New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[Methuselah]

Could be?but the fact that the meeting took place means that those in charge of the data sets also have doubts.Anthony Watts surface project has raised the doubts,and downright absurd situation of some sites,and something is seriously wrong when in an age of supposed change of climate in the last 20 odd years that we have gone from (i think) many thousands of sites to around 1,900 globaly and very little coverage in the Artic to the point that data has been extrapolated to cover large areas with no sites.And its called robust science

methodology!!!!!

You may be right. But, it could also be down to the populace's manifest problems with scientific reasoning/anaylsis/statistics etc. (How does the tabloid press so often get seen as a 'fount of all knowledge', I ask?) I think it's fair to say that the scientific community has real problems getting its message across; and I don't think it is much helped by the unchecked stuff of Internet bloggers...

Just because WUWT et al repeat their claims over and over again, doesn't make them right, or even necessarily valid, IMO. Why do they all eschew the proper peer-review process?

[Essan]

Brian Fagan in his book the little ice age puts the change from the MWP to the LIA at 1310 however he also notes that the first really harsh winter did no occur until 1559, nearly 250 years latter.

Yet there were very harsh winters with the Thames freezing over during the MWP ......

[Iceberg]

But you miss the point, even Watts very own Friend and confidant Spencer who runs the UAH gobal temperature set, see's a very good correlation with the very same global datasets that are apparently wrong due to the UHI effect or poor location.

There fore if there is a problem with ground measurements it's a very small one which hasn't been demonstrated yet.

Re a comment made about about timescales, again this is one that I don't really understand. If we take UAH (again because it's skeptic and Sat driven and so remvoes alot of possible biases) we see an upward trend in tempatures over a 1 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr, 20 yr average with the last month being the second warmest on record, therefore I can see no evidence of cooling over any timeframe upto present, the funny thing is that nobody has either shown or suggested any evidence that global temps are not trending higher now than anytime in the last 100 years, nor any evidence of any cooling recently.(despite what people have put in the poll).

What I've said is very simplistic, but hopefully gets the point across unless we are talking about geological timescales, but somehow I doubt we are.

[Essan]

Anthony Watts surface project has raised the doubts

And a proper study has shown the doubts well founded: they may be under-estimating the temperatures .....!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data

[weather eater]

And a proper study has shown the doubts well founded: they may be under-estimating the temperatures .....!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data

Yes this story is typical of the way so many sceptics work, in other words the data is possibly unreliable so it must be overestimating the data. So not really truly sceptical, as a true sceptic would see all three possibilities.

About right.

Underestimating.

Overestimating.

[Guest mycroft]

You may be right. But, it could also be down to the populace's manifest problems with scientific reasoning/anaylsis/statistics etc. (How does the tabloid press so often get seen as a 'fount of all knowledge', I ask?) I think it's fair to say that the scientific community has real problems getting its message across; and I don't think it is much helped by the unchecked stuff of Internet bloggers...

Just because WUWT et al repeat their claims over and over again, doesn't make them right, or even necessarily valid, IMO. Why do they all eschew the proper peer-review process?

A closed peer review process, as if you need to be to about that,see Oxburgh inquiry minutes

A for oft repeated things doe's that include oft repeated alarmism from the Team!

Edited September 30, 2010 by mycroft

[Guest mycroft]

Yes this story is typical of the way so many sceptics work, in other words the data is possibly unreliable so it must be overestimating the data. So not really truly sceptical, as a true sceptic would see all three possibilities.

About right.

Underestimating.

Overestimating.

That is truly stupid,if some one thinks it is over estimating a temp then by definition that person is sceptical about said temp, how more sceptical do you want!!

or is your beef that it is Anthony Watts.The fact that NOAA sites these sensor's next to A/C unit's etc should be the bone of contention.

And if WUWT are so wrong in its surface station project why did Matthew Menne use Anthony Watts material in the Exeter Meeting a few weeks back to discuss the global temp data

series????

Edited September 30, 2010 by mycroft

[Gowon]

You may be right. But, it could also be down to the populace's manifest problems with scientific reasoning/anaylsis/statistics etc. (How does the tabloid press so often get seen as a 'fount of all knowledge', I ask?) I think it's fair to say that the scientific community has real problems getting its message across; and I don't think it is much helped by the unchecked stuff of Internet bloggers...

Just because WUWT et al repeat their claims over and over again, doesn't make them right, or even necessarily valid, IMO. Why do they all eschew the proper peer-review process?

Proper peer-reviewed process? LOL. Should be called bias peer-review process. These people aren't willing to debate climate issues with skeptics. Also its pot calling kettle black when claims are made over and over again to prove one's theory.

