[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Owners of NBC, MSNBC, CNBC among other companies in on the "alternative energy" and carbon credits scam with a lobbying effort that includes Cinergy, Lehman Bros., JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America making the big oil lobby look like the public golfers association.

I'm afraid the indictments against the oil lobby fall on deaf ears when you see the very types of croneyism, favors, kickbacks, corruption, manipulation, and media propaganda that zealots are quick to tell you somehow only exist from "big oil". Big oil is a "big joke" when compared to the likes of these monoliths.

How do you explain the global acceptance of this issue? What sort of power do those companies have outside of the US as far as affecting the agendas of foreign governments?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Whether or not the anthropogenic global warming myth is pushing good things is irrelevant - it's a ridiculous scam being globally perpetuated to stupid people who will believe anything as long as their favorite hottie celebrity endorses it.

I've already shown that you're completely and painfully ignorant about this topic. Of course it doesn't help that you keep opening your mouth and saying stuff like this, but I guess we just can't help stupidity, can we.

greg

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I've already shown that you're completely and painfully ignorant about this topic. Of course it doesn't help that you keep opening your mouth and saying stuff like this, but I guess we just can't help stupidity, can we.

greg

What bothers me the most is the arrogance of some people. This is not some sort of US only issue, but it is a global issue that pretty much as global consensus, as far as I can tell. It is a part of the political agenda of many governments. So, these sorts of comments do not only suggest the person knowing better than all of us, but knowing better than all of these other countries as well.

Sorry, I'll take global consensus over some MacNN member's favorite internet article that supports their preformed opinion any day of the week.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What bothers me the most is the arrogance of some people. This is not some sort of US only issue, but it is a global issue that pretty much as global consensus, as far as I can tell.

A. The "consensus" is manufactured. There are plenty of intelligent people who don't depend on there being a future global warming catastrophe who disagree totally with many politicians (which include people who claim to be scientists but care more about the agenda than the science) have agreed on.

B. Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by proven facts, which the man-made global warming causing catastrophe disciplines hasn't provided to the point where their theories can be accepted as scientific fact.

If the whole world concedes that the Earth is flat, but one scientist disagrees and says he believes the evidence shows it's round, does that mean that we will actually fall off the face of the Earth if we travel too far?

It is a part of the political agenda of many governments. So, these sorts of comments do not only suggest the person knowing better than all of us, but knowing better than all of these other countries as well.

There are people who don't agree with the climate alarmists all over the world. It isn't just a thing with Americans who are paid by "big oil." Again, POLITICS is decided by consensus. Science is decided by facts. It doesn't matter where you live.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. The "consensus" is manufactured. There are plenty of intelligent people who don't depend on there being a future global warming catastrophe who disagree totally with many politicians (which include people who claim to be scientists but care more about the agenda than the science) have agreed on.

B. Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by proven facts, which the man-made global warming causing catastrophe disciplines hasn't provided to the point where their theories can be accepted as scientific fact.

If the whole world concedes that the Earth is flat, but one scientist disagrees and says he believes the evidence shows it's round, does that mean that we will actually fall off the face of the Earth if we travel too far?



There are people who don't agree with the climate alarmists all over the world. It isn't just a thing with Americans who are paid by "big oil." Again, POLITICS is decided by consensus. Science is decided by facts. It doesn't matter where you live.

Whether or not the scientific consensus exists or not, in so many ways this really seems like tire spinning to me. The geopolitical strategic benefits to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and Middle East oil are undeniable, as is the general notion that reducing pollution is a good thing.

Whether the interest among other countries to address this problem is related to the buy-in of the urgency of this problem and its relation to global catastrophe or the geopolitical benefits to reforming a economy around sustainable forms of energy, the solutions all seem to point to the same direction.

We obsess over the scientific part of the problem to a fault, especially since over the internet I have no idea what qualifications you have to be making these claims. It comes down to gut feelings and the usual partisan bullshit.

The whole Al Gore angle to the global consensus has always seemed like only part of the equation to me. The other part is the whole Thomas Freidman geopolitical strategy angle. Am I the only person that sees this this way?

[hyteckit]

Mike's Nature Trick

Tricks are the quicker, easier, or clever way of doing things.

Like Math tricks or programming tricks.

I know normal distribution appears in nature fits into a bell curve. Maybe they are fitting the dataset into a bell curve to obtain the mean or average yearly temperatures. After-all, they are looking for the Global Average Temperatures.

Normal distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In probability theory and statistics, the normal distribution or Gaussian distribution is a continuous probability distribution that describes data that cluster around a mean or average. The graph of the associated probability density function is bell-shaped, with a peak at the mean, and is known as the Gaussian function or bell curve.

From one of the emails:

I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the distribution
of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to
explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data is to
apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then
reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield
data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.

[hyteckit]

MATH & STATS TRICKS

Transformations to improve Fit

4.6.3.3. Transformations to Improve Fit

Notes on the use of data transformations. Osborne, Jason

Descriptive Statistics

In this case, the relatively small number of high-intensity samples distorts the results. Since this is not a normal distribution, calculating the mean is misleading and statistical tests based on the normal distribution would give meaningless answers. The solution is to divide the fluorescence intensity of each sample by the median fluorescence intensity. Plotting the result of this gives a normal distribution.

