Are greens fascists?

[Gropes]

I suspect that what you call "bashing mainstream scientist and misinterpreting science" is what most people would think of as "scientific argument". I know this can sometimes degenerate into name-calling, but then there is no progress in understanding. Therefore, name-calling is best avoided. If you still mean something different by "bashing", then please tell me what.

As far as Phil Jones is concerned, I can't change what he said. My take is that he was very honest in acknowledging the scientific uncertainties, but also clear that he hadn't changed his opinion, which is (of course) fine. Regarding cherry picking a cooling trend, I've tried to be clear that I see cycles in the data and not trends, and this applies to the behaviour observed since 2002 as well. I completely agree that the time period involved is still too short to draw any firm conclusions, but nonetheless the fact of the cooling seen in the temperature record remains.

You still go on about the 2002 and 2009 bs?? I can see you will never stop at attempting to cherry pick to prove your point!

I can see that you really have it in for Singer, but I think your reasons are derived from propaganda sources, rather than any arguments he makes. Admittedly, you have dismissed the NIPCC critique as unfounded, but without detailing any specific exceptions. I think you have not read it, and are again picking up on the general message from the propaganda sites you use. Who do you think is really spinning the science for the purpose of an agenda? To me, it seems far more likely to be these propaganda sites.

I also think that you have picked up the debating tactic of being rude and offensive from these propaganda sources. Read them critically: they have no rational arguments. They are cult science at its worst, an example of everything that is wrong with the modern environmental movement. Yet you seem willing to accept everything you read there at face value. Now I know this part of the forum is a good place for an argument, and obviously I'm all in favour, but the name-calling and repetition is starting to get a bit tiresome. Why can't you just accept that there is a genuine difference of opinion and proceed from there?

Bit rich coming from you lot when on my first day forum on and already you lot had it in for me. So call me abusive, go check you and your ilks posts!! I'm only using the debating tactics you lot use!

And for Singer, you probably didn't know he is the main author of the Alternative Consensus. A document I found full of holes to which you have absolutley no comment on. If indeed you were a scientist, you would be looking at the bastardisation of science he carries out so he can sell it the likes of you and Mike.

And as for you, all you can do is shower yourself with your own self-serving statements on how scientific your approach is when all you do is try to misinterpret science. Therefore I find it very hard you are an academic of any sort but most probably some armchair hack with delusions of grandeur.

[Philip]

You still go on about the 2002 and 2009 bs?? I can see you will never stop at attempting to cherry pick to prove your point!

Why not try having a look at the actual data?

And for Singer, you probably didn't know he is the main author of the Alternative Consensus. A document I found full of holes to which you have absolutley no comment on.

I think you must be referring to the NIPCC report I mentioned above. Why not let us know one of the points with which you disagree? If you do, I will try to comment on it.

...all you can do is shower yourself with your own self-serving statements on how scientific your approach is when all you do is try to misinterpret science ...

Please state two examples where you believe I have misinterpreted or misrepresented the science for you.

[Gropes]

Why not try having a look at the actual data?

It's not getting through your thick skull is it!!!! What did Phil Jones say?? He's 100% the climate has warmed!!! How much clearer is that! Why do you insist on cherry picking years to prove global cooling?!!???!!

I think you must be referring to the NIPCC report I mentioned above. Why not let us know one of the points with which you disagree? If you do, I will try to comment on it.

I'm referrring to what is known as the alternative consensus from the NIPCC. Why don't you explain to me how cosmic rays can explain late 20th century warming?

Please state two examples where you believe I have misinterpreted or misrepresented the science for you.

See above!!

[Mike Davis]

CHIA Groupie:
Your first posts provided you with the groupie label because you display the characteristics of a Groupie:
group·ie
   /ˈgrupi/ Show Spelled[groo-pee] Show IPA
–nounInformal.
1.
a young person, esp. a teenage girl, who is an ardent admirer of rock musicians and may follow them on tour.
2.
an ardent fan of a celebrity or of a particular activity: a tennis groupie.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/groupie
You are a alarmist advocate Groupie!

