Do the terms “hottest decade on record” ring any bells?
For this I should have the data somewhere on the net. With everything relevant presented and open for the public scrutiny, And not “lost”, “copyrighted” and such.
A methodology clearly stated. Since when do we measure here and not there anymore and why and so on.
“The hottest decade on the record” means what? Hotter than 1900-1909 when there were no stations on the South pole yet, before Amundsen? How this is accounted for?
Since the satellites? Which? Isn’t that too short interval?
I think the debates for and against the AGW are so called mind killer.
Unless you are a climate scientist or have strong evidence suggesting that the whole field of climate science is incorrect, the points you make are, to be blunt, nearly completely irrelevant. Equally, the points I can make in return are also irrelevant. I have no idea how climate scientists estimate temperatures in 1900-1909, but I know they’re not idiots: this is precisely the sort of factors they consider.
I think the debates for and against the AGW are so called mind killer.
I agree. Only two arguments are available against AGW: 1) Showing that the large majority of climate scientists do not actually support AGW, in fact, and 2) Showing that the whole field of climatology is incorrect in a strongly visible way that also allows us to see the direction of their biases. Arguing against AGW for any other reasons is irrational (not that I think these arguments are correct; just that they are the only arguments non-specialists can bring to bear on the issue).
I have no idea how climate scientists estimate temperatures in 1900-1909, but I know they’re not idiots: this is precisely the sort of factors they consider.
I had to see their D-statistics or whatever about this. I don’t.
When somebody is claiming, that the decade from 2000 to 2009 is globally hotter than the decade from 1900 to 1909 - I would really love to know, HOW this comparison was made. Which numbers were taken into account and how?
Anybody knows? That “they are no idiots” does not suffice.
“They are not idiots” and “they are experts” does suffice.
I would really love to know, HOW this comparison was made
Well then look up the information for yourself (it’ll probably be an interesting process). But why in particular are you interested in this? Are you for instance, interested in the details as to how the absorption spectrum of CO2 is calculated, the details of the machines and the computer programs used? Why not—errors could creep in from that front just as much as from your example.
You seem to be saying “in this field, of which I know little, this thing seems superficially to be a problem. Instead of learning about it in detail, I will assume that there is an actual problem and that the specialists are either not aware of the problem or are dishonest about it. I will then challenge other non-specialists to bring me all the data I haven’t bothered to look up for myself.” This is precisely why I was talking about motivated skepticism.
This is a good point, and something that should be talked about more. Too many people who think they’re clever find a sort of obvious challenge to a claim they don’t like, and don’t investigate further because of motivated skepticism. Also, then they look stupid if they have to admit their objection was ignorant and lazy later.
Note: Obviously just because an objection is addressed doesn’t mean I think it’s addressed sufficiently well. Religious people always have responses to objections to religion, many of which utterly fail to even properly address the objection. But I still think there’s a huge problem, especially in in-person debates, with people who never investigate their own objections.
For this I should have the data somewhere on the net. With everything relevant presented and open for the public scrutiny, And not “lost”, “copyrighted” and such.
A methodology clearly stated. Since when do we measure here and not there anymore and why and so on.
“The hottest decade on the record” means what? Hotter than 1900-1909 when there were no stations on the South pole yet, before Amundsen? How this is accounted for?
Since the satellites? Which? Isn’t that too short interval?
I think the debates for and against the AGW are so called mind killer.
Unless you are a climate scientist or have strong evidence suggesting that the whole field of climate science is incorrect, the points you make are, to be blunt, nearly completely irrelevant. Equally, the points I can make in return are also irrelevant. I have no idea how climate scientists estimate temperatures in 1900-1909, but I know they’re not idiots: this is precisely the sort of factors they consider.
I agree. Only two arguments are available against AGW: 1) Showing that the large majority of climate scientists do not actually support AGW, in fact, and 2) Showing that the whole field of climatology is incorrect in a strongly visible way that also allows us to see the direction of their biases. Arguing against AGW for any other reasons is irrational (not that I think these arguments are correct; just that they are the only arguments non-specialists can bring to bear on the issue).
I had to see their D-statistics or whatever about this. I don’t.
When somebody is claiming, that the decade from 2000 to 2009 is globally hotter than the decade from 1900 to 1909 - I would really love to know, HOW this comparison was made. Which numbers were taken into account and how?
Anybody knows? That “they are no idiots” does not suffice.
“They are not idiots” and “they are experts” does suffice.
Well then look up the information for yourself (it’ll probably be an interesting process). But why in particular are you interested in this? Are you for instance, interested in the details as to how the absorption spectrum of CO2 is calculated, the details of the machines and the computer programs used? Why not—errors could creep in from that front just as much as from your example.
You seem to be saying “in this field, of which I know little, this thing seems superficially to be a problem. Instead of learning about it in detail, I will assume that there is an actual problem and that the specialists are either not aware of the problem or are dishonest about it. I will then challenge other non-specialists to bring me all the data I haven’t bothered to look up for myself.” This is precisely why I was talking about motivated skepticism.
This is a good point, and something that should be talked about more. Too many people who think they’re clever find a sort of obvious challenge to a claim they don’t like, and don’t investigate further because of motivated skepticism. Also, then they look stupid if they have to admit their objection was ignorant and lazy later.
Note: Obviously just because an objection is addressed doesn’t mean I think it’s addressed sufficiently well. Religious people always have responses to objections to religion, many of which utterly fail to even properly address the objection. But I still think there’s a huge problem, especially in in-person debates, with people who never investigate their own objections.
No. I am interested of how and from which numbers they calculate the “average global temperature”.