Climate Change (Page 3)

Sorry, I didn't realize your link to an ad hominem attack on people's integrity based on easily disproven allegations was a careless mistake on your part.  I'll go back and check out all your posts that link to studies gathering data and testing alternative hypotheses to reach conclusions - you know, science.

That may or may not be true......but one thing is for certain....the money IS the money.   

You call me naïve, but did you bother to check and see whether that article you posted was true or not or did you just take Fox News's word for it?  If you had bothered, it would have taken a 0.0002 seconds search on Google to find that the so-called corruption claims against the NOAA scientist are BS.  You claim the "institution" (which one exactly? science in general?) has " repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data" yet all you ever cite are partisan hit pieces that are easily shown to be false.  If don't like the message make up stuff to slime the messenger I guess.  You claim to be fascinated in the science and interested in understanding what's going on, yet apparently you never were curious enough to find out why temperature data might need to be adjusted (in the NOAA study for example, they were using sea surface temperatures measured from buoys and from ship's engine intakes.  The measurements taken from the engine intakes are biased higher because engines are hot, so those temps are adjusted lower to account for this unnatural influence).  If I'm being naïve for believing thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries, governments, universities, public and private research organizations, etc,, transparently posting their data and methods in order to independently corroborate multiple lines of evidence, I'm ok with that.

Your example sounds great about modifying current data that's being received but what's the justification for modifying data that's almost 100 years old?  Also, what's the justification for always making it colder in the past, yet all the current data modifications ironically seem to make the current day temperatures "warmer".

Yes, big science comes up with lots of great reasons and big words for "adjusting" the data, but it still doesn't change the fact that they're adjusting the data.
The temperature data is not the temperature data if it continues to be adjusted in the future.  
Here's a direct quote form the NOAA: "Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections."
Translated, yes we change the data to "correct it".  Why not just leave the data raw?

There is no form of science I'm aware of outside of Climate Science where any opposing theory is shouted down as moronic, denier, blah blah.  That alone tells us that it's not science, it's dogma.  Heck, I'm not even this adamant about Christianity.  

Oroville, Ca. residents being evacuated as Lake Oroville tops it's damaged spillway due to recent rainfall.  Man, climate change caused the drought that dropped the lake to nearly 40% and then climate change caused it to overflow.....I need a scorecard. 

Next on deck.......hell freezes over. 

I guess I'm fascinated and curious why skeptics are so determined to cherry pick data to reinforce their own view.

Sure I can see why the CEO of Exxon might want to push climate change denial.  It affects his bottom line, at least in the short term.  But @tuwood - and I say this with no disrespect - I can't see a reason why it would have any direct effect on you.  I mean yeah you're a business owner but correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think that's an oil company right?

So if that's the case, why do you seem so determined that climate change science is a farce?  I'm asking that honestly not sarcastically.

Put it another way: imagine there was just ONE measure we could take that gave an absolute 100% answer about humans' effect on climate change.  And that measurement said: yes, we are causing it.

*Right now* I'm guessing that would not affect you in any way.  Extend that: let's say the world wants to make policy changes to do something about it.  Would that affect you?  How much?  Take into account that some republicans have a slightly different plan from what the democrats were pushing.

The same types of things happen with 100 year old temperature records - stations change locations, type of thermometers, time of day they make observations, change from rural to urban, etc. I'm sure since you're so interested in understanding this properly that you've already looked into reasons data might need to be corrected, but in case you need more background check here.  Whether or not people call each other names is a bizarre way to judge whether something is "science" or not (as opposed to, I don't know, whether or not it follows the scientific method) but that might just be me blindly following big science.

you realize a republican spin guy named it global warming to make it sound less scary right? That wasn't the scientists.  The scientists call it global climate change because thats a more accurate description.

Valid questions and I certainly don't take it disrespectfully. 

My interest in the topic of Global Warming is rooted in my interest in Weather in general.  As a young kid I was always fascinated by storms and large weather events and it naturally translated into Climate Science as I got older.  I'm certainly not a scientist, but I do follow the topic (as well as other weather phenomena) quite closely.  I'm also a Pilot and that requires a lot of study of the weather.  Obviously weather and climate are two completely different things, but they are interrelated in many ways.

Where my initial skepticism, if you will, came in was when people and politicians took legitimate scientific concerns about Global Warming and started to fear monger with it.  We all could name off dozens of ridiculous proclamations from the last few decades of total devastation to the planet if we don't change our ways.
To even get further outside of climate science, I have been involved in writing, lobbying, and passing legislation for things (not related to climate) and really saw just how corrupt our government is.  It's often called taking the red pill (matrix reference) and being woke to our government when you get to peek under the covers.  
To over simplify what I've learned.  The government uses fear to convince people it's OK to steal their money.  If you don't let us raise your house taxes then we'll have to close down this school and lay off all these teachers... You don't want us to do that do you?

