Uhh, I didn't ask paradox to "prove" anything. "Scientific proof" is a myth.
That's very difficult to do with anything other than pure mathematics AFAIK.
There is a body of evidence and analysis in any science and therefore some hypotheses and theories carry more weight than others.
The theory forwarded by paradox that the observed warming is driven with any significance by natural underlying factors is extremely weak.
Extremely weak......
I asked him to provide some evidence, any evidence that demonstrates with rigour, with accuracy and with proper science that his hypothesis about the underlying natural warming trend being as significant or more so then the anthropogenic GHG component but to date he's provided jack.
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
In order for paradox's claims to carry weight, he has to systematically refute just about every respected university and government institution's work that supports the generally accepted AGW hypothesis.
He could start with our own CSIRO's climate modelling and analysis.
Until that is achieved that there's really no more point ranting about practically insignificant phenomena.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
it seems that to deniers it's their big gotcha moment but to everyone who accepts the science it's a very, very ........VERY!!!! inconsequential.
Somehow Mr COOK has become a demon for deniers and his work must be destroyed and with it's destruction the whole facade of GW will come crashing down.
In reality Cooks work really is a side show.
Jesus, like a bag of hammers. Or a drunk heckler who didn't have the IQ to waste before they were 6 Jim Beam's down...
Cook et al's paper isn't the issue. The actual problem is the muppets who latch onto the "97%" and don't actually understand or include what it's a 97% ... of.
"Cook's work is a sideshow"
Funny, when I said that, you called me a denier. You're a climate denier log jam.
Like I've previously said, you're only interested in science when it suits your agenda. You're literally denying science because it doesn't support your ideology enough.
Can't write comedy like this 
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said.
The only thing they've got is playing word games.
Ya can't even quote the CSIRO without being lashed by hysterical semantics Nazis. Sheesh.
From the guy who insists that "common knowledge" is enough to define scientific credibility, I'm not surprised you get upset about accuracy of language being important in scientific discussion -- that's a logical fallacy too.
You're hoping to steal the crown from logical fallacy man? You've got my vote.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
The theory forwarded by paradox that the observed warming is driven with any significance by natural underlying factors is extremely weak.
Extremely weak......
I asked him to provide some evidence, any evidence that demonstrates with rigour, with accuracy and with proper science that his hypothesis about the underlying natural warming trend being as significant or more so then the anthropogenic GHG component but to date he's provided jack.
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
In order for paradox's claims to carry weight, he has to systematically refute just about every respected university and government institution's work that supports the generally accepted AGW hypothesis.
He could start with our own CSIRO's climate modelling and analysis.
Until that is achieved that there's really no more point ranting about practically insignificant phenomena.
You're asking him to provide sources, when you can't even paste a link of a citation in here 
That's not a logical fallacy, that's just laziness.
Gosh you still haven't worked out I was toying with you regarding the IPCC working group and CSIRO's statement....
Even dumbo
logjam got it!
Yes I'm asking paradox to provide some evidence to support his own private ideo about natural variability. It's an alternative theory without much evidentiary foundation. I'm all for rigorous science, but not lazy fossil fuel sponsored propaganda.
So, off you go, show us some evidence natural variability is driving global warming observations to any significant degree.
I'm all ears. 
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
Actually the most important aspect to science and the rebuttal of a hypothesis is the ability to provide just one equally plausible alternative. In this case we are actually saying that CO2 probably is in the mix as a contributer to some extent, but historical temperature records and trends do not give us much of an idea how much. It could be minimal based purely on temperature records.
Statistical regression of existing datasets can become tedius, so there is not much focus or funding for endless repitition, especially when simple visual analysis can tell the story equally well. A simple exercise in linear trends on the graphs I have provided previously shows a warming trend for the last 200 years. You can ask for as much analysis on that as you want but it's still school level data alalysis.
Here are some more detailed approaches for what they are worth.
www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120
cosmology.com/ClimateChange112.html
www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Actually the most important aspect to science and the rebuttal of a hypothesis is the ability to provide just one equally plausible alternative.holy guacamole said..
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
In this case we are actually saying that CO2 probably is in the mix as a contributer to some extent, but historical temperature records and trends do not give us much of an idea how much. It could be minimal based purely on temperature records.
Statistical regression of existing datasets can become tedius, so there is not much focus or funding for endless repitition, especially when simple visual analysis can tell the story equally well. A simple exercise in linear trends on the graphs I have provided previously shows a warming trend for the last 200 years. You can ask for as much analysis on that as you want but it's still school level data alalysis.