[weather eater]

That is truly stupid,if some one thinks it is over estimating a temp then by definition that person is sceptical about said temp, how more sceptical do you want!!

or is your beef that it is Anthony Watts.The fact that NOAA sites these sensor's next to A/C unit's etc should be the bone of contention.

And if WUWT are so wrong in its surface station project why did Matthew Menne use Anthony Watts material in the Exeter Meeting a few weeks back to discuss the global temp data

series????

It would help if you took the blinkers off, Of course they think the temperatures are being overestimated, because they have already made their minds up that that’s the case. to be sceptical means to doubt something is true, but these people don’t doubt its true in because they have already decided its false. What Mr Watts is doing is not being sceptical about the readings, he is stating unequivocally that they are false. And that really is my grip with WUWT, the title suggests a desire to find the truth. In reality they are only interested in putting forward claims to augment a position that they have already made their minds up about, or is it worse still, one that they are being paid to make a case for. Yes I too know when somebody is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. As for it being Antony Watts, I don’t give a hoot who it is, what I want to see is honest logical ideas put forward by so called sceptics, not I've made my mind up so I’ll find facts to support my case, isn’t that what they claim the proponents of AGW are doing.

[Essan]

That is truly stupid,if some one thinks it is over estimating a temp then by definition that person is sceptical about said temp, how more sceptical do you want!!

or is your beef that it is Anthony Watts.The fact that NOAA sites these sensor's next to A/C unit's etc should be the bone of contention.

Wattsy set out to prove that the positioning of sensors was resulting in a false impression that US temps were increasing. That's not scepticism. Any more than Von Daniken was a sceptic on the possiblity of ancient aliens landings when he wrote Chariots of the Gods.

[Devonian]

That is truly stupid,if some one thinks it is over estimating a temp then by definition that person is sceptical about said temp, how more sceptical do you want!!

or is your beef that it is Anthony Watts.The fact that NOAA sites these sensor's next to A/C unit's etc should be the bone of contention.

And the evidence is? Some pictures, from Anthony Watts and his loyal commentators falling over themselves to condemn NOAA? Nope, where is the beef?

[Devonian]

Proper peer-reviewed process? LOL. Should be called bias peer-review process. These people aren't willing to debate climate issues with skeptics. Also its pot calling kettle black when claims are made over and over again to prove one's theory.

So why did the late, great, Dr Stephen Schneider debate (debate!) on TV with a room full of Australian sceptic despite him being seriously ill? Because was is one of 'those people'.

Unwilling to debate? No.

[The PIT]

And the evidence is? Some pictures, from Anthony Watts and his loyal commentators falling over themselves to condemn NOAA? Nope, where is the beef?

So you saying the pictures are fakes????

[stewfox]

But despite these figures, 31% of respondents on here (where you'd assume personal interest has led to more research and a better informed opinion) believe that the world's surface temperature 'seems to be decreasing' ??? In view of that I would suggest debate is pretty much futile/pointless since black is clearly now white, and 1+1 does in fact equal 3......................

32%

[Devonian]

So you saying the pictures are fakes????

No, but you're trying to suggest I am???

I'm saying they are pictures. Not data, pictures.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Devonian

[The PIT]

No, but you're obviously trying to suggest I am...

I'm saying they are pictures. Not data, pictures.

Okay so you expect that a weather station close too a device throwing out warm air isn't going to be effected.

[Devonian]

Okay so you expect that a weather station close too a device throwing out warm air isn't going to be effected.

If it is then it would show up in the temperature data? Warmer temperatures when air cons are on, or warmer temperatures as aircraft go by. Easy to show I would have though? A sceptical scientist could make their name by producing a work showing the effect. So where is that work, that scientific paper?

Edited September 30, 2010 by Devonian

[Guest mycroft]

It would help if you took the blinkers off, Of course they think the temperatures are being overestimated, because they have already made their minds up that that’s the case. to be sceptical means to doubt something is true, but these people don’t doubt its true in because they have already decided its false. What Mr Watts is doing is not being sceptical about the readings, he is stating unequivocally that they are false. And that really is my grip with WUWT, the title suggests a desire to find the truth. In reality they are only interested in putting forward claims to augment a position that they have already made their minds up about, or is it worse still, one that they are being paid to make a case for. Yes I too know when somebody is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. As for it being Antony Watts, I don’t give a hoot who it is, what I want to see is honest logical ideas put forward by so called sceptics, not I've made my mind up so I’ll find facts to support my case, isn’t that what they claim the proponents of AGW are doing.

would suggest..again, go look at his site and read all the threads it not all about climate science!

