tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post6269032178633265311..comments2023-05-16T11:33:40.343-04:00Comments on Dialogues On Global Warming: U.S. Warmer Than Average In AprilTales From The Travelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12155749992445168195noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-76091523874468791832015-05-20T09:47:55.488-04:002015-05-20T09:47:55.488-04:00Considering how much time and effort you have spen...Considering how much time and effort you have spent here misleading people, it's pretty clear you do care. So, why not just come clean?Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-51178180125208106012015-05-20T09:46:31.557-04:002015-05-20T09:46:31.557-04:00The problem, Tom, is you have had your hands dirty...The problem, Tom, is you have had your hands dirty every step of the way. You worked for as the operations director for a fossil fuel lobbying group, but claim you're not a fossil fuel lobbyist. You now work for a group that was funded by fossil fuel interests and, in turn, funded a fossil fuel interests. But, you say you are not funded by fossil fuel. You worked for a company that promoted the tobacco industry and are strongly aligned with the Heartland Institute, which promotes the tobacco industry interests (taking money from them, giving speeches at their events and being listed on their website as one of their 'experts') and yet, you claim you are not a tobacco industry supporter. <br /><br />It would be so much easier to think you aren't a liar if your track record didn't say, repeatedly, that you are. <br /><br />So, the question remains, why are you so adamant about lying about all of this? After all, you didn't break any laws by being paid by the fossil fuel industry or supporting tobacco, so why insist otherwise?Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-79497499692047586122015-05-20T05:05:09.485-04:002015-05-20T05:05:09.485-04:00On second thought, replying that it is impossible ...On second thought, replying that it is impossible to know anything would still contradict the NIPCC document, wouldn't it? I think you're right. Tom has put himself between two rocks.cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-64125626202718421682015-05-20T04:57:23.244-04:002015-05-20T04:57:23.244-04:00Evidence?Evidence?cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-63743101449763635952015-05-20T04:50:42.695-04:002015-05-20T04:50:42.695-04:00That won't make any difference. Maybe one or t...That won't make any difference. Maybe one or two points close to the red line will be pushed slightly below it, but the rest will remain well above the trend. Tamino performed the same exercise with six different datasets -- HadCRUT4, NCDC, NASA GISS, Cowtan & Way, RSS and UAH -- and except for one or two points, the results were the same with all of them -- NO PAUSE. And look how close UAH v6 Beta is to UAH v5.6 and RSS. NO PAUSE.<br /><br />http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yIO-yOEvCL4/VUDxh20iavI/AAAAAAAAJMk/burIFs5NrPg/s1600/UAH%2Bv6beta%2Bv5.6%2Band%2BRSS%2BLower%2BTroposphere%2BTemperature.pngcunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-51231383636025533792015-05-20T02:47:10.779-04:002015-05-20T02:47:10.779-04:00So, to see if I understand your position, Christop...So, to see if I understand your position, Christopher, are you saying that the temperature at the exit of the <b>Little Ice Age</b> is where the earth should remain - the ideal temperature - and the earth has risen 0.60°C ? Or 0.80°C? (you provide the figure) ... and that, had it not been for Mannkind's emissions, the temperature rise would have been, say -0.50C?Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-53090084948274358812015-05-20T02:37:55.455-04:002015-05-20T02:37:55.455-04:00"You want to measure warming relative to the ...<i>"You want to measure warming relative to the Little Ice Age"</i><br />No, I want to measure 1960-1990 against the average temperature of the Holocene (minus the DO excursion). By that standard, the earth is <b>below normal</b>.Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-83162704764496751022015-05-20T02:30:57.975-04:002015-05-20T02:30:57.975-04:00Christopher, your rejection of science is manifest...Christopher, <b>your</b> rejection of science is manifested by rejecting the NOAA data processed by UAH. That <i>"only shows you cherry pick everything and reject anything you don't like."</i>Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-47234487630461528072015-05-20T02:23:00.884-04:002015-05-20T02:23:00.884-04:00Christopher said I should "stop with the stra...Christopher said I should <i>"stop with the strawman crap."</i><br /><br />A straw-man arugment is one where I put words in someone else's mouth, or that I declare that their position is "X" - and then I refute the words I placed, or refute the position of "X", and then declare that I have defeated the person, who never said those words, or upheld the position "X" at all. <br /><br />When I exactly quote a person, as I did of Maurice Strong and Christiana Figueres, then I did not put words in their mouths ... So, how is that a straw man argument? <br /><br />Recall that <b>investors business daily</b> said, of Figueres, that her position is that <i>"the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism."</i> So, since IBD said that, how is it <b>MY</b> logical fallacy of a straw man argument? <br /><br />Christopher, I think you didn't understand what a "straw man" argument was, based upon your use of the words, in reply to me. Perhaps you were just grasping at straws?Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-70099379743768000402015-05-20T02:08:00.992-04:002015-05-20T02:08:00.992-04:00I am refuting Christopher's claim that the IPC...I am refuting Christopher's claim that the IPCC <i>"was established to evaluate ... climate science ... it's evaluations and decisions are based on peer-reviewed science .. It considers all valid science presented</i><br /><br />I refuted that by pointing out two quotes by high-up leaders of the IPCC making public statements of a highly-<b>political</b> nature, unsupported by science or published papers...