Transforming data to allow you to use parametric statistics is completely legitimate. Different sorts of mathematical transformation work best for different datasets:

Taking the square root of each datapoint helps to normalize negatively skewed (right-skewed) datasets. Carrying out a square root transformation will convert data with a Poisson distribution to a normal distribution.
Calculating the square of each datapoint helps to normalize positive skewed (left-skewed) datasets.
Taking the logarithm of an exponential dataset usually produces a normal distribution.
Taking the reciprocal (1/x) of of each datapoint may also produce a normal distribution from an exponential dataset.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Mike's Nature Trick

Tricks are the quicker, easier, or clever way of doing things.

Unfortunately for you and the other folks trying to cover their arses, the key part of the sentence is what comes after the word "trick", ie. "I used Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline".

"I used Mike's 'clever way of doing things'... to hide the decline" gives off the same impression -- a purposeful attempt to hide data because it doesn't match up with what the agenda demands.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Unfortunately for you and the other folks trying to cover their arses, the key part of the sentence is what comes after the word "trick", ie. "I used Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline".

"I used Mike's 'clever way of doing things'... to hide the decline" gives off the same impression -- a purposeful attempt to hide data because it doesn't match up with what the agenda demands.

Unfortunately for you, you don't know sh*t about statistically analysis. You are just latching onto words such as "trick" and "decline" without knowing a damn thing of what they are talking about.

The dataset might be negatively skewed. You fit the data into a normal distribution in order to hide the distortion because the distortion can be misleading.

One of the emails even mention the "trick" they were using to transform the data so it'll better fit the Gaussian distribution which is done using square root transformation.

I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the distribution
of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to
explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data is to
apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then
reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield
data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What bothers me the most is the arrogance of some people. This is not some sort of US only issue, but it is a global issue that pretty much as global consensus, as far as I can tell. It is a part of the political agenda of many governments. So, these sorts of comments do not only suggest the person knowing better than all of us, but knowing better than all of these other countries as well.

Sorry, I'll take global consensus over some MacNN member's favorite internet article that supports their preformed opinion any day of the week.

Historically, the US has been the biggest fossil fuel user, with the result of US domination over the rest of the world (economically and militarily). Geopolitically, the "carbon footprint" issue, if true, would hamper the US, shifting the advantage towards everywhere else. You shouldn't be surprised that it quickly became partisan. And you should question whether everyone who agrees (or disagrees!) with global warming theory is doing so because they were overwhelmed by the objective evidence or simply because they are less critical of theories that have the effect of benefiting them politically.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are plenty of intelligent people who don't depend on there being a future global warming catastrophe who disagree totally with many politicians (which include people who claim to be scientists but care more about the agenda than the science) have agreed on.

Unfortunately, many of those intelligent people depend on a world population that continues to consume the products accused of causing global warming.

There are people arguing on both sides of the issue that have vested interested in seeing their side "win".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

GE

Owners of NBC, MSNBC, CNBC among other companies in on the "alternative energy" and carbon credits scam with a lobbying effort that includes Cinergy, Lehman Bros., JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America making the big oil lobby look like the public golfers association.

I'm afraid the indictments against the oil lobby fall on deaf ears when you see the very types of croneyism, favors, kickbacks, corruption, manipulation, and media propaganda that zealots are quick to tell you somehow only exist from "big oil". Big oil is a "big joke" when compared to the likes of these monoliths.

Oil companies with with a lobbying effort that includes Cinergy, Lehman Bros., JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America making the GE lobby look like the public golfers association.

See, I can make things up too. But where are your facts?


GE profits in 2008 is $18.1 billion. GE makes everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators.

Big oil made over $600 billion during Bush years, but invested bupkis in clean energy, Part 1 � Climate Progress

2008 profits, Oil companies made over $100 billion in profits
Exxon Mobil: $45.2 billion in profits
Chevron: $23.93 billion in profits
BP: $21.16 billion in profits
Shell: $26.29 billion in profits

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. The "consensus" is manufactured.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are plenty of intelligent people who don't depend on there being a future global warming catastrophe who disagree totally with many politicians (which include people who claim to be scientists but care more about the agenda than the science) have agreed on.

There has been no peer review study that is contradictory to current popular theory regarding global warming.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

B. Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by proven facts, which the man-made global warming causing catastrophe disciplines hasn't provided to the point where their theories can be accepted as scientific fact.

Science fail. On to next blundering statement...

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the whole world concedes that the Earth is flat, but one scientist disagrees and says he believes the evidence shows it's round, does that mean that we will actually fall off the face of the Earth if we travel too far?

Uh... no? But this is a non sequitur.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are people who don't agree with the climate alarmists all over the world. It isn't just a thing with Americans who are paid by "big oil." Again, POLITICS is decided by consensus. Science is decided by facts. It doesn't matter where you live.

Politics is decided by a majority, science is decided by relative certainty. Double fail

[hyteckit]

Science is based on consensus. Scientific consensus. Consensus among the scientific community, not the general public.

