I'm more interested in how this affects me, the citizen. What restrictions do alarmists want that will impact my life? Al Gore's documentary, imo, could be summed up as 'get an energy-saving light bulb.' I can live with that.

TPTB intend to use this cult as a means to expand their power over science. If the government/NGOs can dictate what is "settled science" then it can be wielded to suppress technologies.

Also, I recycle. I don't think we should treat the earth like a giant toilet, but I also don't want over-the-top restrictions either.

Pollution and man-made global warming are two different topics. It's common for supporters of AGW to run them together, as a way of bolstering their poorly through out position.

It's definitely a religion

He literally just described why it's by definition a cult, did you even read the post?

I was agreeing

Ok, cause op said it's not a religion now but a cult. Sounded like you read the title and agreed.

If 'intelligent' people want to deny that an increase of carbon (among many chemicals) causes a greenhouse effect on the Earth then I would suggest they take their degrees and shove it up their arse.

It's happened before and it'll happen again. Previous couple of times was without human intervention. Global warming is real and is happening. Just need to look at the amount of weather records being broken.

If the degree of water changes it does matter. I don't know who the link is but the only source is a self written one. Understand the conspiracy but no... carbon emissions have been reduced (so they would drop.) The prediction was if we continued at the same rate (which even the graph shows that!)

It's happening unfortunately. Too much carbon when the Earth releases it naturally is going to fuck us up.

They are not that bad.

https://i.imgur.com/BGN55qt.jpg

Roy Spencer frequently adjusts his satellite dataset. In the '90s it showed spurious cooling which he had to fix and he recently adjusted his dataset again to show less warming than his dataset previously showed. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Here is the difference between raw and adjusted surface temperatures. The entire "controversy" over the Karl et al. study is the very slight difference between the black and blue lines over the past twenty years. It has a negligible impact on the long-term surface warming trend. Furthermore, even those minor adjustments were shown to be accurate through numerous lines of evidence (satellites, ocean buoys, and argo floats) in Hausfather et al. 2017.

Citation? What about all of the other indepedent analyses of the surface temperature record?

I mean, a lot of people analyse the surface temperature record. They all find pretty much the same thing.

Anybody can graph data once it has been manipulated.

It was the manipulation that was the issue.

Except your hero, Lindzen, looked into the "manipulation" and concluded NOAA/NASA did not manipulate the data in any significant way. The error was caused by bloggers pulling from the wrong files. When the Lindzen/Hayden mistake was discovered it was so blatantly wrong that they had no choice but to retract it, saying

"Please accept my sincere apologies for misrepresenting NASA-GISS data. .... I concluded incorrectly that NASA-GISS had manipulated the data.

but the damage was done and still to this day you see hoaxers claiming NASA-GISS fraudulently edits their data using the same technique of using a historical links and altered graphs.

But as /u/thepaperskyline noted. Why look at bloggers when you can actually go to the official record of NASA-GISS temps over time and see how the changes actually are made and why.

Yes, people are sometimes wrong. In this case he seems to have been wrong and admitted it.

Ok then - glad you admitted it too. Does this mean you (like Lindzen) ALSO accept the GISS/NASA data as ok?

But... since being wrong once means we no longer believe anything that comes from the source.. Let's take a look back... Newsweek ... Washington Post ... Associated Press ... Dallas Morning News ....

A dump of a bunch of media hyping stuff? HAHAHAHAHAHAH. You forgot to include Readers Digest! HAHAHAHAHAH. Look, nobody who understands the scientific method gives 1/2 a shit about what the media circus likes to do with turning an actual legitimate point into a clown car on fire.

You can find a shit-ton of time, newsweek, blogs, FOX, vlog, .... non-science media sites selling catastrophe in order to get eyeballs and sell advertising. There are blogs everywhere showing that because they found lots of citizen scientists who wrote lots of articles for a popular rags that this means something. Does it? Nope.

Remember the false hype that scientists are predicting a new mini-ice age, despite that when you go back to the original sources they say nothing like that?

In a fact-based, evidence-based, discussion regarding science, what matters is what the boring, non-catastrophe science says .

And just like the false story that the consensus of scientists in 1970s were saying we faced global cooling based on hyping magazine articles at the time but not actual published papers by scientists pointing to something you read in "entertainment weekly" or the like isn't a good argument either.

Cooling Since 1940, Forecasts for Continued Cooling/Ice Age

Um - did you read any of these? Let's take one at random

8.http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281971%29052%3C0451%3AFCAFE%3E2.0.CO%3B2

So a geologist wrote an opinion letter (e.g. NOT a climate scientist and not a peer-reviewed scientific paper) and says

"I am not qualified to give an opinion on the future states of the atmosphere"

and then goes on and on about how he has no clue. Seriously?

Or let's pick another

4.http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1729-9_16#page-1

A chapter in some book written by meteorologist Hugh W. Ellsaesser. Again - not a climate scientists, not a peer-reviewed article written in a fact-checking journal. And when you read the chapter - its about release of aerosols.

Pretty clear you've just done a gish gallop.

Tim,

For fun I picked another at random

3.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750020489.pdf

A masters paper which looks at particulate matter. Again - not by a climate scientist, not a peer-reviewed article written in a fact-checked journal,

yep. A gish gallop.

Ad Hominem.... How many climate scientists were there in 1975?

