Prove consensus exists among scientists

Post Reply New Topic

Disclaimer : this was sent me by an associate with whom I had talked about consensus.

Disclaimer : I neither know nor endorse the writer.

Disclaimer : I have no informed or useful stance on the Warming thing, and nothing new or interesting to say about it.

But, since the gent talks about consensus, it is to that degree relevant. Enjoy or ignore.

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."

http://s8int.com/crichton.html

To the contrary, if "2010 is tied for hottest with 1998", with many of the last 10 years comparably hot, that supports exactly what I said: there has been a leveling off in the last decade. If there had been a continued warming trend, 2010 should be noticeably warmer than 1998, but it isn't. It's that leveling off that needs to be explained, rather than pretending falsely that it represents a "continued warming trend".


I gave a graph with decades of data. You're cherry picking points. While there may be a long term warming trend, the cherry picking that people do to try to "prove" it only makes climate science less respectable and people more skeptical of its pronouncements. Good science lies in being constantly skeptical of one's own conclusions. Trying to "convert" people is a sign of bad science.

Note: while a little is not irrelevant and can be interesting, if it looks like this is degenerating toward extended discussion on specific consensus points it will be time to walk.

Not a problemat present. The Climate thing has involved so much demonization of the field by the political nonscientists and of dissidents by - almost everybody - that it is probably the scientific consensus poster child of the day. and can be expected to be invoked as an accessibkle test cas.

Um. No. Just No. You are projecting.

You are cherry picking by providing a graph that ended whenever you felt like it. You actually tried to pass off a graph that ended three years ago during a La Nina cooling. I understand that denialists got very excited that year. But time marches on. .

Secondly, you ignore NASA entirely, which has 2005 and 2010 ahead of 1998. Hadley and NASA weigh arctic temps differently but both say the past 9/10 years have been the hottest. By ignoring NASA and using an outdated Hadley graph, I'd say it's once again you who is cherry picking.

Finally 1998 was an abnormally hot year by the standards of the 90s or earlier. But decade to decade, the 00s are easily hotter than the 90s. To cherry pick one year and ignore 40 years of trend is silly. You could pick a small range in many places over the past 40 years and claim warming had ended. But it didnt. We'll see what happens in the 20-teens.

I notice your graph uses an "index" rather than a global average temperature, rendering it susceptible to data manipulation. What's being compared here? What weather stations are the 1880 data from? Why is it legitimate to put them on the same graph as the much different weather stations today? These kinds of opaque manipulations are exactly why the global warming advocates have even less credibility than they deserve. And even with all that, if you look at the 5 year running average, it still shows a flat section at the end, indicating that any temperature increase is not currently continuing.

In contrast, in my case, I picked the graph of global average temperatures that ended in the most recent year I could find, using a consistent dataset. If I wanted to cherry pick, I could do much better with this:



And of course, if you want to talk longer term, I can show this as evidence of an oscillation rather than a uniformly increasing trend, again using a consistent, albeit nonglobal, dataset:



But no, unlike you, I don't choose my conclusion first and then pick my data to fit it. I look at the data first and then draw my conclusions from the data. In 2000, before the most recent decade of data, I believed the same thing you seem to - that global warming was an ongoing problem with a continuing rapid increase in temperatures caused by accumulated greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use.

But then the most recent decade happened, and the temperatures didn't continue to increase. So I did what a good scientist should do: I reevaluated my beliefs in the light of additional data, and now I'm not so sure. And, getting back to the thread topic, the fact that the global warming advocates are failing to do that is exactly the problem with science today.

Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean unlike me? I'm just reporting the accepted view and providing NASA's GISS. You are the cherry picking conspiracy nerd playing climate scientist on the internet. Not me.

And as you said, your second set data is not global. It's meaningless. And as you claimed, your first chart is more cherry picked than your previous effort, showing only lower atmosphere temps through just 2008. Congratulations, you are a professional internet cherry picker.

Why don't you take those two charts, write something up in crayon, and get published?

hey, plizz to chill.

Climate change and the shape of the elephant can be debated elsewhere and over and over again are.

Can we move back to the question of consensus?

Though this is an example of what gives.

Dr. Dragomir examines 50,613 specimens of rock lobster, checking the shape of the telson, plots the results, sees a clustering along a 30 degree vector, culls the drastically aberrant cases, and announces rock lobsters are immune to glubosis if they eat wrack.

Licentiate Perkins examines all 33,010 rock lobster in Baffin Bay for ratio of left to right claw, runs the results through the Math Department's new computer, sees a significant correlation, and announces that rock lobsters are more inclined to eat wrack if they have survived a bout of glubosis.

This is science - maybe even good science - unless and until political or economic factors come in and Dragomir calls Perkins stupid or criminal, labels his data irrelevant and his results meaningless, and lobbies the Bucks for Biology foundation tio get his funding cut off.