Here are some more detailed approaches for what they are worth.
www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120
cosmology.com/ClimateChange112.html
www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Of course, but the plausible alternative must also be backed by hard evidence and sound science.....not evangelical faith and erroneous data collection.
The most rigorous peer reviewed science and simulation models support the AGW hypothesis rather than the natural variability hypothesis.
I note you resort to quoting Dr Roy Spencer, a signatory to the evangelical religious nutter publication "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that states quote
"believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence-are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
end quote
Hocus pocus and faith based nonsense.
Dr. Roy Spence has also made huge calibration errors in the past, including this huge one, which in addition to his evangelical faith based underpinnings, may further explain some of his erroneous opinions:
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
and for a summary of some of Spencer's stuffups and whooops, Heartland again:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#4385df8c6189
Come to think of it, most of the stuff you post here sounds like you're paraphrasing Dr Spencer's lies and falsehoods. How interesting....B
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
it seems that to deniers it's their big gotcha moment but to everyone who accepts the science it's a very, very ........VERY!!!! inconsequential.
Somehow Mr COOK has become a demon for deniers and his work must be destroyed and with it's destruction the whole facade of GW will come crashing down.
In reality Cooks work really is a side show.
Jesus, like a bag of hammers. Or a drunk heckler who didn't have the IQ to waste before they were 6 Jim Beam's down...
Cook et al's paper isn't the issue. The actual problem is the muppets who latch onto the "97%" and don't actually understand or include what it's a 97% ... of.
"Cook's work is a sideshow"
Funny, when I said that, you called me a denier. You're a climate denier log jam.
Like I've previously said, you're only interested in science when it suits your agenda. You're literally denying science because it doesn't support your ideology enough.
Can't write comedy like this
So you don't like 97%.......lets make it 91or 89.5..........nah let's just say it's a **** load.........or a really, really super high percentage.......even a **** ton.
which ever way you want to cut it, the answer's the same.
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
it seems that to deniers it's their big gotcha moment but to everyone who accepts the science it's a very, very ........VERY!!!! inconsequential.
Somehow Mr COOK has become a demon for deniers and his work must be destroyed and with it's destruction the whole facade of GW will come crashing down.
In reality Cooks work really is a side show.
Jesus, like a bag of hammers. Or a drunk heckler who didn't have the IQ to waste before they were 6 Jim Beam's down...
Cook et al's paper isn't the issue. The actual problem is the muppets who latch onto the "97%" and don't actually understand or include what it's a 97% ... of.
"Cook's work is a sideshow"
Funny, when I said that, you called me a denier. You're a climate denier log jam.
Like I've previously said, you're only interested in science when it suits your agenda. You're literally denying science because it doesn't support your ideology enough.
Can't write comedy like this
So you don't like 97%.......lets make it 91or 89.5..........nah let's just say it's a **** load.........or a really, really super high percentage.......even a **** ton.
which ever way you want to cut it, the answer's the same.
That's correct. The answer is the same but ... you still don't understand the answer.
You can prove me wrong by finding the part in my post where I explained the answer and copying and pasting it here, or go to Cook et al's original conclusion and paste that here -- and note how I didn't conveniently clip the details to suit a narrative.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..Actually the most important aspect to science and the rebuttal of a hypothesis is the ability to provide just one equally plausible alternative.holy guacamole said..
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
In this case we are actually saying that CO2 probably is in the mix as a contributer to some extent, but historical temperature records and trends do not give us much of an idea how much. It could be minimal based purely on temperature records.
Statistical regression of existing datasets can become tedius, so there is not much focus or funding for endless repitition, especially when simple visual analysis can tell the story equally well. A simple exercise in linear trends on the graphs I have provided previously shows a warming trend for the last 200 years. You can ask for as much analysis on that as you want but it's still school level data alalysis.
Here are some more detailed approaches for what they are worth.
www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120
cosmology.com/ClimateChange112.html
www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Of course, but the plausible alternative must also be backed by hard evidence and sound science.....not evangelical faith and erroneous data collection.
The most rigorous peer reviewed science and simulation models support the AGW hypothesis rather than the natural variability hypothesis.
I note you resort to quoting Dr Roy Spencer, a signatory to the evangelical religious nutter publication "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that states quote
"believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence-are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
end quote
Hocus pocus and faith based nonsense.