You were making the point that climate scientists were wrong about "global cooling" so if your point is now that there are too few climate scientists in 1975 to quote so you feel you have to quote from people writing masters papers and from meteorologists writing chapters, you've just destroyed your own point! LOL! So if you want to make the point that "scientists were wrong" about global cooling then it was you who set the rules about them being scientists.

As I said before: A dump of a bunch of media hyping stuff? Another dump of masters papers and opinion pieces by those who actually say "I have no idea about the atmosphere" AHAHAHAHAH.

You can find a shit-ton of time, newsweek, blogs, FOX, vlog, .... non-science media sites selling catastrophe in order to get eyeballs and sell advertising. You can find a shit-ton of opinion pieces by armchair scientists who wrote lots of letters that kind of say "I guess." Does that impact the evidence as published in peer-reviewed journals. Nope.

In a fact-based, evidence-based, discussion regarding science, what matters is what the boring, non-catastrophe science says .

And the science is driven forward by what's published in the peer-reviewed journals. You want to prove science was predicting global cooling? Then you set the requirements that this was serious and moved forward in the scientific community. You made your bed. Now you get to lie in it.

The scientific community was all over global cooling.

Citation required.

Karl et al., 1984023%3C1489%3ADDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2) Does not make a prediction about global cooling. Did you read the conclusion of the paper?

Magill, 1980. Is a thesis that is a study of the Canadian Prairies and Saskatchewan. Timo, I've noticed you seem to have a lot of papers by masters students of geography in Canada. This non-peer-reviewed, non-published paper also does not make a prediction about global cooling or warming. It is a study of the temperature of the Plains of Canada and compares it to other North American temperature records.

You are 0 for 2 here. Do you even read these papers?

Bryson and Wendland, 1975 - Again - this isn't someone who is part of the scientific community publishing a paper in a peer reviewed paper and not even someone who agreed with the presented evidence and said crazy things like “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

0 for 3

So after again - picking at these sources it's clear you aren't finding any papers that support your opinion that the scientific community was pushing global cooling and again the fact that you are finding books and thesis papers that look at the Plains of Canada and claiming that they discussed global patterns is evidence that you aren't reading the papers you are quoting and are in fact just doing another gish galosh.

Control the terms of reference. **Not peer reviewed

Yes - you said - it was "the scientific community" so find something that's part of the scientific community. Not blogs, newspaper articles, not someones masters thesis, not a chapter in a book written by a meteorologist who thinks CO2 doesn't have any impact. This by your own definition limits the discussion to the peer-reviewed articles that define the opinion of the scientific community.

**Does not make a prediction

Again you were the one saying it was a prediction for global cooling.

**The conclusion is not accurate... Again-- it does matter what the conclusions are.

Part of arguing in good faith is understanding the evidence you present. If you don't understand or don't know what the paper is about then you aren't arguing in good faith. What's interesting is that you don't realize that your evidence doesn't support your statement.

Each of the excerpts show that there is widespread recognition of Global Cooling in the scientific community.

Sorry - if you are going to quote papers as examples of what the the scientific community concludes is/will-be happening then it is the conclusions of the paper that are relevant.

Let me make it simple: Let's say a paper says

"Some nuts think the moon is made of green cheese. We look at moon rocks to see if the moon is made of cheese.... Conclusion: we looked and the moon is not made of green cheese."

If you exclude the conclusion and only quote the part that says "some think the moon is made of green cheese" in your excerpt you not only fail to prove your point, you damage your own credibility because you clearly aren't reading or understanding the papers you quote as evidence. You've presented a gish gallop.

Case in point Mann et. al who were reporting that between 1951 and 1980 here was a regional (e.g. not global) decrease in surface temperatures in the United States and Canada and who were looking at evidence of CO2 vs aerosols vs measured temperatures. Try again. Pick your one best example - that you've actually read* t show us you do understand the paper you are using for evidence.

There are some intersting video's debunking the "global cooling"myths. Here's one: Lord Monkton was saying global cooling and his claim was debunked. Or perhaps Broeker and AMOC and the media hype ... But also not a global cooling prediction.

TLDR; The idea that scientists were predicting global cooling or a new ice age is a myth perpetuated by hyping media and is not supported by a review of the conclusions of papers in the boring, peer-reviewed, fact-checked, scientific journals where the scientists publish their evidence and conclusions.

1.There are published papers in that list, you chose to ignore them.

Your gish gallop was weak. A random sampling of your gish gallop shows the weakness easily, that you were just throwing out random stuff that didn't support your case. As I said before - pick your best source. Here's your chance. You can prove that you've read and understood it. Go ahead ... I'll wait. Whats the best one supports your argument that the scientific community was predicting global cooling. Since you say it was the scientific community - then you have to show it in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked literature where the scientific community publishes their conclusions.

We saw a warming trend up until 1940, and from then until today (time varies depending on the source) we have seen cooling.

Cooling from 1940 until today? Sorry - but you've been lied to. Even your hero Lindzen accepts this fact and said so that there has been global warming. The only people who still make that claim have cut off their data at about 1980 and falsely state that 1980 is "today."

Now there are smaller natural variations (noise) on top of a stronger, long-term (30+year) global warming (signal) trend. That's accepted by everyone and there is no disagreement with the scientific community there.