Evolution - consensus among the scientific community
Newtonian Physics - consensus among the scientific community
Global Warming - consensus among the scientific community

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Science is based on consensus. Scientific consensus. Consensus among the scientific community, not the general public.

Evolution - consensus among the scientific community
Newtonian Physics - consensus among the scientific community
Global Warming - consensus among the scientific community

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."

Generally, a consensus is formed based on the available evidence. The consensus regarding global warming is formed from the many, many peer reviewed studies.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Unfortunately, many of those intelligent people depend on a world population that continues to consume the products accused of causing global warming.

There are people arguing on both sides of the issue that have vested interested in seeing their side "win".

I agree totally.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Science is based on consensus. Scientific consensus. Consensus among the scientific community, not the general public.

"Scientific consensus" as it's being used to promote faith based ideas as fact has nothing to do with "science". t. Otherwise at some point, we were really living on a flat planet.

You can have 100% consensus on something and it not be a proven scientific fact or something that is true. As I stated, it only takes a single person who does not concede who actually has found the truth to show that "consensus" is just a political tool to gain acceptance for things that can't be proven. If you can't really prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is ample dissent, all you are doing is playing politics.

That's nor "science".

Evolution - consensus among the scientific community
Newtonian Physics - consensus among the scientific community
Global Warming - consensus among the scientific community

At least two of which, elements are widely disputed by a great number of credible scientists and could well be found to be bunk. If you want to call good guesses that have credible refutable but accepted as fact "science", then it's really a political tool and not one basic on logic and a search for the truth. There's really no need to find a consensus and use that as a tool unless all the facts just aren't there.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No it isn't.

Yes it is. Those e-mails that where found show those scientists who are part of the consensus plotting to keep dissent from being shown.

There has been no peer review study that is contradictory to current popular theory regarding global warming.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Politics is decided by a majority, science is decided by relative certainty. Double fail

Consensus is an illogical appeal to the majority, not based on relative certainty. Especially when there are so many credible, intelligent scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming as an oncoming catastrophe. Especially after all the worse case scenarios that were promised about ten years ago if we did nothing, never materialized and the planet has gotten a little cooler, not warmer. The consensus that believed that would was wrong. Those who said that the planet wasn't going to keep warming and warming where right. Political consensus on that point was really meaningless as far as the science of what happened matters.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No it isn't.

Yes it is. Those e-mails that where found show those scientists who are part of the consensus plotting to keep dissent from being shown.

There has been no peer review study that is contradictory to current popular theory regarding global warming.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Politics is decided by a majority, science is decided by relative certainty. Double fail

Consensus is an illogical appeal to the majority, when used to try and silence dissent, and that's exactly what it's been created for. Especially when there are so many credible, intelligent scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming as an oncoming catastrophe.

Especially after all the worse case scenarios that were promised about ten years ago if we did nothing, never materialized and the planet has gotten a little cooler, not warmer (which does not prove though that a man-made global warming catastrophe won't happen). The consensus that believed that was wrong. Those who said that the planet wasn't going to keep warming and warming where right - at the very least for the time being. Political consensus on that point was really meaningless as far as the science of what happened matters. You could take all those scientists who were sure we would be suffering from higher temperatures right now and all their peer reviews, and it still wouldn't make their prediction true or helpful or those who were not part of the political consensus wrong or not worthy of a voice in the process.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Oil companies with with a lobbying effort that includes Cinergy, Lehman Bros., JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America making the GE lobby look like the public golfers association. See, I can make things up too. But where are your facts?

I suppose I could adopt your practice of citing the same debunked article from two different sources to make it appear as though I have more material.

The above list comprise those who support the cap and trade scheme and the "green lobby".
CNBC's Parent Station General Electric Is Q2's Top Lobby Spender With $7.2 Million, A 60% Increase From Q1
General Electric, which with AIG, is at the forefront of hobbled companies who continue existing solely thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts in various forms, was by far the biggest lobbying contributor, with only Chevron spending over $6 million in Q2 of 2009. GE's $7.2 million represents a recycled taxpayer spend to promote private interests of $160,000 for every single day that Congress was in session.

A few of their efforts:
- GE is the leading member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, and, together with power company AES, owns a company called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in greenhouse gas offsets and plans to manage the trade in GHG credits -- a business with no value until Congress enacts something like Waxman-Markey.

- GE's "EcoMagination" project is largely dependent on government for profitability.

- President Obama called for more high-speed rail, and GE said, "we've got high-speed rail!" The company hired Linda Daschle, wife of Tom Daschle and former FAA administrator, June 11 to lobby for high-speed rail funding.

- Of course, now GE is launching HealthyMagination and is the leader in SmartGrid technology, both of which dovetail nicely with Obama's plans.