Are you saying that a temp sensor that is postioned next to A/C unit is robust method of measuring daily temps..anywhere??Anthony watts has doubts over the siting of temp sensors in the usa and globaly thats why he started surface station project he was sceptical over the data

As for any being paid, are you saying Anthony Watts is on the payroll of some one!!

and i've came up with the "logical ideas" for sceptics about 3-4 pages ago,

[Devonian]

would suggest..again, go look at his site and read all the threads it not all about climate science!

Are you saying that a temp sensor that is postioned next to A/C unit is robust method of measuring daily temps..anywhere??Anthony watts has doubts over the siting of temp sensors in the usa and globaly thats why he started surface station project he was sceptical over the data

I say show me the data.

As for any being paid, are you saying Anthony Watts is on the payroll of some one!!

and i've came up with the "logical ideas" for sceptics about 3-4 pages ago,

Anthony Watts is an active member of the US Republican Party.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Devonian

[Guest mycroft]

So why did the late, great, Dr Stephen Schneider debate (debate!) on TV with a room full of Australian sceptic despite him being seriously ill? Because was is one of 'those people'.

Unwilling to debate? No.

Al Gore is unwilling despite asking $100,000 for speech on AGW and not allowing questions

James Cameron was willing to debate actually he want to have a gunfight with sceptics in the street and had it all set at Aspen American Renewable Energy Day until he bottled it

[Devonian]

Al Gore is unwilling despite asking $100,000 for speech on AGW and not allowing questions

James Cameron was willing to debate actually he want to have a gunfight with sceptics in the street and had it all set at Aspen American Renewable Energy Day until he bottled it

Al Gore is a well informed politician, James Cameron a film director - neither of them are scientists from the field.

[Guest mycroft]

I say show me the data.

Anthony Watts is an active member of the US Republican Party.

And!!!

this climate science we talking about not politics,

Tim Yeo is chairman of the Energy and Climate Select Committe

And is non-executive chairman of Eco City Vehicles plc and AFC Energy plc

which one would you say could be seen as a conflict of interests!!

[Devonian]

And!!!

this climate science we talking about not politics,

Fine, I wont mention Al Gore if you don't mention Anthony Watts - deal?

Tim Yeo is chairman of the Energy and Climate Select Committe

And is non-executive chairman of Eco City Vehicles plc and AFC Energy plc

which one would you say could be seen as a conflict of interests!!

But, who in this world is free of such so called conflicts of interest? I read the IPCC so I'm baised? You read WUAT so you're biased? Watts is a Republican - obviously he's biased, Gore a Democrat (likewise), we can similarly dismiss every member of Greenpeace? Or anyone who's ever ridden a bike or been on a protest or worn sandles

[Guest mycroft]

Al Gore is a well informed politician, James Cameron a film director - neither of them are scientists from the field.

well informed???you say!

Pollution isn't what's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

and when asked about geothermal energy

"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot

well informed.....it's worse than we thought

and james cameron well did'nt he declare himself "king of the world"

Fine, I wont mention Al Gore if you don't mention Anthony Watts - deal?

But, who in this world is free of such so called conflicts of interest? I read the IPCC so I'm baised? You read WUAT so you're biased? Watts is a Republican - obviously he's biased, Gore a Democrat (likewise), we can similarly dismiss every member of Greenpeace? Or anyone who's ever ridden a bike or been on a protest or worn sandles

I ai'nt the one who raised the subject

And Anthony Watts is billion times more informed about climate science than Al Gore

and is not filling his bank account to the tune of 100s of

million of dollars a year.

Al Gore has been here before in the 70s when the fear of the next ice age was around, so was Al Gore spouting doom and gloom about that non event

Edited September 30, 2010 by mycroft

[Devonian]

well informed???you say!

Pollution isn't what's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

and when asked about geothermal energy

"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot

well informed.....it's worse than we thought

and james cameron well did'nt he declare himself "king of the world"

Struth, can't a man make a honest mistake without being condemned and ridiculed! Should I be watching your posts for spulling mistikes from now on and you expect condemnation and ribicule if you make a mistake? Of course not...

well informed???you say!

Pollution isn't what's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

and when asked about geothermal energy

"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot

well informed.....it's worse than we thought

and james cameron well did'nt he declare himself "king of the world"

I ai'nt the one who raised the subject

And Anthony Watts is billion times more informed about climate science than Al Gore

and is not filling his bank account to the tune of 100s of

million of dollars a year.

Al Gore has been here before in the 70s when the fear of the next ice age was around, so was Al Gore spouting doom and gloom about that non event

A billion times more informed - quite a bit then . I don't know about either man's bank balance but I am pretty sure Al Gore wasn't spouting 'doom and glom' in the 70's about and impending ice age - but have you got a ref for that claim?

Edited September 30, 2010 by Devonian