Observational evidence is the basis of the scientific method. We saw a short cooling after each El Nino. We saw a short cooling after each volcano. We saw the cooling caused by sulfates and aerosols. These observed short and/or localized trends do not change the overall long term signal nor change what the scientific community was saying and thus do not support your claim that the scientific community was predicting global cooling in some "alarmist" manner.

If you are changing your position to state that observations of temperature anomalies are accurate and that since 1940 there have been smaller periods of rise and fall along with an overall rise - you'll get no argument from me, or the scientific community. We'd agree!

If however you are claiming that the scientific community was predicting and being alarmist about global cooling - then you have yet to present evidence that it in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked literature where the scientific community publishes their conclusions they said this. As I said before - don't do a gish gallop - pick your best source which will show you've read and understood their conclusions. Go ahead ... I'll wait. Whats the best paper that supports your claim that there was some global cooling "alarmism" in the scientific community.

The 25 references I have already given you.

All the ones I've seen don't support your case. Pick the best one. Then it's not a gish gallop.

My case is there was a large recognition of global cooling in the 60's and 70's.

So claim your case is now solely that

• the science of measuring global temperature anomalies is accurate?

That's it? Nothing more about "false" future predictions or "alarmism" from the scientific community? You withdraw that point?

1.There was another "sky is falling" episode in the past. I have proven that.

All your "evidence" showed was that in the hyping and non-scientific media, a bunch of bloggers, vloggers, magazine writers, TV hosts, students, and the like wrote that the "sky is falling." We know that Entertainment Weekly and Dailymail loves to scream and panic at the slightest rumor. Does that impact the scientific community? Nope.

As I said before ... You can find a shit-ton of time, newsweek, blogs, FOX, vlog, .... non-science media sites selling catastrophe in order to get eyeballs and sell advertising. You can find a shit-ton of opinion pieces by armchair scientists who wrote lots of letters that kind of say "I guess." Does that impact the evidence as published in peer-reviewed journals. Nope. Just like the false story that the consensus of scientists in 1970s were saying we faced global cooling based on hyping magazine articles at the time but not actual published papers by scientists a gish gallop of opinions/books/newpapers/popular media/non-peer-reviewed stuff/etc. won't cut it.

Your gish gallop of student papers and guys saying ""I have no idea about the atmosphere" weakened your position further. All it showed was that yes - science was accurate in it's measurement of global temperature anomalies between 1940 and onward. Well, since the evidence you presented agrees with the point that temperature anomaly measurements are accurate, we can agree on that point.

In a fact-based, evidence-based, discussion regarding science, what matters is what the boring, non-catastrophe science says . Since the science is driven forward by what's published in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked journals. If you want to prove the scientific community was having a "sky is falling" episode regarding global cooling then you have to show that in their official peer-reviewed, published paper's they were predicting global cooling. The scientific community presents their conclusions in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked, scientific journals. You have yet to show one example of this.

Go ahead pick your one best source that states that in regards to global cooling "the sky is falling." Not a gish gallop. One. You say it came from the scientific community? Find one that comes from the place the scientific community places it's conclusions... in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked, scientific journals.

Oh - and while you are at it - how did your check of the 2007 IPCC data go?

I have not looked at all the material from 2007 and have a lot of work to do, so at this point I have not checked.

So please check. Ctrl-F is easy. The topic was:

• Do you accept Lindzen's quote is in error when you quoted him saying:

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Do you now accept that as being incorrect? Here are the 2007 IPCC reports. Go ahead - you should be able to Ctrl-F and search them quite quickly. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml. If you cannot find that quote in a 2007 report then I think you have to conclude that Lindzen's quote is not accurate.

These sources are from the 60's and 70's. There was no internet then, no bloggers...

I noticed you haven't provided any evidence yet from the scientific community to "Prove your point." Still waiting for something from the your one best source that states that in regards to global cooling "the sky is falling." Not a gish gallop. One. You say it came from the scientific community? Find one that comes from the place the scientific community places it's conclusions... in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked, scientific journals.

And as you said:

I have not looked at all the material from 2007 and have a lot of work to do, so at this point I have not checked.

So please check. Ctrl-F is easy.

Sure I did, you just cherry picked the sources you thought you could discredit by arguing about something totally off topic.

They were your gish gallop of sources that were weak. I picked a few at random and the fact that they actually argued against your point made it clear you didn't read or understand your sources and were just throwing up chaff to hide the fact that you have yet to show any source which supports your claim

There was another "sky is falling" episode in the past. I have proven that.

And so show us your evidence! Your long list of the hyping media wasn't it. We proved that. Your gish gallop actually weakened your case. We proved that too. Here's your chance to redeem yourself. Pick the one best example. Just one that shows it. Go ahead. To argue in good faith is to support your claims with evidence you understand and that actually support your claim. Or do you now accept you have no evidence to support your claim.

Are climate models accurate?

I see you want to change topics. But does that mean you've given up trying to verify Lindzen's quote from the 2007 IPCC reports and now accept that Lindzen's quote is in error when he said

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Here are the 2007 IPCC reports. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml If you can't back up your claims with evidence - then you aren't arguing in good faith.

25 references from the time period in question are evidence. Story over.

A gish gallop. A random polling showed every single one* supported the opposite of your claim or wasn't from the group you made the claim against. Sorry - try again. Pick your one best example. Go ahead.

