�Global Temperature� � Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

[Mountain Man]

It isnt funny when you support and encourage ignorance. You are supporting MM's and others on this website ignorant buy in to the idea the temperature data and the incontrovertable warming signal it contains is invalid. That is itself ignorant and irresponsible, especially because you know better.

Jim

Speaking of ignorance, you don't even know what my position is.

There is evidence that climate change is happening, but then, climate change is always happening. However, there is no evidence of unusual or "catastrophic" warming, and certainly no evidence that man is having a significant impact on global temperatures. Finally, we know beyond any doubt that certain organizations have monkeyed up the temperature data to the point that it's more fiction than fact.

("Adjusting" current readings may be justified, to account for known factors, but "adjusting" readings from decades ago to bring them in line with biased predictions and sketchy computer models? I'd love to see the secular scientific community let creationists get away with that kind of nonsense!)

[Mountain Man]

First, a significant warming signal exists in the raw data - unadjusted.

Of course, because many temperature stations today are located in urban environments, and stations in rural and colder regions have been quietly decommissioned, or simply never existed. And yet organizations like NOAA and the fraudulent IPCC still feel the need to adjust current temperatures UP. It's a scientific farce!

[firstfloor]

[rogue06]

It isnt funny when you support and encourage ignorance. You are supporting MM's and others on this website ignorant buy in to the idea the temperature data and the incontrovertible warming signal it contains is invalid. Is that your intent - to encourage people in their ignorance?

Jim

Yup. Checked your sense of humor at the door.

[lilpixieofterror]

Put aside for a moment that the details are hard to get at because the Earth is a complicated thing; the drive towards an equilibrium temperature is no different to putting a piece of iron on a hot fire. It will reach a temperature when it radiates as much heat as it absorbs.

[oxmixmudd]

Speaking of ignorance, you don't even know what my position is.

There is evidence that climate change is happening, but then, climate change is always happening. However, there is no evidence of unusual or "catastrophic" warming, and certainly no evidence that man is having a significant impact on global temperatures. Finally, we know beyond any doubt that certain organizations have monkeyed up the temperature data to the point that it's more fiction than fact.

("Adjusting" current readings may be justified, to account for known factors, but "adjusting" readings from decades ago to bring them in line with biased predictions and sketchy computer models? I'd love to see the secular scientific community let creationists get away with that kind of nonsense!)

I do in fact know what your 'position' is on this MM.


Just like your attempt so 'splain it to me above, you have posted and weighed in positively on countless ill informed and simply wrong positions related to climate change. You have no idea what you are talking about - you never invoke the data or make arguments that involve the data or its interpretation. You simply quote pseudo-science or weigh in in favor of it, and you try to hide your ignorance in sarcasm in almost every post.

And - the key element - you refuse to even try to learn what you would need to know to make an informed assessment of the difference between the pseudo-science you like to quote and that actual science you are unable to comprehend.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Yup. Checked your sense of humor at the door.

Yep - when it comes to people quoting pseudo-science as fact, I don't have much of a sense of humor. I stand as accused.

Jim

[Sparko]

Yes, which tells you, coupled with its distance from the sun, that it has little to no atmosphere. And if that average were measured to change over time it woukd tell you that something is changing, given littke to no atmosphere, either total solar insolation, or its albedo.

Jim

Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

[Mountain Man]

You have no idea what you are talking about...

I disagree.

[One Bad Pig]

Yep - when it comes to people quoting pseudo-science as fact, I don't have much of a sense of humor. I stand as accused.

Jim

Except that wasn't 'pseudo-science', Jim. It was a JOKE.

[Mountain Man]

Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

And things would get even more squirrely if your temperate average was based almost entirely on readings taken on the sunlight side!

[Cow Poke]

Yep - when it comes to people quoting pseudo-science as fact, I don't have much of a sense of humor. I stand as accused.

Jim

What you're demonstrating, Jim, is your inability to discern the difference between a 'pseudo-science' and a joke.

[Sparko]

Not to mention the joke supported global warming. Just in a funny way.

I guess that means Jim thinks global warming is pseudo science. Who knew?

[rogue06]

And things would get even more squirrely if your temperate average was based almost entirely on readings taken on the sunlight side!

Watch it bub

[rogue06]

Not to mention the joke supported global warming. Just in a funny way.

I thought that much was patently obvious. But I guess when you've got less of a sense of humor than a militant third wave feminist...