Dr. Roy Spence has also made huge calibration errors in the past, including this huge one, which in addition to his evangelical faith based underpinnings, may further explain some of his erroneous opinions:
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
and for a summary of some of Spencer's stuffups and whooops, Heartland again:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#4385df8c6189
Come to think of it, most of the stuff you post here sounds like you're paraphrasing Dr Spencer's lies and falsehoods. How interesting....B
How common does the knowledge have to be before we can have faith to just accept it as the authority on the matter?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..Actually the most important aspect to science and the rebuttal of a hypothesis is the ability to provide just one equally plausible alternative.holy guacamole said..
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
In this case we are actually saying that CO2 probably is in the mix as a contributer to some extent, but historical temperature records and trends do not give us much of an idea how much. It could be minimal based purely on temperature records.
Statistical regression of existing datasets can become tedius, so there is not much focus or funding for endless repitition, especially when simple visual analysis can tell the story equally well. A simple exercise in linear trends on the graphs I have provided previously shows a warming trend for the last 200 years. You can ask for as much analysis on that as you want but it's still school level data alalysis.
Here are some more detailed approaches for what they are worth.
www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120
cosmology.com/ClimateChange112.html
www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Of course, but the plausible alternative must also be backed by hard evidence and sound science.....not evangelical faith and erroneous data collection.
The most rigorous peer reviewed science and simulation models support the AGW hypothesis rather than the natural variability hypothesis.
I note you resort to quoting Dr Roy Spencer, a signatory to the evangelical religious nutter publication "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that states quote
"believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence-are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
end quote
Hocus pocus and faith based nonsense.
Dr. Roy Spence has also made huge calibration errors in the past, including this huge one, which in addition to his evangelical faith based underpinnings, may further explain some of his erroneous opinions:
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
and for a summary of some of Spencer's stuffups and whooops, Heartland again:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#4385df8c6189
Come to think of it, most of the stuff you post here sounds like you're paraphrasing Dr Spencer's lies and falsehoods. How interesting....B
How common does the knowledge have to be before we can have faith to just accept it as the authority on the matter?
well, if 94.245% of scientists agree i'd call that settled........done and dusted.
oooopppps........sorry, did I say 94.245......silly me!!!I I meant 93.4.......that changes everything
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said...What do they agree on?
That there's virtually no evidence to support the hypothesis that the current warming observed is significantly influenced by natural variability.
If you have to quote a bungling evangelist who believes god will fix everything as a source to support this hypothesis, vs most of the world's scientific community, governments and universities I think that says it all.
Have faith Tony, it's all you've got.
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..Actually the most important aspect to science and the rebuttal of a hypothesis is the ability to provide just one equally plausible alternative.holy guacamole said..
One of the most important aspects to scientific work is the successful repetition or discounting of an experiment or model.
In this case we are actually saying that CO2 probably is in the mix as a contributer to some extent, but historical temperature records and trends do not give us much of an idea how much. It could be minimal based purely on temperature records.
Statistical regression of existing datasets can become tedius, so there is not much focus or funding for endless repitition, especially when simple visual analysis can tell the story equally well. A simple exercise in linear trends on the graphs I have provided previously shows a warming trend for the last 200 years. You can ask for as much analysis on that as you want but it's still school level data alalysis.
Here are some more detailed approaches for what they are worth.
www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120
cosmology.com/ClimateChange112.html
www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Of course, but the plausible alternative must also be backed by hard evidence and sound science.....not evangelical faith and erroneous data collection.
The most rigorous peer reviewed science and simulation models support the AGW hypothesis rather than the natural variability hypothesis.
I note you resort to quoting Dr Roy Spencer, a signatory to the evangelical religious nutter publication "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that states quote
"believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence-are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
end quote
Hocus pocus and faith based nonsense.
Dr. Roy Spence has also made huge calibration errors in the past, including this huge one, which in addition to his evangelical faith based underpinnings, may further explain some of his erroneous opinions:
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
and for a summary of some of Spencer's stuffups and whooops, Heartland again:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#4385df8c6189
Come to think of it, most of the stuff you post here sounds like you're paraphrasing Dr Spencer's lies and falsehoods. How interesting....B
How common does the knowledge have to be before we can have faith to just accept it as the authority on the matter?
well, if 94.245% of scientists agree i'd call that settled........done and dusted.
Agree on what .... exactly?
You've got a chance here to show you understand what you're talking about and that I'm wrong I'm thinking you haven't a clue. I even told you how you could do it.
So far, all you've done is double-down on proving you're clueless. Fine work.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said...What do they agree on?
That there's virtually no evidence to support the hypothesis that the current warming observed is significantly influenced by natural variability.
