@MontereyJack,
You're going to have to use somebody other than Hansen to convince me you are referring to unmanipulated and honest climate models. He has been so thoroughly tainted by political and money influence and his science has been so discredited, he simply won't do. Also RealClimate's parent organization is a radical leftwing group and, to the best of my knowledge, they have yet to provide any objective criteria related to climate science but rather present the ultra biased pro-AGW positions only.
No, fox, I'm sorry. Youll have to do better than that. His science is, in fact, very good. There is a denialist smear c ampaign against him, which you have apparently bought into. But his research is good. If you refuse him, then you're going to have to refuse to use any of the people you cite, and in fact almost everyone in ican's "400". almost all of whom do not even do research in the field but cite the stuff they get from the same denialist blogs you do. Besides, what my cite is, is a critique of Hansen's original 1988, very crude by today's standards, projection, which finds that it does in fact work. It is not by Hansen. It is an attempt to find out if Hansen's projections were accurate. Thay are.Your cites, fox, are far more tainted by politics and ideology than any of the science the IPCC uses, or that Hansen has done.
@rosborne979,
Climate doesn't depend on a single day. I don't know anyone that would argue climate can be categorized by a single day's weather or even a single year's weather.
A cold rainy day in the desert does NOT climate change make.
A change from an average of 8" per year of rain to 12" per year average over an extended period would be climate change.
One year of 15" of rainfall does not a climate change make. It only points to odd weather for that year.
@Foxfyre,
Quote:they have yet to provide any objective criteria related to climate science but rather present the ultra biased pro-AGW positions only.
Could you provide your source for global temperature readings Fox?
I am curious what science you are using since you think anything that shows warming is biased.
@MontereyJack,
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, but I think the skeptics have posted sufficient information to call Hansen's motives into question as well as some of his conclusions. Don't forget that Hansen was a scientific advisor for Al Gore's movie that was so flawed that the British Court ordered disclaimers whenever it was used in a classroom.
@Foxfyre,
You are entitled to your opinion Fox. You are not entitled to make up facts.
What temperature data are you using?
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:they have yet to provide any objective criteria related to climate science but rather present the ultra biased pro-AGW positions only.
Could you provide your source for global temperature readings Fox?
I am curious what science you are using since you think anything that shows warming is biased.
I have posted a number of sources discussing global temperatures.
I am curious what I said that suggests to you that I think that anything that shows warming is biased. I think I have been extremely consistent in thinking that the Earth has been in a warming trend since the so-called "Little Ice Age" and have pretty much agreed that we have been in an overall warming trend since the last full blown ice age. Can you find any quote of mine that would dispute that?
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote: Don't forget that Hansen was a scientific advisor for Al Gore's movie that was so flawed that the British Court ordered disclaimers whenever it was used in a classroom.
Hansen had nothing to do with the 'guidance' about nine "one-sided" views which had to be made when the film was shown in schools. (Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans.)
oh, you mean Al Gore's movie that the scientists who actually deal with climate said was substantially accur ate, that movie, fox? Besides, I thought you far-right types rejected any decision by foreign courts, only good old American justice for you guys.
@MontereyJack,
Again you are entitled to your opinion MJ and I won't be drawn into a pointless discussion about what 'far-right types' reject as that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I seriously doubt you and I would ever agree on a definition of 'right' or 'far right' anyway.
Al Gore's movie should be an embarrassment to anybody who values sound science and if James Hansen is a serious scientist, he wouldn't have wanted his name associated with it in any way. But if you like it fine. It's a free country.
Again, your opinion only, fox. Which is not backed up by the data. Gore is of course making a political point, or more accurately making a point that action is imperative. If the right wing wants to take that as a political point, so be it. H is point is that this is the reality of what we face, and the facts and the science don't care whether you're right or left, it'll happen regardless. The right, I think mistakenly, sees that as politics. And, I repeat, the actual scientists say that what he says about the science is pretty much correct (there are some disagrements about things like graphics, but the main thrust is accurate). Gore is not an embarrasment. You guys are just falling into the trap of shooting the messenger.
@Foxfyre,
You may have listed a bunch of sources Fox but not any that are actual science.
That is what I asked for. What science do you use for temperature? Opinion pieces that question the science don't have much science in them.
This is about ACTUAL science Fox. Not about political opinion. For someone that complains about the politics, you never seem to present any actual science.
@parados,
Not being a scientist, I don't have any 'science' to present. All I can hope to have is the ability to listen to both side of an argument and choose the one I think makes the more reasonable and compelling case that is independent of personal motives. RealClimate for instance is an arm of a group who does the research for George Soros and MoveOn.Org for Pete's sake. Groups like that are almost certainly RealClimate's biggest source of funding. While that doesn't automatically make their conclusions incorrect, people serious about science are supposed to take them as an unbiased and honest source without question? Give me a break.
@Foxfyre,
Since you don't look at the science Fox, I am not sure you can be looking at both sides of an argument. I realize you THINK you are but you can't possibly be looking at the facts when you only rely on the opinions of others when it comes to what science said.
@Foxfyre,
Quote:RealClimate for instance is an arm of a group who does the research for George Soros and MoveOn.Org for Pete's sake. Groups like that are almost certainly RealClimate's biggest source of funding. While that doesn't automatically make their conclusions incorrect, people serious about science are supposed to take them as an unbiased and honest source without question? Give me a break.
Like all sources, of course you shouldn't take them without question. You should check their sources where ever possible. Go to the original science. Read the peer reviewed articles. However, you shouldn't discard what they say without checking. That would be just as bad.
But that's right. You aren't a scientist. You just base your opinion on the politics while accusing others of doing that.
@Foxfyre,
So, just to be clear here Fox. You don't have any science to support you. You don't read any of the science. You are not interested in the science. You have decided the science is wrong without any checking into the science. You would rather rely on sources that do no science and have done no research but only offer opinions.
Is that what you are saying?
Gee Parados. I don't see that I said any of that. Is there some small print in there somewhere that I missed?
Help me out here guys. Did I say any of that stuff that Parados is reading here? Should I have my eyes checked? Or my computer that may be posting in invisible ink visible only to those who drank special kool-ade or something?
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:Help me out here guys. Did I say any of that stuff that Parados is reading here? Should I have my eyes checked? Or my computer that may be posting in invisible ink visible only to those who drank special kool-ade or something?
NO!
Parados enjoys paraphrasing what he would like you to have said!
@Foxfyre,
Oh.. So you then DID post what science you read?
I guess you must have invisible ink because I haven't seen you post any scientific article you read.
