(January 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: And mike Hulme's bit too

Post it please.

Here is a link, I'm at work so I don't have a lot of time. Shouldve kept quiet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/ue...ts-course/

(January 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Post it please.

Here is a link, I'm at work so I don't have a lot of time. Shouldve kept quiet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/ue...ts-course/

Well take your time, lol.

This is just an opinion article. You haven't shown where evidence was covered up by IPCC. Which was your original claim.

(January 2, 2014 at 4:56 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Here is a link, I'm at work so I don't have a lot of time. Shouldve kept quiet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/ue...ts-course/

Well take your time, lol.

This is just an opinion article. You haven't shown where evidence was covered up by IPCC. Which was your original claim.

I wasn't ever referring to the IPCC covering up data per se. It how they originally achieved consensus. Just to be clear, I'm not saying global isn't happening or not man made, I haven't researched the science enough to make that decision. My concern as I mentioned before is that people with a agenda are pushing global warming, and I fear that with the way things often are in the media that it may not be possible to let the scientific method do its job.

(January 2, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 4:56 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Well take your time, lol.

This is just an opinion article. You haven't shown where evidence was covered up by IPCC. Which was your original claim.

I wasn't ever referring to the IPCC covering up data per se. It how they originally achieved consensus. Just to be clear, I'm not saying global isn't happening or not man made, I haven't researched the science enough to make that decision. My concern as I mentioned before is that people with a agenda are pushing global warming, and I fear that with the way things often are in the media that it may not be possible to let the scientific method do its job.

uhm, ok. Because you said with climategate you couldn't trust IPCC, so I looked that up, that was an accusation that they covered up evidence.

Yea, it's abundantly clear that in the US people like to lie about climate change just like they do about evolution. It's no use implying science isn't science because you're not sure what is going on. So I think you should look it up. For you both scenarios are equally possible, so why should it be a problem that there are some of us who have made up our minds and say global warming is real?

Again with this exceptionalism when it comes to global warming. The media has never affected evolutionary science, has it? I don't understand the double standard, it just looks like conspiracy theorists' methods.

(January 2, 2014 at 6:03 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I wasn't ever referring to the IPCC covering up data per se. It how they originally achieved consensus. Just to be clear, I'm not saying global isn't happening or not man made, I haven't researched the science enough to make that decision. My concern as I mentioned before is that people with a agenda are pushing global warming, and I fear that with the way things often are in the media that it may not be possible to let the scientific method do its job.

uhm, ok. Because you said with climategate you couldn't trust IPCC, so I looked that up, that was an accusation that they covered up evidence.

Yea, it's abundantly clear that in the US people like to lie about climate change just like they do about evolution. It's no use implying science isn't science because you're not sure what is going on. So I think you should look it up. For you both scenarios are equally possible, so why should it be a problem that there are some of us who have made up our minds and say global warming is real?

Again with this exceptionalism when it comes to global warming. The media has never affected evolutionary science, has it? I don't understand the double standard, it just looks like conspiracy theorists' methods.

Well the, evolution debate has been effected a great deal by the media, and if it wasn't for the abilities of one Thomas Huxley in debate it could've been affected a good deal more. Now the way it is affecting the actual scientific work is like this. Until recently many scientists were afraid to publish work that could be interpreted as evidence against global warming, because as the climategate emails showed, it could turn colleagues against them and have them equivocated to holocaust deniers by the public. That has only begun to change.

(January 2, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 6:03 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: uhm, ok. Because you said with climategate you couldn't trust IPCC, so I looked that up, that was an accusation that they covered up evidence.

Yea, it's abundantly clear that in the US people like to lie about climate change just like they do about evolution. It's no use implying science isn't science because you're not sure what is going on. So I think you should look it up. For you both scenarios are equally possible, so why should it be a problem that there are some of us who have made up our minds and say global warming is real?

Again with this exceptionalism when it comes to global warming. The media has never affected evolutionary science, has it? I don't understand the double standard, it just looks like conspiracy theorists' methods.

Well the, evolution debate has been effected a great deal by the media, and if it wasn't for the abilities of one Thomas Huxley in debate it could've been affected a good deal more. Now the way it is affecting the actual scientific work is like this. Until recently many scientists were afraid to publish work that could be interpreted as evidence against global warming, because as the climategate emails showed, it could turn colleagues against them and have them equivocated to holocaust deniers by the public. That has only begun to change.

You see, you said you weren't accusing them of covering up evidence, but now here you are. That's exactly what the creationists say about evolution! They say they get persecuted for publishing it, even the guy who advocates the stork theory of reproduction says the same thing.

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/lack-o...307ja.html

And then there are media articles like this.

(December 31, 2013 at 3:41 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Plugged the data into SPSS myself (note that I did 1998-2012 as 2013 is as yet incomplete and the data doesn't exist for december)



Was about to concede the point, but being the good science penguin that I am, rather than just eyeballing the graph and going "yeah theres some warming going on thar", I ran Pearson's correlation:

N: 180 (months)
r = .133
significance = .075

P > .05
Therefore not significant
:3

So yes, quite happy Trend-line schmend-schmine

I'm an SPSS newb though, so chances are I've done something horribly wrong (P < .05).

Oh man I cannot get away from this software lol. I am learning foundation of statistics as a prereq for my uni degree I want to get.

Looks like you have interperated the result ok, not sure about the data used though.

The IPCC isn't the only data on global warming. There's a lot, but every time they come up all of them get the same bullshit from the same people. IPCC doesn't produce data anyway, they just analyze it. People just don't like to think that there is global warming. And there is plenty of propaganda to help you along with that wishful thinking. I mean there are actually people who think that being fat isn't unhealthy, it's just a government propaganda.

I'm willing to see data showing that there is no global warming. Or science showing that greenhouse gases do not have greenhouse effects. That CO2 levels haven't risen. That sea levels haven't risen. Ice caps aren't melting. No increase in anomalous climate events. Things like that, show me data and I will concede. Trying to say data is affected by the media is like ... it's just an admission that your argument doesn't have data.

Oh and lemon, in case you missed it, I linked you an article that sums up the chlorine particles in the stratosphere and they're largely manmade, that's one of the way to know that the damage on the ozone is anthropogenic. If you can find data showing volcanoes emit more CFC in total than humans (they do have ways to measure both) then post it, or CCl4. And also about CO2 and volcanoes, same drill.

(January 2, 2014 at 6:20 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Well the, evolution debate has been effected a great deal by the media, and if it wasn't for the abilities of one Thomas Huxley in debate it could've been affected a good deal more. Now the way it is affecting the actual scientific work is like this. Until recently many scientists were afraid to publish work that could be interpreted as evidence against global warming, because as the climategate emails showed, it could turn colleagues against them and have them equivocated to holocaust deniers by the public. That has only begun to change.

You see, you said you weren't accusing them of covering up evidence, but now here you are. That's exactly what the creationists say about evolution! They say they get persecuted for publishing it, even the guy who advocates the stork theory of reproduction says the same thing.

I'm not saying anything about the IPCC covering it up. I was talking about scientists being fearful to publish contrary results for what it may do to their reputation. Unfortunately yes creationists say the same thing about evolution. But it happens in every field to some (very small) extent because sometimes scientists are thinking more about themselves then they are about the science. Its not a conspiracy, it just the fact that they are human with hopes and fears too.