If you have to quote a bungling evangelist who believes god will fix everything as a source to support this hypothesis, vs most of the world's scientific community, governments and universities I think that says it all.
Have faith Tony, it's all you've got.
Nope that's not it. Try again.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said...What do they agree on?
That there's virtually no evidence to support the hypothesis that the current warming observed is significantly influenced by natural variability.
If you have to quote a bungling evangelist who believes god will fix everything as a source to support this hypothesis, vs most of the world's scientific community, governments and universities I think that says it all.
Have faith Tony, it's all you've got.
Nope that's not it. Try again.
This is all very funny. Will loggy get it? Or is he doomed forever to swim in numbers??
stay tuned folks...
Yep. Quoting a god fearing, evangelist, error-prone scientist to support a weak natural variability hypothesis sure is funny!
Stay tuned for evidence!
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Yep. Quoting a god fearing, evangelist, error-prone scientist to support a weak natural variability hypothesis sure is funny!
Stay tuned for evidence!
How much natural variability can you do without? The climate is what it is because it is maintained that way by biological feedbacks. The climate will drift even if every inorganic input was kept absolutely constant. If it didn't drift the biological feedbacks wouldn't know they had to kick in.
(I know wikipedia. How does wikipedia rate on this topic Paradox?)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
Notable climate events in Earth history[edit]
See also: List of periods and events in climate history, Timeline of glaciation, and History of Earth
Knowledge of precise climatic events decreases as the record goes back in time, but some notable climate events are known:
Faint young Sun paradox (start)
Huronian glaciation (~2400 Mya Earth completely covered in ice probably due to Great Oxygenation Event)
Later Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth (~600 Mya, precursor to the Cambrian Explosion)
Andean-Saharan glaciation (~450 Mya)
Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse (~300 Mya)
Permian-Triassic extinction event (251.4 Mya)
Oceanic anoxic events (~120 Mya, 93 Mya, and others)
Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (66 Mya)
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (Paleocene-Eocene, 55Mya)
Younger Dryas/The Big Freeze (~11,000 BC)
Holocene climatic optimum (~7000-3000 BC)
Extreme weather events of 535-536 (535-536 AD)
Medieval Warm Period (900-1300)
Little Ice Age (1300-1800)
Year Without a Summer (1816)
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Of course, but the plausible alternative must also be backed by hard evidence and sound science.....not evangelical faith and erroneous data collection.
The most rigorous peer reviewed science and simulation models support the AGW hypothesis rather than the natural variability hypothesis.
I note you resort to quoting Dr Roy Spencer, a signatory to the evangelical religious nutter publication "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that states quote
"believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence-are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
end quote
Hocus pocus and faith based nonsense.
Dr. Roy Spence has also made huge calibration errors in the past, including this huge one, which in addition to his evangelical faith based underpinnings, may further explain some of his erroneous opinions:
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
and for a summary of some of Spencer's stuffups and whooops, Heartland again:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#4385df8c6189
Come to think of it, most of the stuff you post here sounds like you're paraphrasing Dr Spencer's lies and falsehoods. How interesting....B
I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks, they are only used when the science can't be disputed. I posted 5 links for the evidence you insisted on. Feel free to delve into any of them but attacking individuals for anything other than thier science is pretty weak.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I looked at your links and can't get what you suggesting. One is related to the ongoing issue of calibration of satellites with land based temp readings (no errors by anyone raised), just a complex issue. "While the first global temperature records from satellites were assembled in the early 1990s, they have gone through multiple major revisions over the years, as researchers discovered and corrected various issues in the dataset caused by changing satellites, instrument types and flyover times."
And the forbes article reads like a strawman opinion piece. Lots of issues with it.
Your approach in that post just seems to be to fling irrelevant crap everywhere hoping some will stick? It does get a little tedius.
oh good god.......i feel like im locked in some time warp dream where i'm arguing with a couple of aspergers about if there really is consensus on GW. Let's get this clear and hopefully this bad dream will end.
There is consensus. The IPCC, Nasa, every national body of science oh and that demon Mr Cook all frickem agree. That's it, game over
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!
But there are commercial interests (and mentals on forums) that want to thwart any rectification.........this isn't good.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks holy guacamole said..
Of course, but the plausible alternative must also be backed by hard evidence and sound science.....not evangelical faith and erroneous data collection.
The most rigorous peer reviewed science and simulation models support the AGW hypothesis rather than the natural variability hypothesis.
I note you resort to quoting Dr Roy Spencer, a signatory to the evangelical religious nutter publication "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that states quote
"believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence-are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
end quote
Hocus pocus and faith based nonsense.