• HR 3068, TARP for Main Street Act of 2009
• HJ res 3, Relating to the disapproval of obligation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
• SJ res 2, Relating to the disapproval of obligation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
• HR 384 TARP Reform and Accountability Act
• S 414, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
• HR 627, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
• HR 1606, New Automobile Voucher Act of 2009
• HR 1106, The Helping Families Save their Homes Act of 2009
• HR 786, To make permanent the temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage
• HR 1214, The Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009
• HR 1728, The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009
• S 664, The Financial System Stabilization and Reform Act of 2009
• S 34, Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009
• S 62, Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009
• HR 1084, Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act
• S 328, DTV Delay Act
• HR 339, Digital Television coupon Improvement Act
• HR 3216, Local Television Freedom Act
• HR 3101, Ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to emerging IP-based communication and video programming technologies in the 21st century
• HE 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act
• Climate Change HR 232, Greenhouse Gas Registry Act

GE profits in 2008 is $18.1 billion. GE makes everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. More than half of GE's revenue is derived from financial services. i.e. not lightbulbs and refrigerators. Unless of course folks are buying lightbulbs or doing a little weapons contracting on the side for NATO with their GE Capital credit card.

2008 profits, Oil companies made over $100 billion in profits
Exxon Mobil: $45.2 billion in profits
Chevron: $23.93 billion in profits
BP: $21.16 billion in profits
Shell: $26.29 billion in profits

Why don't you show me the "facts" on their actual profit margins because of course profit in and of itself is not evil. Otherwise, your post is once again entirely irrelevant to the thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What bothers me the most is the arrogance of some people. This is not some sort of US only issue, but it is a global issue that pretty much as global consensus, as far as I can tell. It is a part of the political agenda of many governments. So, these sorts of comments do not only suggest the person knowing better than all of us, but knowing better than all of these other countries as well.

Global consensus? Does this mean anything when the "globe" is not willing to stake their economic future on the science?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Unfortunately for you and the other folks trying to cover their arses, the key part of the sentence is what comes after the word "trick", ie. "I used Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline".

"I used Mike's 'clever way of doing things'... to hide the decline" gives off the same impression -- a purposeful attempt to hide data because it doesn't match up with what the agenda demands.

RealClimate: The CRU hack

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Focusing on one word - 'hiding' - is missing the point since everything they've allegedly hidden has been published already.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes it is. Those e-mails that where found show those scientists who are part of the consensus plotting to keep dissent from being shown.

You do realize that "where" is not the past tense of "are", right? I only ask because it's the third time this thread.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

The email's author had real concerns about Climate research being a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Here is an article from the time. At this point, only 3 of the eventual 6 editors had resigned.

The Heat Is Online

And another:

Eventually, however, Inter-Research recognised that something needed to be done and appointed Hans von Storch as editor-in-chief with effect from 1 August 2003. This would have marked a change from the existing system, where each of the 10 editors works independently. Authors can submit a manuscript to which ever of these editors they like. Hans drafted an editorial to appear in the next edition of Climate Research and circulated it to all the other editors for comment. However, Otto Kinne then decided that Hans could not publish the editorial without the agreement of all of the editors. Since at least one of the editors thought there was nothing wrong with the Soon and Baliunas paper, such an agreement was clearly never going to be obtained. In view of this, and the intervention of the publisher in editorial matters, Hans understandably felt that he could not take up the Editor-in-Chief position and resigned four days before he was due to start his new position. I also resigned as soon as I heard what had happened. This turned out to be the day of Inofhe’s US senate committee hearing and the news of the two resignations was announced at the hearing . Since then, another three editors have resigned.

So Climate Research (CR) has lost half of its editors and the five remaining include Chris de Freitas. The latest twist in this story is an editorial by Otto Kinne in August’s edition of the journal (Kinne, 2003) which cites the two conclusions of Soon and Baliunas quoted earlier in this article and then states that “While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.’.

Essentially, a papers conclusions, which didn't jive with the data presented, is published in spite of the protests of the editors for including poor science. The email bemoans the lack of peer-review, and that is what happened in the context of Climate Research in 2003.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Please provide me a graph that shows all temperatures for the Earth since humans have inhabited it so we can see if the 150 years shown is relevant to the rest of existance, if it's important to view this through a wider spectrum.

You can provide such a graph if you want to discuss it. I was simply drawing conclusions from the same evidence you were using, albeit more rigorously.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In the chart given, I see periods of 20 years where there is cooling. Around 1855 it looks like temperatures where going up short term, and it cooled again. I'd say 20 years is fairly "long term".

I'd say 100 years is a long time too - your point being?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

About 1/3 of the chart for the past 150 years shows cooling, and who knows if the chart is influenced by people with an agenda fudging the numbers?

Right, who knows. The leaked emails certainly don't provide any proof of it, though.


Again...we are looking at a snapshot, trying to claim evidence of the big picture. Can't we just see the big picture, or are we just guessing?[/QUOTE]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In the chart given, I see periods of 20 years where there is cooling. Around 1855 it looks like temperatures where going up short term, and it cooled again. I'd say 20 years is fairly "long term".

Again, stop being so simple. Are you unable to see the general trend of the chart? In terms of climate and planet, 20 years is barely a blip.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

There has been no peer review study that is contradictory to current popular theory regarding global warming.