Just dissect every source you don't like until you find something to disagree with

That's the nature of science. You find the parts that support a claim and the parts that don't. I agreed with (and you did too) that the temperature analysis was accurate and showed shorter periods of cooling. I noticed you didn't present any evidence to dispute my findings of fact.

and then call it not qualified.

If you are going to say the scientific community was saying "the sky is falling with global cooling" then you are the one who set the limits on the publications to be withing the scientific community. So go ahead. Pick one your best example. Not a gish gallop. I'll wait.

Speaking of evidence and debating in good faith. Given the overwhelming evidence provided .... Do you now accept that Lindzen's quote is in error when he said

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Here are the 2007 IPCC reports. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml Evidence.

Man you hate to lose huh.

It's not about winning or losing in science. It's about having evidence that supports your conclusions. That's it. Step away from the win/loss and only focus on what conclusions are supported by evidence. In science - when something is disproven - there's no "losing" as everyone benefits from having that outdated and wrong information no longer being used. Newton didn't "lose" when Einstein came up with Relativity. Lindzen didn't "lose" when he apologized and said the NASA/GISS data analysis was ok. You won't lose to accept Lindzen made an error too.

Given that you've not addressed any of the factual evidence presented and abandoned the defense that Lindzen's quote was in error. Does this mean you now

• accept that nobody in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked, published findings of the scientific community was claiming "the sky was falling" as it relates to global cooling?

• Agree that Lindzen's quote as in error?

I know we now both agree that temperature anomaly measurements through the 1940s and onward have been accurate as you have now used evidence supporting that as a source numerous times.

I noticed that you've again failed to address any of the factual details presented. If you aren't going to debate in good faith and support or defend the evidence presented, then this conversation is over.

I presented 25 examples of global cooling and found a few hundred more.

A Gish gallop is a logical fallacy.

I could link them all, but you will just try to argue over their validity.

Nope - I'd just again pick a few at random and see if they were weak as is indicative of a gish gallop. If the random sample found they didn't support your case - then there is no point in continuing with more analysis of a gish gallop.

I presented 25 examples of global cooling ... we know the globe did not cool

You provided 25 examples of something that didn't happen? HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Bravo - you just contradicted yourself.

Do you even know what your point is any more?

The point, my dear Watson, was the craziness with which it was being pushed. The fact that it was wrong adds fuel to the fire of todays Alarmists crying wolf again.

By the main stream media. Not by the scientific community. Nobody disputes that the main stream media loves to get things wrong and scream. You confuse Newsweek Magazine with science journals. Sorry. We know the media like Dailymail loves to scream and panic at the slightest rumor. Does that impact the scientific community? Nope. Your gish gallop had no sky is falling stuff from the place where the scientific community puts their conclusions ... the scientific community puts their conclusions in the peer-reviewed, non-hysteria, fact-checked journals.. Try again. See if you can find one example. Just one. Not a gish gallop. Show the world you can read and understand the science behind your position.

Speaking of reading: Did you find Lindzen's quote in the 2007 IPCC reports like you said you would?

Did you go through all 25?

I went though a random sampling and showed it was a gish gallop with 100% of the ones I reviewed not supporting your claim. You didn't dispute any of the findings of fact I presented.

So no more gish gallop logical fallacies. Pick one See if you can find one and defend it.

No. I am not going through all 25 that I spent time to find to satisfy your autistic need to be right.

I'm not asking you to. I'm saying don't do a gish gallop. Pick the one that best supports your point that the scientific community was being alarmist over over global cooling.

Start here. Read the paper and tell me how it turns out. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1972.tb00145.x/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=www.reddit.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED

So this is your best shot? The micropalentologist, George Kulka. Ok let's dig in.

So let's review:

1) Peer reviewed? This was was published in "Boreas" as one of the first papers the journal ever published. Here's what they say

Boreas has been published since 1972. Articles of wide international interest from all branches of Quaternary research are published. Biological as well as non-biological aspects of the Quaternary environment, in both glaciated and non-glaciated areas, are dealt with: Climate, shore displacement, glacial features, land forms, sediments, organisms and their habitat, and stratigraphical and chronological relationships. Anticipated international interest, at least within a continent or a considerable part of it, is a main criterion for the acceptance of papers. Besides articles, short items like discussion contributions and book reviews are published.

So. No. This is not a paper published where the scientific community publishes their conclusions. Namely not in a peer-reviewed, fact-checked journal. Is that a disqualification? Well let's not be hasty and continue.

2) Fact-checked Journal? No - we already covered that. in #1. Is that a disqualification? Well let's not be hasty and continue.

3) But let's ignore #1 and #2 for the time being. Let's see if he was using the standards of science from the scientific community. Recall at the time, scientists already knew about CO2 and it's warming effect on the climate. That was a fact of physics. Here's what Kukla says in his paper:

man has had little influence on global climate ... Two facts are highly probable 1) In A.D. 2100 the globe will be cooler than today, and 2) Man-made warming will hardly be noticeable on a global scale at that time.

And what was this statment this based on? Nothing! Not an equation in the paper! Not one calculation of radiative forcing, CO2 density, or any physics at all! (Later, Kukla admitted he was wrong and humans do contribute to global warming.)

So does this paper represent a conclusion from the scientific community? It's not peer reviewed, it's not in a fact-checked journal, it completely ignores the physics of CO2. So this guy was not even writing from a solid set of facts from within science! Fail.

