Cure for Global Warming? Pollution!

Seems to me it's your problem, too. After all, you're cheerleading on the cause that's aimed at restricting individual freedom relies on it.

FTFY.

I'm perfectly capable of seeing a warming trend in the overall data for a century. I'm not the one who made a specific claim about the data, posted a chart in a feeble attempt to prove my claim, and then got bitch-slapped by my own source.

Oh, goody...the dual accusation. God forbid anyone who just started posting could see you for the fool you are.

But somehow not in the last decade and a half...

Keep on twistin', Chubby Checker. You'll justify that stupid mistake eventually.

Because there isn't one there. As much as you howl and wail and gnash your teeth and rend your vestments, there isn't one there to be seen. Get over it. Move on. Try a new approach. Cock up a new bullshit theory. But when you stick to something the figures clearly do not support, you make it painfully obvious that your pet cause is full of shit. Thus do we point. Thus do we laugh. Don't like it? That's easy: stop being full of shit.

Really. Just stop it, already. You're dumb. We can all see that you're dumb. Only people even further left of you are willing to ignore the fact that you're being dumb. So stop. Acknowledge the facts. If you still want to convert people to your cockamamie religion, fine, but at least have the common goddamn decency to throw out the bullshit parts once they've been exposed.

PDF of the paper is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

Conclusion is particularly interesting:

Law of unintended consequences.

Two things here 1) we are continuing to fuck up the planet, largely due to the fact our civilization is so successful and we have more people, food and energy needs than ever before. But 2) AGW is man made in that we cleaned up one aspect of the pollution before we understood the effects. No clean air movement in the 70s, no AGW.

Of course, we need clean air, so we have to go back to #1, but this underscores once more the fact we shouldn't be fucking with stuff until we understand it completely.

DP

This proves what many of us have been saying all along. Earth's system is so complex we have no clue about the interactions that cause environmental changes that have been occurring since the Earth formed. This just makes the idiots like Rick seem even more dumb. Who would have thought it possible for Rick to sound even dumber than the rocks?

That there is a trend isn't a matter of opinion. It is a mathematical fact.

Since the data has been posted, you can verify it yourself in a spreadsheet. Any trendline for the years in question will show an increase.

This peer review paper says explicitly the opposite. The only way you'd be correct is if you were talking about the period from 1970-1998. It's been statistically flat for the last 10 years.

That is the warmest decade we have on record (in about 120 years really, which is all the records can say with any degree of accuracy), but it isn't a decade that got warmer.

You mean like this one?



Keep going. You're looking better and better all the time.

1) Weasel words highlighted.
2) "...when the planes were all landed the continental US warmed by 1 deg C just because of the lack of con trails..." Really!? You're going to use that with a straight face?! So weather men that can't tell you for sure that it's going to rain tomorrow were able to clearly and definitively that a specific day was one degree warmer than it was supposed to be and that, furthermore, this was because jets didn't cause enough vapor trails!?!?

God, damn, just when I think there's no possible way you could say something stupider than the last thing you said, you prove me wrong. Now go stand in the corner, dumbass.

That is a truly impressive chart, there Ricky. But let's have a closer look at it:

1) 1880-2009? Well holy shit. Look at how steep temperatures went up over that arbitrarily-selected slightly more than a century period. I mean, given that the Earth is what--6,000 years old?--that makes up about 2% of the time since God created it. I guess examining 2% of something is as good a ...oh, wait. You're an atheist. So you think the Earth is...4.5 billion years old. So 129 years is...I can't work it out, because 129 is such an infinitesimal percentage of 4.5 billion that my calculator goes to scientific notation. Whether you picked your 129 year sample because that made for the most dramatic graph or because that is the longest we have reliable data for, the point is that, if you truly believe in science (not Science), your data sample is completely worthless to drawing any sort of viable conclusion.

2) Looking closely at the scale of the graph, during that 129 year period, temperatures went up a blistering...what, 8/10 of a degree? Well shit, at that rate, if we don't do anything, at that rate in...a little over 800 years the pleasant 59 degrees F it is outside today will be a scorching...64 degrees F.

Yeah, shit. We'd better get right on top of that.

Go stand in the corner with Dan.

[edit: My bad. The chart is in Centigrade. The problem is almost twice as bad as I feared. ]

Since the conclusion I wish to draw concerns temperatures in the next few decades (rather than the next few million years), my data sample is appropriate.

In science, that is referred to as

You can't select just the period you want to support your theory. You have to take the whole range and see the results. None of you want to do that because the actual data shows fluctuations far hotter and far colder during earth's history. The true data disputes your crap theory so like all the other GW religionists you ignore it.

Examining short and medium-term temperature changes rather than very long-term changes is not bullshit. Those are what most concern us.

They are what concern us, but without looking at the whole data range where temp changes occurred we get incomplete data which leads to inaccurate results. This has been the hallmark of the GW crowd, wrong data and wrong conclusions. You all have decided what you want the result to be so you exclude all data and evidence that contradicts your desired result. AGW is more of a faith based religion than any of the real religions on the planet. You are no atheist.

Ten red pips. I think now I can safely put you on "Ignore" for a bit. Someone let me know when he gets close to going green again.

The temperature data from fifty million years ago is not relevant to whether temperatures are going to increase in the next couple of centuries.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you will stop this nonsense.

Who in their right mind would wish to be taken seriously by you?

Oh no you don't. You are moving the goalposts here and changing the parameters of what he is proving you were full of shit about. Since you've forgotten...or just want us to forget...

They did not during the time you claim they did and your own source proved it. Your long term opinion is not the relevent thing here....you specifically said those years produced rising temperatures and it's not true.

Again, by itself it means nothing. However, the trend over the entire period of time is very relevant and critical to the study. You are still trying to ignore and avoid the data that will disprove your desired result.

The shoe fits.

You're once again refusing to face the facts, that you're beliefs are not based on sound science. This is the same thing that is said about religion.

This seems racist.

In that case, the data that they are using differs from that which NASA collected. That data is not statistically flat.

It is. My source showed a statistical trend upwards.