There are a wealth of peer reviewed studies illustrating the relationship between natural variability and climate change. Just because they don't address Al Gore himself or acknowledge a "popular theory of global warming" doesn't mean the data isn't contradictory.

Politics is decided by a majority, science is decided by relative certainty. Double fail

Your judgment of stupendousman + my judgment of you = quadruple fail. Both are decided by monetary funding. Of course this is not to say that nothing has ever come of the two individually, but when they mix it is something else entirely. An "establishment". This is when one helps decide the other. This is your consensus. One, highly contentious statement in a policy summary paper authored by an intergovernmental panel of politicians. There's science there, but it is rarely as optimistic in its certainty as the policy summary statement.

Let me ask you though olePigeon, at what point does the consensus begin to break down? What does that look like exactly? Does the "consensus" come out and say; "You know what? Turns out we were wrong about the whole thing." Maybe; "We're officially no longer a consensus" or "Just scratch all that you see because the real problem is..." I really think they should go with the "climate change" thing. I mean that's something we can all get behind right? Who's gonna deny that the climate changes? I think it's brilliant.

If consensus in science ever meant anything at all historically, it was ignorance.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If consensus in science ever meant anything at all historically, it was ignorance.

thinkin you should elaborate a little on this one

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

thinkin you should elaborate a little on this one

Very much.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Scientific consensus" as it's being used to promote faith based ideas as fact has nothing to do with "science". t. Otherwise at some point, we were really living on a flat planet.

You can have 100% consensus on something and it not be a proven scientific fact or something that is true. As I stated, it only takes a single person who does not concede who actually has found the truth to show that "consensus" is just a political tool to gain acceptance for things that can't be proven. If you can't really prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is ample dissent, all you are doing is playing politics.

That's nor "science".



At least two of which, elements are widely disputed by a great number of credible scientists and could well be found to be bunk. If you want to call good guesses that have credible refutable but accepted as fact "science", then it's really a political tool and not one basic on logic and a search for the truth. There's really no need to find a consensus and use that as a tool unless all the facts just aren't there.

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."

Scientific consensus is consensus made on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.


Scientific consensus change over time as we gain more understanding and knowledge of the world.

Old theories get updated and revised, or simply get tossed out because there's a new scientific consensus.

For example, scientist use to believe electricity and magnetism are 2 different forces. Now it's just one force called electromagnetism.


stupendousman,

How old is Earth and how long have man been on this planet? What's your opinion? What's the scientific consensus?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I suppose I could adopt your practice of citing the same debunked article from two different sources to make it appear as though I have more material.

The above list comprise those who support the cap and trade scheme and the "green lobby".
CNBC's Parent Station General Electric Is Q2's Top Lobby Spender With $7.2 Million, A 60% Increase From Q1
General Electric, which with AIG, is at the forefront of hobbled companies who continue existing solely thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts in various forms, was by far the biggest lobbying contributor, with only Chevron spending over $6 million in Q2 of 2009. GE's $7.2 million represents a recycled taxpayer spend to promote private interests of $160,000 for every single day that Congress was in session.

A few of their efforts:
- GE is the leading member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, and, together with power company AES, owns a company called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in greenhouse gas offsets and plans to manage the trade in GHG credits -- a business with no value until Congress enacts something like Waxman-Markey.

- GE's "EcoMagination" project is largely dependent on government for profitability.

- President Obama called for more high-speed rail, and GE said, "we've got high-speed rail!" The company hired Linda Daschle, wife of Tom Daschle and former FAA administrator, June 11 to lobby for high-speed rail funding.

- Of course, now GE is launching HealthyMagination and is the leader in SmartGrid technology, both of which dovetail nicely with Obama's plans.

• HR 3068, TARP for Main Street Act of 2009
• HJ res 3, Relating to the disapproval of obligation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
• SJ res 2, Relating to the disapproval of obligation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
• HR 384 TARP Reform and Accountability Act
• S 414, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
• HR 627, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
• HR 1606, New Automobile Voucher Act of 2009
• HR 1106, The Helping Families Save their Homes Act of 2009
• HR 786, To make permanent the temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage
• HR 1214, The Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009
• HR 1728, The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009
• S 664, The Financial System Stabilization and Reform Act of 2009
• S 34, Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009
• S 62, Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009
• HR 1084, Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act
• S 328, DTV Delay Act
• HR 339, Digital Television coupon Improvement Act
• HR 3216, Local Television Freedom Act
• HR 3101, Ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to emerging IP-based communication and video programming technologies in the 21st century
• HE 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act
• Climate Change HR 232, Greenhouse Gas Registry Act

Nice list of acts? But what does most of them have anything to do with global warming or clean energy?

I thought the argument you were trying to make was that GE spends tons of money lobbying for Global Warming.

I think you are confuse. This is a global warming thread. Not a I hate GE cause they own NBC thread.

General Electric has spent a mindblowing $187 million (or formerly mindblowing, now that people openly ridicule any number without 12 zeros behind it, courtesy of Ben Bernanke's well greased printers) on lobbying over the past decade.

$187 million on lobbying in 10 years.
Wow, impressive for a company like GE that makes everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators.