In this paper, just quoting others and not presenting any new findings. He did no calculations! He quote - correctly - that solar activity was predicted to be decreasing and this we've observed.. So if it wasn't for human-caused CO2 we would be in a cooling phase. But ignoring CO2 in a climate prediction is as bad as someone ignoring the wind in a prediction about whether or not a kite will fall or rise. Let's ignore the wind .... and predict all kites will fall!?! Moronic.

So this is your best example? A guy who ignores CO2 entirely and writes for non-fact-checked, general-interest magazines of anticipated international interest? The best you can do is an outlier who says "fuck the physics of CO2?"

Ok then - since you can't present the case that the scientific community was saying "the sky is falling" about global cooling we're done with this claim.

Claim: "The scientific community was saying the sky is falling and predicting global cooling"

Findings: * There were smaller time periods of global cooling and the temperature anomaly measurements were accurate.

• Those who liked to write for the general public in the hysteric media loved to scream about global cooling and coming ice ages to sell advertising.

• The scientific community (e.g. papers that appeared in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked scientific journals) did not.

• Some confuse the mass/hysterial/advertising/general media with the scientific peer-reviewed fact-checked papers. They are different and you can't use

Ok - great. Now we're done with this - let's continue our last point

Speaking of reading released papers: Did you find Lindzen's quote in the 2007 IPCC reports like you said you would?

But you are missing the point. The mere presence of this shows it was present at the time. I know that was a lot of work, but are you saying that this (and the other 24, and the other 200 I found but did not post) somehow happened in a vacuum?

mere presence!?! All sorts of climate hysteria appeared in Time and 1000 other hyping media sources. Is the presence of someone shrieking in the ad-based or general media evidence of a scientific conclusion? Nope. The conclusions of the scientific community are published in the boring, peer-reviewed, fact-checked, scientific journals.

Might as well point to the "mere presence" of someone in 1970 saying the earth is flat.

Another gish gallop?

3.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750020489.pdf

Yep - I already showed you that this one (a masters thesis) didn't support your case. You didn't reply to that.

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0

And you didn't read this one either. This is an opinion piece quoting Kukla (your "best" and failed shot) which QUOTES Kukla and then goes on to say they DISAGREED with KUKLA. LOL. Here's their exact quote:

Last year Kukla [claimed] ... But there is as yet no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. The very article you cite says that Kukla was wrong in his future estimate of "global cooling." And that was the one best source you claimed you could pick for "the scientific community saying the sky was falling"

Let me repeat what they said in that article

no evidence that further cooling is likely

Again a Gish gallop where a sample of the articles don't support your case and in fact claim the opposite

So to restate:

Claim: "The scientific community was saying the sky is falling and predicting global cooling"

Actual Presented Evidence: * There were smaller time periods of global cooling and the temperature anomaly measurements were accurate.

• Those who liked to write for the general public in the hysteric media loved to scream about global cooling and coming ice ages to sell advertising.

• The scientific community (e.g. papers that appeared in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked scientific journals) did not.

• Some confuse the mass/hysterial/advertising/general media with the scientific peer-reviewed fact-checked papers.

Ok - great. Now we're done with this - let's continue our last point

Speaking of reading released papers: Did you find Lindzen's quote in the 2007 IPCC reports like you said you would?

So you went over one, and disregarded the other 24

In your first gish gallop it was 100% media. In your second+third+fourth I went though a random sampling and showed they were gish gallop with 100% of the ones I reviewed (I believe I'm up to 8 of them) were not supporting your claim and in fact showed the opposite of your claim.

You have not disputed any of the findings of fact I presented and in fact again haven't disputed the evidence.

The gish gallop is a logical fallacy and since you can't/won't/don't defend or remove any of the ones that have failed - it destroys your claim. I asked you to pick one that you said was good. You did. I looked at it and instead of defending it - you just dump another gish gallop. Stop running away from evidence.

Speaking of not running away: Did you find Lindzen's quote in the 2007 IPCC reports like you said you would?

Go through all 25, show me there are no references to global cooling in them, and I will admit you are right.

Why should I look at all of your gish gallop when you haven't? The gish gallop is a logical fallacy designed to waste time. I asked you to pick your one best source. You did. I looked at it, showed it to not support your claim, and you refused to defend it and instead did another gish gallop using sources I already showed didn't support your claim.

It doesn't appear then that you are arguing in good faith because you continue to refuse to discuss evidence that disputes your claim.

Speaking discussing evidence that disputes your claim: Did you find Lindzen's quote in the 2007 IPCC reports like you said you would?

I know there are papers in that list,

Do you? Really? Or, to quote, /user/UpperLeftyOne "Do you even know how to find and read peer reviewed studies/journals?" I asked you to pick your one best example to present your case that "the climate science community was claiming that the sky was falling in regards to global cooling." You picked one that failed to support your case.

you chose not to review them.

Um - actually the Mann paper I reviewed and it said the opposite of your claim. You didn't dispute that. I asked you to pick your best example. You did and I reviewed that one too and showed it didn't support your case and you didn't dispute that either. But aside from that - a random sampling and analysis is how disproving a gish gallop works. if you don't want a gish gallop disproved - then don't do a gish gallop.

I went to the work to find them, even pasted a little summary. Until you disprove what I wrote, it is still your turn.

