"Pissed on their on chips" doesn't constitute a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of their model, especially as you accept you know nothing about modelling.
As to 115 years not being a long enough time frame - why ever not?
The only numpty here is you as any objective observer will have picked up by now.
HTH

[Bob Dalek]

Part of my job is to identify and assess models (albeit in finance).
"Pissed on their on chips" doesn't constitute a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of their model, especially as you accept you know nothing about modelling.
As to 115 years not being a long enough time frame - why ever not?
The only numpty here is you as any objective observer will have picked up by now.
HTH

You have lost! Victory is ours! Ha ha ha ha, etc.!

[sasguru]

You have lost! Victory is ours! Ha ha ha ha, etc.!

Gibber, gibber, gibber

[sasguru]

I hereby declare this thread closed. Yet again the ignoramuses, cranks and other assorted cretins have been put to the sword by the crystal clear logic and reason of the scientific method

I thenk you!

[The Lone Gunman]

The problem for me is that there have been massive and rapid changes in the global temperature which were certainly not caused by mankind. Those changes do align with CO2 emissions, but due to the nature of the data nobody is sure which is cause and which is effect.
The climate scientists do not seem to be able to aply their methods and models to this known data yet they are certain of their assertion that modern GW is man made.

I happen to believe that a reduction in polution would be no bad thing whatever and the less we rely on dwindling resources the better but scare tactics and big sticks are distorting the issues.

This science is too young to be making such claims.

I also dont like the way you have argued your point here. So what if an ex exxon employee is the source of some data? Why is it not valid? Why is ad hominem acceptable here? By the same token you fiercely support the climate scientist who authored the Royal Society paper which concluded that his own work was correct.
The IPCC has never done any research into climate change. They have just gathered papers on the subject, analysed them and created a theory based on that analysis.
The only research being performed by climate scientists is into man made change so there are bound to be hundreds of papers supporting this. The science is good, the analysis by the IPCC is good and the arguments raised by the RC are good.
That doesnt mean there isnt a bloody big hole in the research.
The data is as flawed and biased as would be the data from an exxon supported experiment.
Where are the blind and double blind tests? Where are the repeatable tests? All the proper scientific checks and balances that we would expect from a mature science?

[The Lone Gunman]

Oh yes, and modern day pirates are not in the same tradition as proper pirates and can not be regarded the same.
Proper pirates wore tricorn hats and doublets and things. They had sailing ships and spoke funny.

[Bob Dalek]

I hereby declare this thread closed. Yet again the ignoramuses, cranks and other assorted cretins have been put to the sword by the crystal clear logic and reason of the scientific method

I thenk you!

Are you a maniacally masturbating tramp? I ask, as they often have bizarre thoughts, mannerisms and a loose grip on reality, compensated for by their firm grip on their can of Special Brew.

[sasguru]

The problem for me is that there have been massive and rapid changes in the global temperature which were certainly not caused by mankind. Those changes do align with CO2 emissions, but due to the nature of the data nobody is sure which is cause and which is effect.
The climate scientists do not seem to be able to aply their methods and models to this known data yet they are certain of their assertion that modern GW is man made.

I happen to believe that a reduction in polution would be no bad thing whatever and the less we rely on dwindling resources the better but scare tactics and big sticks are distorting the issues.

This science is too young to be making such claims.

I also dont like the way you have argued your point here. So what if an ex exxon employee is the source of some data? Why is it not valid? Why is ad hominem acceptable here? By the same token you fiercely support the climate scientist who authored the Royal Society paper which concluded that his own work was correct.
The IPCC has never done any research into climate change. They have just gathered papers on the subject, analysed them and created a theory based on that analysis.
The only research being performed by climate scientists is into man made change so there are bound to be hundreds of papers supporting this. The science is good, the analysis by the IPCC is good and the arguments raised by the RC are good.
That doesnt mean there isnt a bloody big hole in the research.
The data is as flawed and biased as would be the data from an exxon supported experiment.
Where are the blind and double blind tests? Where are the repeatable tests? All the proper scientific checks and balances that we would expect from a mature science?

LG, you do have a tendency to make assertions that seem to be drawn straight from the random impulses of your brain.

The statements highlighted in bold are just pure nonsense.

Meta-analysis is the term used to analyse many papers and summarise their findings. This is a perfectly good scientific technique as it "averages" the results of several studies and is used in several other areas including medical science.

ExxonMobil have not carried out any science although they fund various dodgy "think tanks" to come up with propaganda. There's plenty of evidence for it. Just google.
http://euobserver.com/9/23636
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...xon_chart.html

Part of the reason I believe the climate scientists is that they do science and analysis with real data sets. Their "funding" is usually simply their salaries as university professors.

Blind and double blind tests? We're not doing clinical trials here.

Checks and balances are provided by peer review. That's how science has always worked.

[sasguru]

Are you a maniacally masturbating tramp? I ask, as they often have bizarre thoughts, mannerisms and a loose grip on reality, compensated for by their firm grip on their can of Special Brew.

You are andyW and I claim my 5 free sessions with your mum.