Money spent on lobbying in 2008 by Oil Companies
Exxon Mobil - $29 million
Shell - $3.3 million
BP - $10.5 million
Chevron - $14.5 million
Conoco Philips - $8.5 million

The top 5 oil companies spent $65.8 million in 2008 on lobbying efforts. Seems a lot more than GE spends on lobbying in 2008. From your list, it seems most of the money GE spent on lobbying has nothing to do with clean energy or alternative energy. How much was spend on lobbying for clean energy? $1 million?



What do oil companies make besides oil related byproducts?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. More than half of GE's revenue is derived from financial services. i.e. not lightbulbs and refrigerators. Unless of course folks are buying lightbulbs or doing a little weapons contracting on the side for NATO with their GE Capital credit card.

I said GE makes everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators. I didn't say GE only makes lightbulbs and refrigerators or GE is limited to making lightbulbs and refrigerators.

No wonder why you are having problems reading a simple graph that shows a warming trend in world temperatures.

Yes, ebuddy. GE makes lightbulbs, refrigerators, washers, dryers, jet engines, owns NBC, involve in energy, involve in oil & gas, finance, and so forth.

Wow, I even have a $20k line of credit from GE.


GE Products & Services Overview: Introduction, Businesses, Categories

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why don't you show me the "facts" on their actual profit margins because of course profit in and of itself is not evil. Otherwise, your post is once again entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Speaking of irrelevant, nice list of acts pass in 2009.

What's the relevance of the list to Global Warming?

[*]HR 627, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009[*]S 34, Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009[*]S 328, DTV Delay Act
blah blah blah


I see your global warming conspiracy theory there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

thinkin you should elaborate a little on this one

I should start with an earth-centric cosmology as presupposed by the scientific establishment of the time under the discriminating eye of the Catholic Church. (governing rule) Granted, this is not a problem for religion exclusively; the notion that Earth was at the center of the cosmos was a deep-seeded ancient Greek ideal that had become scientific dogma and took a long time to overturn. This constituted an unhealthy mix of science and governance as an "establishment" that perpetuated ignorance.

I like how German nuclear physicist Max Planck puts it; "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I like how German nuclear physicist Max Planck puts it; "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

But... Greg is younger than you are, does that mean he's right on this one?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Scientific consensus" as it's being used to promote faith based ideas as fact has nothing to do with "science".

So much for Creationism, then.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Scientific consensus change over time as we gain more understanding and knowledge of the world.

Exactly. At one point, the consensus was that the Earth was at the center of the universe. That consensus changed as we gained more understanding.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you explain the global acceptance of this issue? What sort of power do those companies have outside of the US as far as affecting the agendas of foreign governments?

Advertising and left biased 'news.' Sometimes it's called propaganda.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Science is based on consensus. Scientific consensus. Consensus among the scientific community, not the general public.

Who says you can be a member of that community?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who says you can be a member of that community?

Your work does.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I should start with an earth-centric cosmology as presupposed by the scientific establishment of the time under the discriminating eye of the Catholic Church. (governing rule) Granted, this is not a problem for religion exclusively; the notion that Earth was at the center of the cosmos was a deep-seeded ancient Greek ideal that had become scientific dogma and took a long time to overturn. This constituted an unhealthy mix of science and governance as an "establishment" that perpetuated ignorance.

1. Oddly enough, the analogy you've chosen is a great example of the danger of mixing science with religious dogma. Odd, that. Methinks one should point that out however, given the particular spiritual bent of your comrades-in-arms.


2. The notion that the earth was at the center of the cosmos was not a "Greek ideal," but rather a "Greek theory" that made the most sense at the time and thus dominated the discussion. Look around you. The stars circle around the earth; you can track them and see that. The sun is clearly going around the earth, rising in the East and setting in the West. And most importantly, the earth is clearly not moving because if it was, we would all fly off, just like we fly off a horse or chariot when it moves.


3. The notion that the earth was not at the centre of the cosmos was also a deep-seated Greek theory. But it didn't make any sense when compared to geocentrism, for the reasons above. Heliocentrism was rejected until Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo/Newton figured out how to make it the "best explanation." Unfortunately no one on this earth has yet to provide such an explanation for our current scenario. Your move?


4. The notion that humans couldn't possibly affect something as massive as the earth's atmosphere has been a deep-seated ideal for.... well, centuries, no? Until the recent growth of climatology, and some landmark papers that have spectacularly showed that we do seem to be affecting it. Wow. I'm getting shivers here! Could you have possibly and ironically identified a remarkable parallel?!


5. Could you possibly and ironically be like one of those guys who dismissed the works of Copernicus and Kepler? You know, like one of those Christian scientists you've already alluded to, who managed to spend centuries fitting their worldview into what they interpreted the Holy Scriptures to be saying? Until years later, when Newton finally came along and suddenly, "all was light"?


6. Finally... so? You've identified an area of science where science was wrong. Geez. Scientists also didn't know how our circulation system worked until 500 years ago. They also were convinced that it was impossible to fly across the sky in a gazillion-tonne metal tube. I'm pretty sure they also didn't think it was possible for me to sit in my house and pay to watch some Ukrainian broad take her clothes off in Kiev either.