Dr. Roy Spence has also made huge calibration errors in the past, including this huge one, which in addition to his evangelical faith based underpinnings, may further explain some of his erroneous opinions:
www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
and for a summary of some of Spencer's stuffups and whooops, Heartland again:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#4385df8c6189
Come to think of it, most of the stuff you post here sounds like you're paraphrasing Dr Spencer's lies and falsehoods. How interesting....B
, they are only used when the science can't be disputed. I posted 5 links for the evidence you insisted on. Feel free to delve into any of them but attacking individuals for anything other than thier science is pretty weak.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I looked at your links and can't get what you suggesting. One is related to the ongoing issue of calibration of satellites with land based temp readings (no errors by anyone raised), just a complex issue. "While the first global temperature records from satellites were assembled in the early 1990s, they have gone through multiple major revisions over the years, as researchers discovered and corrected various issues in the dataset caused by changing satellites, instrument types and flyover times."
And the forbes article reads like a strawman opinion piece. Lots of issues with it.
Your approach in that post just seems to be to fling irrelevant crap everywhere hoping some will stick? It does get a little tedius.
Nothing ad hominem about pointing out the facts about the bungling scientist Dr Spencer and his support for religious quackery. If you don't want your "sources" credibility to be shredded, don't present single person quacks as a source as if these quacks have the same credibility as a world of government scientific organisations and universities.
What I suggest, is that instead you name A respected government scientific institution that supports the natural variability hypothesis.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Nothing ad hominem about pointing out the facts about the bungling scientist Dr Spencer and his support for religious quackery. If you don't want your "sources" credibility to be shredded, don't present single person quacks as a source as if these quacks have the same credibility as a world of government scientific organisations and universities.
What I suggest, is that instead you name A respected government scientific institution that supports the natural variability hypothesis.
Yeah, I don't think so. I could do that but the result is meaningless. Every time you ask for evidence I give it to you. Then you ask for something else. If you don't like it then you just shift the goal posts again.
Now you don't like the papers I have provided and want to rule them all out becuase you don't like one of the individuals faith. So lets chuck out all that evidence you asked for and you will now only accept government sources....you sound like that consensus paper where they just removed everything that didn't support thier argument until the numbers fit....
Do your own research, my points are made.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Is science done by a show of hands?
No and it's not done by evangelist loners who can't calibrate their instruments either.Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..I thought they needed evidence
Yep. Why don't you ask paradox to supply some evidence that doesn't come from charlatans.
Dunno if all of Paradox' stuff comes from charlatans. On the other hand, the "skeptic" side seems to be split between those who say there is no warming trend, and those who say there is. Such a contradiction must surely show that at least one section of the "skeptic" side is incorrect.
Surely it is also reasonable to point out that someone like Spencer admits to beliefs that cannot really be aligned with science. It's more reasonable than the denialist line that climate scientists are charlatans who distort science because of the lure of grant money that they won't actually get.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Dunno if all of Paradox' stuff comes from charlatans. On the other hand, the "skeptic" side seems to be split between those who say there is no warming trend, and those who say there is. Such a contradiction must surely show that at least one section of the "skeptic" side is incorrect.
Surely it is also reasonable to point out that someone like Spencer admits to beliefs that cannot really be aligned with science. It's more reasonable than the denialist line that climate scientists are charlatans who distort science because of the lure of grant money that they won't actually get.
As far as I can tell, very few scientists actually believe there is no warming. Some may have some issues with the way the homegenisation of the data occurs but thats just an argument over the data manipulation process, which does influence the magnitude of change. Healthy skpticism on a process to be transparent, but no denial of an upward trend in most cases.
Regarding Spencer, you can't paint a scientists work as tainted just because he has religous faith. Not that i'm even aware of what Spencers faith is, ive not looked into it. He is certainly a respected scientist with significant published work, and there is no basis to HG's claims of dodgy results. However irrespective of that, what HG has done is tried to discredit all 5 of the seperate sources I provided by attacking one (without any actual evidence I might add). It's a tactic employed by the desperate or those trying to force a particular view without considering facts.
Irrespective of any of that, you need to understand that the argument I was presenting was that there is evidential substantiation for both CO2 and natural variance hypothesis influencing the observed temperature increases. At no time have I said that one or the other isn't occuring.
What scientists don't actually know is how much each is contributing, and that is why even the IPCC, CSIRO and other agencies all refer to the "likely" contribution of CO2 in thier statements. They don't know, its all guesses and modelling of a samll change in a very complex system.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.
It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.
I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick
