http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/alarmist-climate-scientists-have-abused.html
Copy pasted :
We have news media to tell us whatever they want to tell us. Believing it is up to humans. Unfortunately, people are emotionally charged and gain conviction based on false interpretations of what is true and accurate. Climate Change/Global Warming started out as a political viewpoint with many political and "energy security" implications. It also raised the eyebrows of environmentalism. Something for them to attach themselves to besides a tree.
Climate science/environmentalism/Global Warming have become one in the same. As long as they have a voice in politics, science, and media, then unfortunately (or fortunately), rational people will have to deal with them in a rational manner. The science is against them, but their emotional ties to their cause will keep blinding them as to what the real truth is and they will continue to make fools of themselves with their outlandish claims of human catastrophes "if we don't stop using fossil fuels".
The most recent montage of "the highest Global average temperatures ever recorded" is very funny, especially coming from 'Evolutionary Science'. They claim that the Planet is 4.5 billion years old, yet they try and bolster their claim with 133 years of instrumental measurements to show cause of a human forcing mechanism called CO2 and that it has driven Global temperatures up 0.61C. Is this a joke or are they really serious?
It hasn't. Only anti-science deniers think that there is anything wrong with climate science. And before you accuse me of making an ad hom, can you respond to links like this without making an ad hom.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
If you have scientific objections, rather than a video of a graph taped to a see-saw, I'm sure that NASA would gladly stop butting heads with Tea Partiers in Congress to get sustained funding.
< I don't believe a word they say, until I have look into it myself.>
I suggest not believing a word that hockeyschtick.blogspot says until you look into it yourself.
No. those who understand science still understand it. Denialists are a world wide joke and the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (real skeptics) still affirms the reality of Climate change
Scientists don't read pointless blogs, so simple answer no.
To date deniers have had zip effect on the science, from what I've seen the science community are letting deniers have their head, all on their own deniers are slowly destroying their own case by constantly try to add new theories and new conspiracies.
While in reality sea level continues to rise
http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Integrated_Mu...
Glacial ice continues to decline
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#...
Deniers continue to bleat about the hockeystick being disproved but can provide nothing to support the statement, while the actual hockeystick has in fact been supported by many follow up studies.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...
I guess (depending on where you are pretending you live this week) the Philippine's, Kuwait, the U.K. or perhaps somewhere new, you are the last one to be talking about credibility.
Then there's denier credibility on the so called "pause" what pause would that be, given that 2010 is the warmest year in the modern record, that the entire decade of the 2000's is the warmest decade, what pause are denier trying top fabricate.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/200...
Compare the first 4 years of the 2000's to the first 4 years of the 2010's (above the mean)
(2000 = 0.40) - (2010 = 0.66)
(2001 = 0.52) - (2011 = 0.54)
(2002 = 0.60) - (2012 = 0.56)
(2003 = 0.59) - (2013 = 0.60)
(2013 is partial only to the end of Oct)
On these numbers we are up 0.15c on the mean and only 4 years into the new decade, the IPCC have average decadal temperature rise at ~0.1-0.15c we pretty much have that already.
In this scenario, 2004 in fact was a little cooler at 0.52c while the best estimate at the moment has 2014 being quite warm, with a highly likely shift to an El Nino, even if it is only a mild one a temp of 0.6 or higher is the probable outcome of that. So, please tell me what deniers base this fantasy of a pause on! it certainly doesn't jibe with the data or the short term future estimates.
These are the sources of the temps if you don't believe me
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#...
Heh, at least science has some credibility, to lose!
But don't worry science will still be here long after deniers have gone the way of the Dodo.
Mike - while I realise deniers like to just leave years out to bend the numbers or concentrate on just one high year (98) as a starting point, I am basing my numbers on NOAA's reference, theirs uses 2000-2009 as the decade of the 2000's hence the next, using the same method is going to be 2010-2019. Whether deniers like it or not 2010 was a very warm year, they are the numbers and they are not wrong.
I also note kano can't even address this apart from a cheap (and groundless) shoot at scientists which as usual is empty of any real content "Put it this way I used to a fan of science and scientists" or English grammar it seems.
The comment "until I have look into it myself" say's it all really, (perhaps he means looked) as he looks in blogs which he seems to think can be trusted but won't trust real scientists, say's it all about denial really, is it really that hard to see why these guys earn the title denier.
This is particularly funny "I don't believe a word they say" coming from someone who first claimed to have been a fisherman and then a few weeks later claimed to have worked in a power station for decades, I wonder where/what your next lifetime career will have been. Do you really think posting your stuff through the yahoo Philippines portal is fooling anyone, that is a trick I have seen quite a few deniers try to use (using various countries) but like you they are terrible at keeping up the pretense.
Our old friend the Philippine religious nut used to use the same trick, he also kept forgetting to keep up the pretense as he slipped in and out of effected bad English, it was amusing and sad to watch.
It never did have any credibility. This 'theory' was concocted by the same people who were pushing an eminent Ice Age back in the sixties.
As to your taking the heat for questioning science. That is a good thing. A theory should always be questioned. That is how we advance in knowledge.
That said, you see some people on here will believe anything they read without question. Obviously, one on here reads Karl Marx quite religiously. Others have gobbled up Al Gore's movie without question. Only a stupid person would not question.
Keep it up.
Antarctic ice, I've been posting the same numbers for a while now. We are not up .15 over the previous decade. You just posted the numbers, do the math. We are up .06.
And if you leave out 2010, as some will argue the new millennium doesn't start until 2001, then you are even one decade to the next.
No not the science, just the way its being used and manipulated by the unscrupulous.
"Alarmist never cease to amaze me."
Politics and legislation is a biggy. How can a rational person deny marketing ploys used by such.
IMO your probably still a fan who frowns upon unrestrained control.
No, I think most people realize climate science has a big "maybe" in front of everything they claim is happening due to man. What I find odd is those who believe because they aren't certain we should be even more concerned.
It's damaged it in the same way that people that believe in the Biblical version of creation find scientists less credible.
Edit for Alph: I offered to send Kano some textbooks--he is not interested.
EDIT for Kano: You don't believe a word of what scientists say? But you recently defended both of Maxx's and Jeff Engr's blatant lies, so perhaps your judgment of what is true and what isn't is more than a little off.
Yes. Now most science funded by the government for the purpose of creating policy has serious credibility issues due to the extreme corruption AGW hysteria has created.
Read this article please.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/alarmist-climate-scientists-have-abused.html
Says who? A Heartland Institute 'expert'? Oh, it's 'crop-circle believer' Walter Starck!
The article is laughable. Lots of accusations of malpractice etc. but no evidence whatsoever. The only clear case he mentions is 'Climategate' without ever mentioning that 8 (eight) different investigations into Climategate found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
So a guy who believes in crop-circles is now gonna tell us that the credibility of climate science is seriously damaged?
Another Dunning-Kruger patient if you ask me.
read it. Not impressed. It's more opinion and politics than science. It more entertainment for the right wing suitable for FOX news.
perhaps you could read some real atmospheric physics textbooks for once. There must be a university somewhere you can access.
As you are too intellectually lazy to read any climate science , why would you bother asking?
Definitely.
Never been credible . Pure fiction