<br /><br />Christopher said that I <i>"cherry picked a statement and taken it out of context"</i><br /><br />Please, tell me the <i>full</i> context of <b>"we redistribute ... the worlds' wealth"</b> and <b>"nothing to do with environmental policy anymore"</b> ... Tell me how that is a scientific decision, backed by peer reviewed, published papers.... Or, admit that the IPCC is a <i>bureaucratic</i> organization with an agenda to redistribute wealth and eliminate capitalism...Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-25470667896365532062015-05-20T01:58:29.266-04:002015-05-20T01:58:29.266-04:00"A few fossil fuel billionaires are causing t...<i>"A few fossil fuel billionaires are causing the rest of the world to suffer."</i><br /><br /><b>Governments</b> make more, from the sale of coal, oil, gas, gasoline, diesel - than the sum of producers+refiners+retailers.Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-32523065208857153942015-05-20T01:45:17.315-04:002015-05-20T01:45:17.315-04:00It isn't picking cherries - it is mathematical...It isn't picking cherries - it is mathematical. Start with the current data, work backwards, using RMS Linear Regression, determine just how far back in the record you can go, with a negative slope. The left end is determined mathematically, the right end is "now" - so I don't get to pick anything, so: no cherries. You want to do it to the older version of UAH? Fine, here it is:Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-58506572658479873642015-05-20T01:39:02.317-04:002015-05-20T01:39:02.317-04:00Rejecting science and math? Your "nine of th...Rejecting science and math? Your <i>"nine of the ten hottest years ever recorded"</i> is completely without a mathematical basis. Linear regression analysis properly assigns "weight" to each temperature reading (monthly) - by "least squares" - and assigned a trend line that is universally regarded as "best fit" for a line.<br /><br /><br />So what "science" is rejected by NOAA satellites measurement of Lower Troposphere Temperature by oxygen brightness?Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-42217798819297518202015-05-20T01:28:53.276-04:002015-05-20T01:28:53.276-04:00"if it's all just natural cycles, why are...<i>"if it's all just natural cycles, why are we warming?"</i><br />We're not. After warming to a peak, we have a slight, 17-year <i><b>COOLING</b></i> trend. <br /><br />We have warmed back up to the average for the Holocene (ignoring the DO event) ... Still not as warm as other portions of the Holocene (there goes your "unprecedented" argument)... And of the warmed-up portion, since the <b>Little Ice Age</b>, <i>”about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.”</i><br /><br /><br />https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/how-much-have-adjustments-contributed-to-global-warming/Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-11298697936745929452015-05-20T01:11:48.952-04:002015-05-20T01:11:48.952-04:00"we find is the only way we can get the calcu...<i>"we find is the only way we can get the calculations to match the measured data is to include manmade effects."</i>Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-76082083072152989322015-05-20T01:11:00.106-04:002015-05-20T01:11:00.106-04:00What does Berkeley Earth have to do with Dr
Carl ...What does Berkeley Earth have to do with Dr <br />Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems? Dr Mears is a "believer", yet the RSS data shows the most <b><i>COOLING</i></b>.Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-46496842737041910262015-05-20T00:52:30.073-04:002015-05-20T00:52:30.073-04:00For UAH, I used the Version 6.0 beta. The Tamino ...For UAH, I used the Version 6.0 beta. The Tamino is the old version.Voodudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-2778160050436053692015-05-19T23:12:27.117-04:002015-05-19T23:12:27.117-04:00I've thought about it, but I think I'll le...I've thought about it, but I think I'll let everything stay as long as it is at least moderately civil.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-66920488898175311032015-05-19T23:00:52.837-04:002015-05-19T23:00:52.837-04:00So you're paid to do that. Big deal.
Tom did...So you're paid to do that. Big deal. <br /><br />Tom didn't watch the video, At least he made no comment on it. Instead he created a big straw man whine about how mistreated he was and distracted the entire conversation, when he simply could have nipped Christopger's accusation in the bud by making a single comment on the video,cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-24114985245241211072015-05-19T22:47:46.054-04:002015-05-19T22:47:46.054-04:00Skeptics? Balderdash! Skeptics go with the data....Skeptics? Balderdash! Skeptics go with the data. Richard Muller is a skeptic. Russel Seitz is a skeptic. The ICCC offers only fantasists and deniers.Constant Gardenernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-51438163867159774522015-05-19T22:43:19.446-04:002015-05-19T22:43:19.446-04:00If you like mathematical analysis, you'll love...If you like mathematical analysis, you'll love Tamino. But will you understand? <br /><br />https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/Constant Gardenernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-92004552320774080692015-05-19T22:36:29.010-04:002015-05-19T22:36:29.010-04:00This is an art piece? You've embodying Poe...This is an art piece? You've embodying Poe's law or something?Constant Gardenernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-22757973502173943282015-05-19T22:35:58.317-04:002015-05-19T22:35:58.317-04:00He is paid and he lies, same as you. I admit that ...He is paid and he lies, same as you. I admit that correlation does not prove causality.cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-15648018354444326652015-05-19T22:25:55.255-04:002015-05-19T22:25:55.255-04:00Boy, has he really cluttered up your site. This pa...Boy, has he really cluttered up your site. This page was getting pretty long as it was. I wouldn't blame you at all if you removed some of these bad jokes.cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-86672358583377259502015-05-19T22:16:49.034-04:002015-05-19T22:16:49.034-04:00Ignore the blip or not, every year post 1997 is ab...Ignore the blip or not, every year post 1997 is above the pre-1997 trend. Warming has surged not paused. (Thanks Tamino.)<br />https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/uah.jpg?w=750&h=407cunudiunnoreply@blogger.com