It's easy to disprove what you wrote. The gish gallop logical fallacy is "look at all these things supporting me!" and is disproved easily by finding a random sampling of them and showing they actually proved the opposite of your claim. Yet instead of defending the ones that were disproven, you just say "keep going through all of them!" Gish gallop. I think that you keep getting confused between what's published where the scientific community publishes their conclusions (e.g. the peer-reviewed, fact-checked scientific journals) and all other media is pretty telling.

So if you really still think you have a case - you've yet to show any evidence that "the climate science community was claiming that the sky was falling in regards to global cooling." We're still at the following findings of fact:

• There were smaller time periods of global cooling and the temperature anomaly measurements were accurate.

• Those who liked to write for the general public in the hysteric media loved to scream about global cooling and coming ice ages to sell advertising.

  • The scientific community (e.g. papers that appeared in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked scientific journals) did not.
  • Some confuse the mass/hysterial/advertising/general media with the scientific peer-reviewed fact-checked papers.

Speaking discussing evidence that disputes your claim: Did you find Lindzen's quote in the 2007 IPCC reports like you said you would?

;-)

Close.

Actual quote: "Do you know how to find and read peer reviewed studies/journals and why that is an important tool in eliminating bias?'

I'm going to give you unsolicited advice and hope that you privately take it:

When you're searching for peer reviewed journals on the internet, start your google search with "scholarly article".

Example: "scholarly articles scholarly articles hpv vaccine adverse reactions" would have given you the following peer reviewed studies (in order of relevance): Safety and Immunogenicity Trial in Adult Volunteers of a Human Papillomavirus 16 L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccin

Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination

HPV Vaccine against Anal HPV Infection and Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease in women: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

et etc...

I'm not involved in your argument here about climate issues or I would have used that for the illustration. It will work the same for you in your discussion about climate.

When you're searching for peer reviewed journals on the internet, start your google search with "scholarly article".

That's good advice. You can also start with https://scholar.google.com/ . I hope /u/timo1200 takes this advice and starts to generate conclusions about the science of the world more based on where scientists actually place their conclusions instead of newsweek, hyping MSM, blogs, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, etc.

I'd add to /u/UpperLeftyOne's advice the following:

• when quoting these papers - take the quotes from the "conclusions" section instead of from where the authors are quoting someone else or what the authors think might be wrong or interesting to review and investigate. Case in point: the opinion piece http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0 you quoted as evidence of a prediction of scientists saying here was some global cooling hysteria but when you read the letter (not a paper) in the conclusion the authors were saying "Last year Kukla [claimed] ... But there is as yet no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future. " so showing the opposite of your claims that the scientific community were hysterical about global cooling.

• Stop talking about "sides" and winning vs losing. Everyone wins in science when evidence eliminates claims not supported by the evidence. That's the nature of science. Lindzen/Hayden gained credibility when they apologized for getting the evidence of NASA/GISS temperature anomalies wrong and accepted that the temperature data was correct. Spencer and Christy gained credibility when they apologized and accepted that their satellites were publishing temperature anomaly data that was too low and adjusted their temperature anomaly reports upwards.

The fact that these sources quoted global cooling means it was present.

As I've said - you and I agree that global temperature anomaly measurements are accurate. We see that 1940 decade or so period of cooling in the data

It seems like you are now changing your claim now that "ONLY there existed a period of global cooling." Ok then, If that's your claim - then we agree. Scientists accepted the data of temperature anomaly measurements as accurate and still do. Lindzen apologized and accepts the NOAA/GISS data as accurate too.

Do you now withdraw the other part of your claim that there was a "sky is falling" alarmism in the scientific community about a prediction of global cooling? All the evidence you've provided so far supports the following:

• There were smaller time periods of global cooling and the temperature anomaly measurements were accurate. Scientists acknowledged these accurate temperature anomaly measurements.

• Those who liked to write for the general public in the hysteric media loved to scream about global cooling and coming ice ages to sell advertising.

• The scientific community (e.g. papers that appeared in the peer-reviewed, fact-checked scientific journals) did not.

• Some confuse the opinion pieces/letters/MSM/hysterial-advertising-general media with the scientific peer-reviewed fact-checked papers.

The religion of greed.

I believe the scientific community (the "alarmists") would be happy to admit they're wrong.. they've yet to find someone to provide proof that they are though.

If they are scientists, then the very solid evidence that there is good reason to question their conclusons should be enough to overthrow their certainty. It does not, because that certainty is driven by two things: self-interest, and fanaticism. Neither belong in science.

What solid evidence against anthropogenic climate change are you talking about?

This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever

Dr. Ivar Glaevar unfortunately slipped into the trap that many elderly do in believing everything he reads on the internet as true. How do we know? He said it.

all this is on the internet ... all you have to do is search ... you don't even have to do the calculations ... they are all done for you.

Wot? That IMHO is not the words of a scientist who is still thinking critically.

You can see the talk by noble laureate Dr Glaever and cringe.

Sad to see an old guy follow the same path of many a grandparent and start flooding your inbox with "proof that vaccines cause cancer!!!" because it appeared somewhere on the internet. But a non-emotional review of this talk shows the errors which (IMHO) show the early onset of logical failure. Let's begin ....

He starts his talk and goes on and on about how the vertical axes of temperature measurements are all bogus, but 1) doesn't understand these are anomaly measurements not raw temperature measurements. 2) Then goes on to that same vertical axis but from hoaxer sites which have been caught faking their graph data. And yet he takes this in uncritically.