You still do not understand what Jones said in his interview and both Philip and I have provided exact wording and copy and paste of parts of that interview. You are still trying to find some magical meaning to Jones' words. He said what he said.

As for the NIPCC the only consensus is that there are alternative theories about the climate changes. The Cosmic ray thing is probable enough that they are going to do experiments at the CERN site and the cosmic rays are not a cause for warming but a decrease cosmic rays equal a decrease in clouds according to the theory. That would link it to Roy Spencer's theory that a 2% reduction in global cloud cover since 1975 lead to the warming experienced since then. That reduction in cloud cover is shown in the Earthshine research results. This all relates back to changes in solar activity that has been observed to be related to changes in climate since the early Chinese astronomers and picked up by English scientists who observed the change in crop output was related to solar activity. The 60 year PDO was discovered and named by fishery researchers studying the migration habits of fish stocks.

I do find it interesting that Phil Jones does not think 15 years is statistically significant now when he thought 12 years of weather data provided enough evidence to claim catastrophic warming in the late 80s along with Hansen who made the pronouncement in 1987. The IPCC was formed to find the human cause for warming in 1988 just 13 years after the climate shift of 1975. So it was good then but not good now?

You keep going on about Cherry Picking yet ignore the issue of the Hockey Stick and all of its progeny relied on Cherry Picking proxies that provided the desired results which was admitted many times. How about the e-mail where they discussed not changing the base period of 1950 to 1980 because to change it would make the resulting anomalies not as dramatic.

[Philip]

Why not try having a look at the actual data?

It's not getting through your thick skull is it!!!! What did Phil Jones say?? He's 100% the climate has warmed!!!

He's certain that according to the CRU record, the climate warmed during the 20th century. Equally, he agrees that there was a cooling after 2002. This is what he has said. You can read about it in the interview transcript and see it visually in a plot of the CRU temperature record. This is the reason I suggested you try looking at the actual data.

I'm referrring to what is known as the alternative consensus from the NIPCC. Why don't you explain to me how cosmic rays can explain late 20th century warming?

The suggestion is that cosmic rays seed low cloud formation. Since the overall effect of low clouds is cooling, an increase in cosmic rays will tend to have a cooling effect, whereas a decrease is likely to result in warming. When the magnetic flux near the earth is high, this tends to deflect cosmic rays before they have a chance to enter the earth's lower atmosphere. Therefore, an increase in magnetic flux will result in fewer cosmic rays and hence a warming climate. Some measurements have suggested there was an increase in magnetic flux during the late 20th century, hence a possible cause for the observed warming.

CERN's Jasper Kirkby has written a very good peer-reviewed article about the cosmic ray theory if you are interested in finding out more, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 1938v1.pdf. This article also contains references to the extensive literature on the subject.

Please state two examples where you believe I have misinterpreted or misrepresented the science for you.

See above!!

Please be a bit more specific. How can I respond to you if you won't tell me what the problem is?

[Gropes]

He's certain that according to the CRU record, the climate warmed during the 20th century. Equally, he agrees that there was a cooling after 2002. This is what he has said. You can read about it in the interview transcript and see it visually in a plot of the CRU temperature record. This is the reason I suggested you try looking at the actual data.

No he didn't, it was the interviewer who asked the question!! That's why Phil Jones responded with a 'No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009'.

I'm sure even you can cherry picking say 1998 to 2004 and find global cooling? Or any other date you care to look into. But that's not the point. That's why he said no statistical significance. What do you not get about statistical significance?

