I answered this once already t'other day, but the site decided to fix stuff and reject my comment...it's not worth another hour of my time. A quick
blast...
Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
No. I consider it to be a 'dramatic increase' because it starts below the other data sets, then rises above them. This is glaringly
obvious because it's in bold. Maybe, they did just run out of colours ( 
) though, that's ok.
Yet, if we extend it a few decades in the past it isn't 'below' the others, if we look a few decades on from the start it isn't 'below'. In
fact, at just after 1800 a couple of dendro plots show a real dramatic increase from a minima, while the borehole is middling. It isn't even as
dramatic in it's trend as the modern observational data. The dataset is clearly labelled as just another set of data.
You're just trying to suggest an intention to deceive from some barely noted data plot. Hence the continuous inane references to it being in bold,
lol. This borehole dataset is all but ignored by deniers and others, it could be in fluorescent pink with flashing stars, it would still have had
little
impact. These people are too busy showing their derangement towards Michael Mann and Keith Briffa.
Don't know what you're worrying about, not as if most of you would have even bothered to read the IPCC report.
I'll admit I didn't know what it represented, other than the fact it's different from all the other data sets, as it is in bold. You
said yourself that the resolution is 'a bit naff'. But I made no such claims. There was clearly a '?' at the end of the sentence, which generally
implies a question, not a claim. Who's being dishonest now?
Nope, you're making the claim. You've been trying to support it, and still are now. You can try to be cute, but you're transparent.
But when groups such as Gore and co, and the IPCC have been known to intentionally exaggerate their claims of disastrous warming, with a
political agenda in mind, then Yes. I do believe that to be fallacious.
And now the claim makes a full explicit appearance. As I said, transparent. The IPCC is very conservative in its summary of the science.
It actually goes science --> policy. The science has been around for over 100 years. Unless you think Arrhenius was trying to underpin Gore's
supposedly nefarious money-making motives.
Correct. They summarise only the science that agrees with their pre-determined conclusion. This has been shown time and time again, with many
of the reviewers leaving due to the political influence's.
1st Co Chair of IPCC admits politics rules not science
So if those projections are exagerated or incorrect, we can't change the outcome. But we are being forced to accept this
And now we have another claim of dishonesty. You're just another anti-science ideologue. That's fine, of course. You'll find good company on
ATS.
Houghton admitted no such thing. The IPCC summarises the science for policymakers. Indeed, the IPCC is very conservative and the current science is
much more extreme than IPCC-science-by-committee.
Every major scientific organisation knows the score. Not just the IPCC.
So what? So our money is being syphoned off to pay for a solution that will do next to nothing to help our environment. This has nothing to do
with being a communist or a capitilist. I am not happy to watch wealth going into the hands of others over fallacious claims.
More claims of dishonesty. However, the claims are not fallacious but are well-supported science. We therefore need to make a choice. We can ignore
the science and decide not to act for all I care, I love experiments. We only have a sample size of one and we depend on it for our existence, but
lets go for it.
The UN has intended to intoduce a global pollution tax(carbon tax) for years, to further a global governance agenda, not reduce climate change.
This is not conspiracy theory, but laid out in their own reports, as shown
here.
You are misrepresenting the article. It doesn't say what you say it does. The HD article says:
global taxation may become necessary in any case to achieve the goals of global human security.
May =/= intend.
Indeed, cap and trade is favoured by many. Carbon tax by others.
Cap and trade may have worked for SO2, but the effects and consequences are far, far more consequential for CO2.
Again, arguing from consequences. Cap and trade worked well with little economic impact. Similarly, reliable estimates of the impact of CO2 cap and
trade also show minimal impact. And I don't mean the made up scheidt from the right-wing blogosphere.
Nah, attacking Gore just shows the irony of your claim
"Actually expected better from your goodself, Oz. From others here, I do expect statistical and scientific naivete (along with obfuscation,
misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).
when it happens on both sides of the fence, by the people who are pushing an agenda. Saying that my "ideological brethren"(whoever they are) are
"anti-science" is bollocks. The real science suggests that claims from many of the AGW crowd are exagerated, or misrepresented.
No ideologies neccessary.
Whatchoo on about?
I consider Oz a friend on here, and knowing a bit about his background was a bit perplexed by his inane comments and opinions.
You are anti-science. You clearly express it. And the scientific illiteracy here is on show each day.
A better solution would be to promote a better standard of living for many people, which doesn't focus purely on the emmisions of a trace
atmospheric gas. IMO, there are far more important things we should be looking into to improve our living conditions, but these won't generate enough
profit for the people pushing AGW.
The 'people pushing AGW' is just scientists producing the data. Most rational people tend to use evidence to determine behaviour. Should they lie to
satisfy your ideology? You see, it wasn't the scientists gagging right-wing oil-drunk politicians and altering their reports. And here you just show
more of your anti-science credentials.
It's a noble sentiment to want to improve living conditions for others. However, I'm sure the Bangladeshis might prefer to be above water than to
have Wifi and laptops. But, hey, perhaps I'm wrong.
I'm bored of your scattergun BS. The thread is about recent trends in climate.
[edit on 18-10-2009 by melatonin]
Are you worried, perhaps? A bit insecure? 