Bad or Faked data proof. Example 1: Take the graph about how hurricanes are "less now" and across his title it says through 2005. Yet he gave this talk in 2015 and when we look at his graph it shows NO hurricanes of category 5 .... hmmm Hurricane Katrina was in 2005. Missing.

Bad or Faked data proof. Example 2: Compare his chart with bogus data vs good analysis of the same RSS data on top of other measurements that agree

Sad. And what's sadder comes later as he keeps saying

"all this is on the internet ... all you have to do is search ... you don't even have to do the calculations ... they are all done for you"

and you realize that he's become like the old relative who listens to anger media and can't tell good data from bad. And they say "I believe this is true because the internet told me!" Or the old relative who's sent all their money to the Nigerian prince.

The most telling of this is when he uses that same justification of "the internet has all the information" to erroneously claim "all you have to do is light one match to equal all the CO2 emitted by all cars across the entire world in 20 YEARS OF DRIVING!"

Scientists all over the world who heard that "nuterance" cringed as they watched the collapse of what was previously an intelligent person.

Even the simplest of calculations will tell you that is complete and utterly wrong. Even if 100% of the matter in a match was converted to CO2 that's less than a gram of CO2. The ratio of CO2 to other gases emitted when burning gas in a vehicle is 98.8%. In 2011, the weighted average combined fuel economy of cars and light trucks combined was 21.4 miles per gallon (FHWA 2013). The average vehicle miles traveled in 2011 was 11,318 miles per year. that means for just ONE car you've got in ONE year CO2 emissions of (11318 miles)(1/21.4 gal/mile)( 8,887 grams of CO2 / gal ) = 4700 kg of CO2 for ONE CAR in ONE YEAR. Multiply by the number of miles driven by cars around the world? You are BILLIONS of times larger than what you'd get from lighting a match.

TLDR; Giaever's talk is provably false and full of "because the internet said so" rantings.

I see that nowhere in your comment did you address any of the factual evidence presented. Please try again.

I have no idea if Giaever is factually right or wrong about his claim, nor is it relevant one way or another to our discussion.

Interesting. Yet you used him as a source that climate change isn't based in fact. If he turns out to be wrong - would you no longer use him as a trusted source for climate information?

This is what you said:

Global warming has become a religion. This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever

So if Giaever turns out to be factually, provably, wrong about his scientific statements will you stop using him as a trusted source on climate information?

So if Giaever turns out to be factually, provably, wrong about his scientific statements will you stop using him as a trusted source on climate information?

No. The subject here is do climate change activists act like religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if Giaever thinks the moon is made of cheese and the seas are full of Gatorade.

Interesting. Isn't the differentiation between religious fundamentalists vs the opposite, the strength of the hard evidence on which they base their actions? One could say the same thing and use it to attack those who believe in evolution as religious fanatics. If you have someone who is provably wrong in the subject at hand and yet you rely on them as experts, then you've lost the ability to rely on them to claim something is religious fanaticism vs based in science.

Fundamentalists think the debate on evolution is over once they get a "GOTCHA" moment.

So where is the evidence-based decisions part?

/u/timo1200: I have no idea if Giaever is factually right or wrong about his claim,

/u/Lighting: So if Giaever turns out to be factually, provably, wrong about his scientific statements will you stop using him as a trusted source on climate information?

/u/timo1200: No. Fundamentalists think the debate on evolution is over once they get a "GOTCHA" moment.

/u/Lighting: So where is the evidence-based decisions part?

/u/timo1200: Exactly

Ok - let me restate your point and see if I understand your position:

Since you won't/can't make a judgment on the factual nature of the argument - you are reacting to the tone of the participants. Your decision on whether or not you believe in increased CO2 causing global warming is based on the emotion and feelings involved in how people have presented the information. You feel those arguing that increased CO2 causes global warming can't be right no matter what the science says are because it doesn't feel right to you. Do I have your position correct?

I cannot see how I can make it anymore simple.

You can't? Ok. That response speaks pretty loudly to answer the question anyway. Thanks.

Interesting that you repeatedly refer to anger and out of control emotions in your responses.

Nice try to change the topic though. There are two points you've yet to respond to

1) If you say "I have no idea if Giaever is factually right or wrong about his claim," - then how can you make an informed decision about climate change?

2) Do you accept Lindzen's quote is in error when you quoted him saying:

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Do you accept that as being incorrect? Here are the 2007 IPCC reports. Go ahead - you should be able to Ctrl-F and search them quite quickly. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml. If you cannot find that quote in a 2007 report then I think you have to conclude that Lindzen's quote is not accurate.

1) If you can't tell what scientific evidence shows, then you can't make a claim about the truth or falsity of climate change.

2) So you accept Lindzen was wrong in that point? Then you should stop using that as a point to try to prove something.

1. I think I've made my point. Thanks.

2.So we both agree that, because the Alarmist predictions have been proven wrong, future alarmists predictions are irrelevant?

You are attempting whataboutism. Another attempt to change the subject. Each point of evidence stands or fails on its own. Period. You accepted Lindzen's quote was wrong. So that point of evidence fails. Lindzen has made other errors - shall we go into them as well?

Sure, prove Lindzen has made errors. Then eliminate anyone who has ever made an error from having an opinion.