So I have no idea how providing this information helps your cause. Because roughly, what you're saying is "man-made global warming isn't real because 100 years ago, no one thought it was possible for Canadians to watch Ukrainian strip shows."


Now doesn't that sound ludicrous?

I like how German nuclear physicist Max Planck puts it; "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

Odd, that you should quote this, when in other threads you and others have posted an small collection of climate change skepticism penned by old - or dead - scientists and/or authors.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

How old is Earth and how long have man been on this planet? What's your opinion? What's the scientific consensus?

HAR HAR. Clever boy.

Are you saying that there is no credible dissent over how old the planet may be, among scientists?

I'm not talking about the difference between Genesis old, and where scientific data will generally lead to - but is everyone really in lockstep on the date the Earth came into existence?

Is there really no debate about when humans came into existence? Again, I'm not saying between those who believe the Biblical chronology and scientists who believe it happened a lot longer ago. I could of sworn over the past 30 years or so there being dissent, and the round about dates shifting over a long period of time.

Consensus did nothing for the old way of thinking once it was proven not to be accurate. Consensus has never found the truth. The truth eventually finds consensus. That's why appeals to majority or popularity are logical fallacies when used to debate an argument.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The email's author had real concerns about Climate research being a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Here is an article from the time. At this point, only 3 of the eventual 6 editors had resigned.

Yeah, we know. "Scientists" have been known to collude when damaging information is presented which make their work look inferior, or doesn't fit a proposed agenda. That's nothing new. The letter exposed show exactly how that works. Dissent isn't allowed, It must be boycotted and nipped in the bud. The fact that there are scientists who say the same thing about many studies claiming evidence of an oncoming global warming catastrophe that are "peer reviewed" and never get to publish a direct rebuttal. Never get their voices heard. All due to "peer" pressure not to allow dissent that hurts the status quo that keeps the majority in their jobs creating alarmism.

A guy got got mad because an article was peer reviewed and published, and it went counter to his research and he wanted to publish an immediate rebuttal. This came along with all the normal logically fallacious grandstanding about funding sources and the guys doing the research being real poopie heads.

Essentially, a papers conclusions, which didn't jive with the data presented, is published in spite of the protests of the editors for including poor science.

Of course the conclusions wouldn't jive with the date presented, because the guy who was protesting already gave his own interpretation of what the data really showed and he was right and the authors and the "peers" who reviewed the research was wrong! DUH!



Dude...we get it. We see the pattern. It isn't science, it's politics...and of course money, on both sides. What I do know is all these peer reviewed folks promised me it would be a lot hotter right now, years ago. Peer review and consensus failed them. It's likely because they are only tools to keep dissent (which would threaten their livelihood) out.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

You can provide such a graph if you want to discuss it. I was simply drawing conclusions from the same evidence you were using, albeit more rigorously.

I'm simply saying that you (and the AWG community) like to shift around the goalposts when it's clear that the data you are using to promote alarmism doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

I'd say 100 years is a long time too - your point being?

It's really not that much longer than 20 years, when you look at the big picture. When the "little picture" points out flaws, you want to look at the bigger picture. When I say, let's look as the REALLY big picture, I can't get anyone to draw it for me.

Again...we are looking at a snapshot, trying to claim evidence of the big picture. Can't we just see the big picture, or are we just guessing?

I asked for the BIG PICTURE. You don't want to look at the small picture. You choose the "little bigger than the small picture" since that supports your hypothesis. That's called "cherrypicking" data, and isn't really credible.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Again, stop being so simple. Are you unable to see the general trend of the chart? In terms of climate and planet, 20 years is barely a blip.

Who is being "simple"? If 20 years is barely a blip, then 150 years is hardly a speck in regards to a planet as old as ours. If data shows similar temperature variations without human intervention, then that sort of refutes the idea that it's either likely human derived and couldn't be from other means. That's why people making this argument stick to the cherrypicked data set which would make their claims a little more credible.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So much for Creationism, then.

I never claimed Creationism is scientific.

The flaw however is in the idea that no part of "science" requires "faith" when it most certainly does.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who says you can be a member of that community?

Anyone can.

Just do a scientific research study using the scientific method. Provide your data, methods, and your conclusion and submit it for a peer review so experts in the field can look through it. If it passed through the review process, you can then have your research publish in a peer-reviewed journal.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm simply saying that you (and the AWG community) like to shift around the goalposts when it's clear that the data you are using to promote alarmism doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Define grand scheme. Is that 1k, 1m or 1G years? I asked before that you provide some data that we can look at specifically so that the goalposts argument couldn't be brought up. You get to choose the data. Keep in mind too, that we are talking anthropogenic.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

[One hundred years is] really not that much longer than 20 years, when you look at the big picture.

I mean it's only five times as much. So should we just assume 1 ~= 5 for the sake of this thread then?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When I say, let's look as the REALLY big picture, I can't get anyone to draw it for me.

Probably because not everyone sits in front of their computer all day waiting for the chance to make somebody else's point for them. If you want to make a point, make it. Don't rely on others to do your work for you. Lazy.