The suggestion is that cosmic rays seed low cloud formation. Since the overall effect of low clouds is cooling, an increase in cosmic rays will tend to have a cooling effect, whereas a decrease is likely to result in warming. When the magnetic flux near the earth is high, this tends to deflect cosmic rays before they have a chance to enter the earth's lower atmosphere. Therefore, an increase in magnetic flux will result in fewer cosmic rays and hence a warming climate. Some measurements have suggested there was an increase in magnetic flux during the late 20th century, hence a possible cause for the observed warming.

CERN's Jasper Kirkby has written a very good peer-reviewed article about the cosmic ray theory if you are interested in finding out more, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 1938v1.pdf. This article also contains references to the extensive literature on the subject.

Yes, what scares me about NIPCC is that this is most likely cause when in the long term, GCR bares little or no correlation with global temperatures whilst totally ignoring CO2 and other GHGs.

Please be a bit more specific. How can I respond to you if you won't tell me what the problem is?

See above again!!!!!!

[Philip]

That's why Phil Jones responded with a 'No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009'.

Who's cherry picking? You I think. Phil Jones complete response was: 'No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.' In other words, the time period involved is too short to draw any firm conclusions, but nonetheless the fact of the cooling (at a rate of -0.12C per decade) seen in the temperature record remains (as I stated earlier).

Yes, what scares me about NIPCC is that this is most likely cause when in the long term...

This is just one suggested mechanism. I agree the data is still uncertain, but maybe there will be some clarification at least later this year, http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/res ... UD-en.html.

See above again!!!!!!

You mean the Phil Jones interview, don't you? But we are already talking about that and I did ask for two! How about another example?

[Gropes]

Who's cherry picking? You I think. Phil Jones complete response was: 'No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.' In other words, the time period involved is too short to draw any firm conclusions, but nonetheless the fact of the cooling (at a rate of -0.12C per decade) seen in the temperature record remains (as I stated earlier).

In other words, you are cherry picking years to get the answer you want.... just like the interviewer.

This is just one suggested mechanism. I agree the data is still uncertain, but maybe there will be some clarification at least later this year, http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/res ... UD-en.html.

Well, let's hope so. That's why scientist don't assume unless the evidence is there. Right now, cosmic rays don't seem to be a main contender because they don't seem to correlate with temperatures.

You mean the Phil Jones interview, don't you? But we are already talking about that and I did ask for two! How about another example?

Why two in particular? Is having a number two have any significance? Why don't you look at how long we spent on Phil Jones and yet you STILL attempt tp reinterpret his answers. I think we both know where Phil Jones is trying to go despite how you attempt to misrepresent him as shown by your example above.

[Philip]

Who's cherry picking? You I think. ...

In other words, you are cherry picking ...

According to my dictionary, cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases that contradict that position. Let's see how this applies to the current conversation.

Firstly, you quoted a part of Phil Jones' response as follows:

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009.

You did this in order confirm your position that he says there was no cooling after 2002. However, as I pointed out the full response contradicts your position by pointing out that there was a cooling of -0.12C per decade:

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Hence, according to my dictionary definition, it is in fact you who is cherry picking.

Why two in particular?

Because I had an idea that one of them would be Phil Jones and the temperature record, and I wanted to see whether you had any other point of interest to discuss.

[Gropes]

According to my dictionary, cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases that contradict that position. Let's see how this applies to the current conversation.

Firstly, you quoted a part of Phil Jones' response as follows:

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009.

You did this in order confirm your position that he says there was no cooling after 2002. However, as I pointed out the full response contradicts your position by pointing out that there was a cooling of -0.12C per decade:

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Hence, according to my dictionary definition, it is in fact you who is cherry picking.

Q. Who picked the 2002 date?
A. The Interviewer

Q. What did Phil Jones say about the 2002 date
A. Not statistically significant

Q. Who keeps bringing up the 2002
A. You. Therefore it's you who is cherry picking

Because I had an idea that one of them would be Phil Jones and the temperature record, and I wanted to see whether you had any other point of interest to discuss.

I don't think we've moved beyond Phil Jones except the thread about 'some people'. But you haven't told me who the 'some people' are?