@percussim "The essence of this presentation is testing the hypothesis that man made CO2 is causing global warming."--
Besides that AGW is much more than a hypothesis - If you want to prove a scientific theory wrong, you have to do research which results finally falsify the theory. But Bob Carter isn't doing that. He talks to audiences of laymen, using arguments from which he probably knows that they are invalid and manipulative. Hence the essence of it is merely propaganda, not science.
@percussim [...] But the temperature of the last decades even has exceeded the temp. maxima of the MWP, so it becomes obvious even to laymen that this argument is void. So if you still want to sell it to your audience, you either have to manipulate the curve (many others do that instead), or you simply have to cut the part which disproves your point. Some "skeptics" like Carter prefer that, since leaving out facts appears less dishonest than intentional manipulation, in case of exposure.
@percussim I guess you refer to my comment. See, the point is that (self-proclaimed) skeptics use the argument that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than nowaday, and that without manmade CO2. This argument is already destroyed by the fact that the MWP wasn't a global event. But you still can sell it to a gullible audience who doesn't know that. [...]
"Climategate" is mereley fiction. Hence, same as all other GW deniers, you will not be able to back up your ridiculous claim. I bet you haven't even read a single one of those "climategate" emails, except for some mined quotes you got from a blog, or Fox News perhaps.
""Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory."--
Now you're just being silly. Global warming is observable and measurable, and even staunch "skeptics" any longer deny that.
@pringenb "2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false"
No. Take a look at the datasets of leading reasearch organisations / institutes and you will see that your assumption is wrong. You probably made that up yourself, did you?
"But you probably got your data from the IPCC"--
No. I always get my data from first hand sources which I can name (see previous comment).
@pringenb "Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005."--
The total heat content of the earth, which actually is relevant, is still increasing at an accelerated rate. Stagnations in atmospheric temperature increase mostly are due to energy transfers between atmosphere and oceans.
----
References:
"An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950", Murphy et al., 2009
"Earth's Global Energy Budget", Trenberth et al., 2009
Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005. The "fact" that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false because the temp's from the model came from inside cities, in areas which the temps have never come from before. 2005 through 2009 experienced slight temp decreases each year. But you probably got your data from the IPCC, which used data from 2 sources involved in climate gate. "Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory.
My understanding of his work in this subject is more media related. I didn't want to watch past his rubbishing mmcc lntro. maybe l'll watch it when I've got more tolerance |
It's intersting that the chart ends at 2000. Perhaps Bob didn't like to show us the increasing temperature after 2000 which exceeded that of the MWP already in 2005. Well, it would have destroyed your previous "it's cooling since 1998" myth, wouldn't it Bob?
Anyway, the MWP wasn't a global event. It only happened in parts of the NH, including Europe and the North Atlantic.
Bob tries to rebut AGW by presenting a short term trend, how pathetic. But the present time already made a fool out of poor Bob: 2005, where the chart ends, became the hottest year on record, only to be exeeded by 2010 five years later.
It also shows, that Bob doesn't know the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming not only refers to atmospheric temperatures, but to the total heat content.
@percussim "The essence of this presentation is testing the hypothesis that man made CO2 is causing global warming."--
Besides that AGW is much more than a hypothesis - If you want to prove a scientific theory wrong, you have to do research which results finally falsify the theory. But Bob Carter isn't doing that. He talks to audiences of laymen, using arguments from which he probably knows that they are invalid and manipulative. Hence the essence of it is merely propaganda, not science.
MaluronLurette 5 months ago
@percussim [...] But the temperature of the last decades even has exceeded the temp. maxima of the MWP, so it becomes obvious even to laymen that this argument is void. So if you still want to sell it to your audience, you either have to manipulate the curve (many others do that instead), or you simply have to cut the part which disproves your point. Some "skeptics" like Carter prefer that, since leaving out facts appears less dishonest than intentional manipulation, in case of exposure.
MaluronLurette 5 months ago
@percussim I guess you refer to my comment. See, the point is that (self-proclaimed) skeptics use the argument that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than nowaday, and that without manmade CO2. This argument is already destroyed by the fact that the MWP wasn't a global event. But you still can sell it to a gullible audience who doesn't know that. [...]
MaluronLurette 5 months ago
@pringenb "climate gate"--
"Climategate" is mereley fiction. Hence, same as all other GW deniers, you will not be able to back up your ridiculous claim. I bet you haven't even read a single one of those "climategate" emails, except for some mined quotes you got from a blog, or Fox News perhaps.
""Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory."--
Now you're just being silly. Global warming is observable and measurable, and even staunch "skeptics" any longer deny that.
MaluronLurette 5 months ago
@pringenb "2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false"
No. Take a look at the datasets of leading reasearch organisations / institutes and you will see that your assumption is wrong. You probably made that up yourself, did you?
"But you probably got your data from the IPCC"--
No. I always get my data from first hand sources which I can name (see previous comment).
MaluronLurette 5 months ago
@pringenb "Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005."--
The total heat content of the earth, which actually is relevant, is still increasing at an accelerated rate. Stagnations in atmospheric temperature increase mostly are due to energy transfers between atmosphere and oceans.
----
References:
"An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950", Murphy et al., 2009
"Earth's Global Energy Budget", Trenberth et al., 2009
NASA/GISS dataset, NOAA, MPI.
MaluronLurette 5 months ago
@MaluronLurette
Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005. The "fact" that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false because the temp's from the model came from inside cities, in areas which the temps have never come from before. 2005 through 2009 experienced slight temp decreases each year. But you probably got your data from the IPCC, which used data from 2 sources involved in climate gate. "Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory.
pringenb 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Bushvision
My understanding of his work in this subject is more media related. I didn't want to watch past his rubbishing mmcc lntro. maybe l'll watch it when I've got more tolerance |
dmlt12 7 months ago
-> "Test 2" (is todays gl. warming...):
It's intersting that the chart ends at 2000. Perhaps Bob didn't like to show us the increasing temperature after 2000 which exceeded that of the MWP already in 2005. Well, it would have destroyed your previous "it's cooling since 1998" myth, wouldn't it Bob?
Anyway, the MWP wasn't a global event. It only happened in parts of the NH, including Europe and the North Atlantic.
MaluronLurette 7 months ago
-> "Test 1" (has global temperature warmed):
Bob tries to rebut AGW by presenting a short term trend, how pathetic. But the present time already made a fool out of poor Bob: 2005, where the chart ends, became the hottest year on record, only to be exeeded by 2010 five years later.
It also shows, that Bob doesn't know the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming not only refers to atmospheric temperatures, but to the total heat content.
MaluronLurette 7 months ago