I asked for the BIG PICTURE. You don't want to look at the small picture. You choose the "little bigger than the small picture" since that supports your hypothesis. That's called "cherrypicking" data, and isn't really credible.

No, you got it all wrong. I was going for the "slightly less smaller than the biggest small picture (but not that big)" picture. I can see how you got confused.

As far as cherry-picking goes. We wouldn't want any of that:

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Looks like it peaked to me. You see the flat part at the top of the hill that's starting to point down?

Yeah, I can see it. If I squint really hard. Given 150+ years, you chose 10.

Honestly, I do see other areas that show cooling too in those 150 years. Just eyeballing, I'd guess the ratio was 5:1 for warming:cooling years, so as we figured out before, that's basically even right?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What I do know is all these peer reviewed folks promised me it would be a lot hotter right now, years ago.

Really? Did they come to your house and make this promise? Like the Sweet Pickles van? Were there thousands of them, or just a select handful?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes it is. Those e-mails that where found show those scientists who are part of the consensus plotting to keep dissent from being shown.

No, there isn't. There was no revelation in any of those emails of any sort of conspiracy, plotting, or dissent. You need to get your information from sources other than Conservative columns and blogs by people who know absolutely nothing about what they are attacking. When read in context, there's nothing incriminating or revealing in those emails. Nothing.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

This blogger is just repeating misinformation he heard from some other blog or news site.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Especially when there are so many credible, intelligent scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming as an oncoming catastrophe.

First of all, no credible scientist said it was man made; it was stated that human activity is most likely having a negative impact. Secondly, what scientists? Don't show me a stupid list. Show me peer reviewed studies. I don't care if someone sells a million books and goes on Oprah; show me the evidence.

We've been down this road before. Countless times. Absolutely every time you fail to come up with any credible source. There are currently no peer reviewed studies that are contrary to current popular theory.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... the planet has gotten a little cooler, not warmer.

No it isn't. Stop bringing this up, we've been over this countless times already.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Those who said that the planet wasn't going to keep warming and warming where right.

I don't get it. I -- as well as others on here -- have already provided you with the data explaining how the mean temperature of this planet is still rising, not cooling. Then not a few days later, you go back to claiming it's cooling again.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are a wealth of peer reviewed studies illustrating the relationship between natural variability and climate change.

Aspects of climate change. There are also a wealth of peer reviewed studies illustrating a negative impact on climate change caused directly by human activity. Yes, there are many, many variables. That is why climatology is a very difficult area of study. Only recently have we had super computers and mainframes powerful enough to provide at least reasonable assessments.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just because they don't address Al Gore himself or acknowledge a "popular theory of global warming" doesn't mean the data isn't contradictory.

Popular theory in the scientific sense, not as in a theory that's popular with people. Current global warming/climate change theories use those findings to help build a better climate model. By themselves they may only show small relationships with certain activities, but together they paint a bigger picture.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me ask you though olePigeon, at what point does the consensus begin to break down?

It doesn't break down, it's fluidic. The consensus changes as new evidence is provided.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Does the "consensus" come out and say; "You know what? Turns out we were wrong about the whole thing."

More like, "These particular areas turned out to be wrong. This is what we believe to be the most likely answer. We'll adjust our climate models as more evidence is presented."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I really think they should go with the "climate change" thing. I mean that's something we can all get behind right? Who's gonna deny that the climate changes? I think it's brilliant.

There was never any argument about the climate changing, even naturally. The Earth goes through cycles. The argument, as the evidence suggests, is that human activity is having a negative impact on these changes. While the climate is changing as a result of natural cycles, evidence suggests that human activity is pushing these changes into the extremes; having a negative impact in general on the climate as a whole.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Conservatives are paranoid and fearful group of people. They stick to their gun & God, and are afraid of the government.

Glenn Beck corrected me today.

Be afraid of the government and stick with the 3 G's

It's not about the 2 G's - God and Guns

It's about the 3 G's - God, Gold, and Guns.

Haha...

YouTube - God Gold and Guns - Pay your debt, store food, buy guns and then gold - Glenn Beck explains


It's funny cause most of the conservative media is promoting Gold heavily, so Gold must be added.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Define grand scheme. Is that 1k, 1m or 1G years? I asked before that you provide some data that we can look at specifically so that the goalposts argument couldn't be brought up. You get to choose the data. Keep in mind too, that we are talking anthropogenic.

The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not saying I can predict for sure one way or another. I'm saying though that 150 years is just a teeny tiny microscopic snapshot of the bigger picture and that there well could have been lower and higher temperatures on Earth not caused by man than what the 150 year snapshot shows. I'm saying you really want to convince people, you really need to show us the big picture and how this relates.

I mean it's only five times as much. So should we just assume 1 ~= 5 for the sake of this thread then?

I think that what you can assume is that when you are dealing with something that has a number set about 5 billion in length, sampling 20 or 150 really isn't going to make that much of a difference.

You want to take a cherry picked sample of 150 because that's the sample that shows what you want. That's really not very scientific.