Anyways, transpose my knowledge of how our government works and then overlay the fear being touted by the multi-billion $ (probably trillion) Climate industry there's a perfect consistency which makes me want to dive deeper.  
If you go back in time with Mann's infamous and wildly debunked hockey stick in the 90's we didn't have much time left.  All of the models and predictions were that the earth was going to warm at an out of control pace and cause massive destruction everywhere.  It was certainly a valid hypothesis and scientists created many models and predictions based on their models but they all failed miserably when applied to real world data.  Many scientists have come up with multitudes of excuses and ways to justify why the models were wrong and to even say they weren't really wrong there are just other phenomenon (that we didn't know about at the time) that "hid" the increase but the increase is still really there. 

Every year that goes by the Climate industry is getting a little more desperate to prove they were right.  Lets just say for a minute that the contribution of man is completely insignificant to Global Warming and the alarm is dropped.  There are hundreds and hundreds of industries who will crumble.  The stakes are very high and they're very real to them no matter if it's true or not.  I know everyone likes to make fun of the oil industry who has a vested interest in making carbon great again, but the Climate industry has every bit as much incentive to push for harsher and harsher Carbon restrictions. 

All that being said, I 100% agree that the earth is getting warmer and has been for millions of years.  I also 100% agree that man contributes to the warming.  What I don't know, and also believe science doesn't know is what level of the warming is a result of man's contribution, and is it even significant.
Remember, the "global temperature" increased almost exactly as much in the early 1900's as it did in the late 1900's and has obviously increased a lot more prior to that (think ice age).

So, to answer your question it's not so much that I cherry pick the data, it's that I take a much less narrow view of the issue.  I also don't discount skeptical viewpoints as the "scientific community" often does on this topic.  Trust me, there are some whack jobs on the "skeptic side" and I treat them as such.  However, there are also some very solid scientists on the other side of this issue that people simply ignore because it doesn't fit their belief (which is not science). 

I couldn't believe all of the robins in my yard yesterday......definitely global warming....er....global climate change causing this early migration.  Hell, I've still got hummingbirds at my feeders.  What is going on here??

My understanding is that scientist Wally Broecker coined the term in his "Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global warming" paper in 1975.

Yeah, obviously sometimes legitimate corrections are necessary but the methods and reasoning for the corrections need to be fully transparent and withstand scrutiny.

For example, you are absolutely correct about the ship inlet temperatures being too hot.  However, the whole issue with the "whistle blower" who came out at the NOAA was that in the NOAA version 4 dataset of sea temperatures they didn't adjust the ship temperatures they adjusted the reliable buoy readings and adjusted them upwards and justified it by using warmer readings from the seawater intakes on ships.
This wasn't some whack job denier or fox news hit piece, it was from Dr John Bates who was one of the two NOAA principal scientists working on climate issues who made the accusation (or blew the whistle). 

I don't have time to peruse your links at work today, but I will read through them later. 

So to extend that discussion, if man is causing some amount of warming, when does it become worth it to change the status quo?

Obviously the holy grail of power generation is nuclear fusion.  But we're always 50 years away from that

That's a great question and I don't know the answer.  Personally I believe that you and I probably agree on a lot things when it comes to the things we should be doing regardless of what the science is saying.  I am a huge fan of alternative energy and sustainability.  I'm also a huge fan of keeping the environment clean and most certainly still want clean air regulations. 

Where my panties get in a bunch is the alarmism, taxation, and wasteful special interest spending when it comes to Big Climate.  I also feel the same way about taxation and special interest spending when it comes to Big Oil.

Honestly, I find it exhausting with you sometimes because we can often get to an interesting discussion on the science - you're obviously interested in it and have a good understanding, and ask good questions, but you lose all credibility when you make claim after claim and post link after link to easily disproven, intentionally misleading BS (Mann's hocky stick was NOT debunked, yes there was warming in the early 1900's, but we know why, and why it's different from the warming we're seeing now, no, models have NOT failed miserably, though skeptics predictions haven't fared well, and on and on and on and on..) and it takes me being a d*ck to you, which I hate, because we usually get to a good discussion about the science way down the line, even if you only seem inetrested in the science that tries to poke holes in climate research.  Which is fine, there's a place for that, and that's what science is all about, but you never seem interested in looking into whether those critiques actually have any merit, so I'm left wondering why should I bother, especially when I still have two more seasons of Homeland to get through to get caught up, if all you're interested in is articles with sensational click bait headlines.  At least that's the impression it leaves with me when you post junk like that.  Someone sarcastically asked about the Maldives, but we are seeing the effects of sea level rise today, it's already costing tax payers money, and it's only going to get worse.  But sure let's keep wasting time with misleading, uninformed gotcha articles