LOL. The point is to eliminate the errors, not the people. That way you can have a conversation based on reliable evidence. So far we've eliminated two falsehoods.

1) Lindzen's quote - not actually what the scientists said.

2) NOAA/GISS - not fraudulently manipulated.

Are we agreed on those two so far?

He seems to have left off a word. I have not looked at all the material from 2007 and have a lot of work to do, so at this point I have not checked.

Ok - please do check and let me know what you find.

He [Lindzen] is by no means the only one with HUGE issues with the GISS data..Data Tampering: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulating Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision

Lindzen used to. He reversed himself and if he still has concerns there's nothing stopping him from publishing a re-analysis with the unchanged raw data (the raw data is unchanged).

Your two links referred to the GISS homogenization process for one location which tracks back to this blog post: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/

But "No, history was not rewritten. What the folks there don't seem to want to acknowledge is that GHCN circulates two files, described here. The file everyone there wants to focus on is the adjusted file (QCA). This, as explained, has been homogenized. This is a preparatory step for its use in compiling a global index. It tries to put all stations on the same basis, and also adjust them, if necessary, to be representative of the region. It is not an attempt to modify the historical record."

And as one would expect. Some go up, some go down and the net effect is symmetric that's a factor of 10 smaller than the measured rise.

The problem with bloggers only getting upset about the one that changes up and not getting upset with the counter that goes down is that their readers get misled into observation bias.

This is confirmation bias, pure and simple.

Yes - confirmation bias. We agree. In order to avoid confirmation bias instead of doing what Homewood does - you look at ALL the devices you see it is not "(almost) always ... an increase in the rate of warming". Some go up some go down and the net effect is symmetric you can see it when you don't pick and choose just 8 sensors like Homewood did.

This is from 2012... The whole thing blew up in 2015?

Your link was for 2012. ( http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/iceland-adjustments-spread-to-norway-and-russia/ )

Societies collectively demand the existence of a dominant religion. The dominant religion in the West used to be Christianity, but that has been mocked and discredited by atheistical liberals, leaving the people with nothing. When you believe in nothing, you are capable of believing in anything. The people make their own religions. Man-made global warming is one of those cultic religions. It has no foundation in reality, it is purely mythical in the true sense of the word.

I feel like I am neutral on the subject but I get tossed in the "you're a fucking retard" bucket.

Yes I agree humans / businesses pollute and it is very bad and we should focus on this rather than saying 100% of scientists agree the sky is falling. The climate on Earth has been changing for 5 billion years, also if we prove humans can impact a planetary climate system, that would be strong evidence we are headed for a Type 1 Civilization, which is a good thing because we can control a planetary climate system in a Type 1.

if we prove humans can impact a planetary climate system, .... because we can control a planetary climate system ....

Impact doesn't imply control, nor does it provide evidence that it is leading toward control. You can impact the life of someone by shooting and killing them, but that doesn't mean you have the ability to control life/death with those same tools. Similarly although it is proven that the recent rise in CO2 is from humans and proven that this has warmed the planet, that does not mean we have the ability to remove that CO2 and/or stop the positive feedback loops that have now started.

Can you comprehend the size of earth? If your answer is yes than you're a liar.

Can you comprehend the size of earth? If your answer is yes than you're a liar.

Does any google engineer comprehend the number of bytes collected by their search engines and still instruct it to operate? Does an astrophysicist comprehend the size of the galaxy and yet measure size of the supernovae beyond it? One doesn't have to comprehend a number to do the calculations with it.

+/- a billion years is a sad calculation

I see that nowhere in your comment did you address any of the factual evidence presented. Please try again.

Ad Hominem.... How many climate scientists were there in 1975?

You were making the point that climate scientists were wrong about "global cooling" so if your point is now that there are too few climate scientists in 1975 to quote so you feel you have to quote from people writing masters papers and from meteorologists writing chapters, you've just destroyed your own point! LOL! So if you want to make the point that "scientists were wrong" about global cooling then it was you who set the rules about them being scientists.

As I said before: A dump of a bunch of media hyping stuff? Another dump of masters papers and opinion pieces by those who actually say "I have no idea about the atmosphere" AHAHAHAHAH.

You can find a shit-ton of time, newsweek, blogs, FOX, vlog, .... non-science media sites selling catastrophe in order to get eyeballs and sell advertising. You can find a shit-ton of opinion pieces by armchair scientists who wrote lots of letters that kind of say "I guess." Does that impact the evidence as published in peer-reviewed journals. Nope.

In a fact-based, evidence-based, discussion regarding science, what matters is what the boring, non-catastrophe science says .

And the science is driven forward by what's published in the peer-reviewed journals. You want to prove science was predicting global cooling? Then you set the requirements that this was serious and moved forward in the scientific community. You made your bed. Now you get to lie in it.

I presented 25 examples of global cooling and found a few hundred more.

A Gish gallop is a logical fallacy.

I could link them all, but you will just try to argue over their validity.

Nope - I'd just again pick a few at random and see if they were weak as is indicative of a gish gallop. If the random sample found they didn't support your case - then there is no point in continuing with more analysis of a gish gallop.

I presented 25 examples of global cooling ... we know the globe did not cool

You provided 25 examples of something that didn't happen? HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Bravo - you just contradicted yourself.

Do you even know what your point is any more?