[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Data from politically subordinate researchers is not 'empirical' any more than a poll by the Democrat National Committee is unbiased.

So who is a source that you'd accept?

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

What do you propose is used, other than empirical data?

Example: I get pulled over, and the cop shows me the radar gun, and I say "I don't believe in radar guns." Why is it the responsibility of the cop to prove it to me some other way?

I got stopped by a cop in King County with a radar gun back in 1991, had him bring the radar gun to court and then had the judge aim the gun at a wall, which was doing 85mph according to the radar gun.

My ticket was dismissed.

1991 was before rules were put into place for calibration. Now they have to prove they calibrated it in court. 27 year old anecdotal story isn't an answer. You're dismissing data because you don't like the result, that's not how data works.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Data from politically subordinate researchers is not 'empirical' any more than a poll by the Democrat National Committee is unbiased.

So who is a source that you'd accept?

You. Zipperfish. Dr. Caleb. Fiddy. Thanos. You are all credible to me.

Produce your own original work instead of citing someone else's.

See if it squares with what you've been told.

I'm doing something similar right now (been working on it for about a year) and when I get it done I'll publish it elsewhere and post it here.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

You're dismissing data because you don't like the result, that's not how data works.

No, I'm dismissing data that makes today look warm by saying yesterday was cold when in fact it was not.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Data from politically subordinate researchers is not 'empirical' any more than a poll by the Democrat National Committee is unbiased.

So who is a source that you'd accept?

You. Zipperfish. Dr. Caleb. Fiddy. Thanos. You are all credible to me.

Produce your own original work instead of citing someone else's.

See if it squares with what you've been told.

I'm doing something similar right now (been working on it for about a year) and when I get it done I'll publish it elsewhere and post it here.

Right, and we have jobs and lives and don't feel the need to sit down and spend a year doing something to satisfy some random guy on the internet. Especially when the majority of them (fiddle is a perfect example) would find a way to ignore it anyways.

[BartSimpson]

What I am doing is a comparison of reported temperatures in a local newspaper against what the NWS currently says those temperatures were and I am charting the heat island effect on ARC-GIS with historical maps that go back to 1891.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Returning to what I did comment on:

Under what criteria do you consider the warming on Venus to be 'catastrophic'?

What was catastrophically impacted by this warming?

I'm not sure what you want here. Venus' climate was drastically altered by greenhouse gasses. Let's not forget, we know very little about Venus, and what we do know is that almost no sunlight reaches the surface of the planet, but the surface temperature can be over 1000C. All that heat is due to greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide specifically.

What was impacted? We don't know enough about Venus' past to make that determination.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well at least we've dragged the so-called skeptics out of flat-out denial. That only took 30 years. lol

...and the so called worshipers in the Church of AGW are still relying on their faith.

Science relies on Data.

Deniers refuse to produce data.

Which one is faith based again?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I suppose one argument that can be made for illustrating the belief in AGW as a religion is that people like yourself trot out the same charts and graphs to back up your charts and graphs.

Charts change, year by year. If they changed in the past - isn't that when you usually start howling that the data is being manipulated?

Why should we use any other information, besides what the data tells us?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Likewise, if you're going to use data from AGW proponents to prove data from AGW proponents to people who don't believe in the Holy Writ of data from AGW proponents then your argument is no longer one of science but one of belief.

Try a different tactic. That's all I'm saying here.

I'm not saying you're nworng, I'm simply encouraging you to change up your approach.

Speaking of faith based mantras, where is your data and studies disproving what thousands of other studies have shown? Until those magically appear, it's the refutation of what science tells us that is 'faith' based.

Show me the data!

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

What do you propose is used, other than empirical data?

Data from politically subordinate researchers is not 'empirical' any more than a poll by the Democrat National Committee is unbiased.

You could develop your own data.

Try creating a temperature record from the microfilm records of your local newspaper and then see if that record matches up to the 'empirical' data you cite.

Then release your findings.

See, even though you're just citing a record for one single town it should still reflect the overall trends that AGW proponents cite.

We should see the global trends reflected in the local data.

...or not.

That's why I've been telling you that some background in Statistics would be useful to you. Then you'd realize your proposal here is nonsense.

The local paper is not an accurate record, nor is the scale of the reading comparable to the recorded temperature record in any meaningful way. Any such study would give only gibberish.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What I am doing is a comparison of reported temperatures in a local newspaper against what the NWS currently says those temperatures were and I am charting the heat island effect on ARC-GIS with historical maps that go back to 1891.

Where is the temperature in the paper recorded? Is it the same place every day? Is it to the same scale? Is it at the same time every day? What it the error rate for that data? What is the timescale?

Your study won't produce anything of meaning without knowing a lot more than your local paper gives you, and going back a lot further that that paper has probably existed for.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Returning to what I did comment on:

Under what criteria do you consider the warming on Venus to be 'catastrophic'?

What was catastrophically impacted by this warming?

I'm not sure what you want here. Venus' climate was drastically altered by greenhouse gasses.

Explain to me how the warming on Venus constituted a 'catastrophe'? Who or what was impacted by the warming?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Let's not forget, we know very little about Venus,

Yet you assert here that Venus was apparently capable of supporting life at one point and then there was a catastrophic warming that impacted that life. If there was no life then there was also no catastrophe.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

and what we do know is that almost no sunlight reaches the surface of the planet, but the surface temperature can be over 1000C. All that heat is due to greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide specifically.

What was impacted? We don't know enough about Venus' past to make that determination.

Yet you emotionally claim that the warming 1) took place after a prior state of atmosphere on the planet 2) that it was a catastrophe which implies an effect on what is otherwise a dead planet.

Neither of these assertions is accurate based upon your own admission here that we know very little about the planet.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What I am doing is a comparison of reported temperatures in a local newspaper against what the NWS currently says those temperatures were and I am charting the heat island effect on ARC-GIS with historical maps that go back to 1891.

Where is the temperature in the paper recorded? Is it the same place every day? Is it to the same scale? Is it at the same time every day? What it the error rate for that data? What is the timescale?

Your study won't produce anything of meaning without knowing a lot more than your local paper gives you, and going back a lot further that that paper has probably existed for.

My study will give me a comparative historic record between what was reported at the time and what is being alleged to have occurred in the past now.

I'll also be able to map what weather stations were impacted by urbanization.

[Tricks]

Why does catastrophe mean something living was impacted?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Returning to what I did comment on:

Under what criteria do you consider the warming on Venus to be 'catastrophic'?

What was catastrophically impacted by this warming?

I'm not sure what you want here. Venus' climate was drastically altered by greenhouse gasses.

Explain to me how the warming on Venus constituted a 'catastrophe'? Who or what was impacted by the warming?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Let's not forget, we know very little about Venus,

Yet you assert here that Venus was apparently capable of supporting life at one point and then there was a catastrophic warming that impacted that life. If there was no life then there was also no catastrophe.

I made no such assertion. You are using 'catastrophic' thinking in terms of a disaster involving casualties, in the context Carl Sagan used it was meant was in terms of sudden and irreversible calamity. Casualties are not implied.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

and what we do know is that almost no sunlight reaches the surface of the planet, but the surface temperature can be over 1000C. All that heat is due to greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide specifically.

What was impacted? We don't know enough about Venus' past to make that determination.

Yet you emotionally claim that the warming 1) took place after a prior state of atmosphere on the planet 2) that it was a catastrophe which implies an effect on what is otherwise a dead planet.

Neither of these assertions is accurate based upon your own admission here that we know very little about the planet.

Again, I assert nothing. It was Carl Sagans' Doctoral Thesis, I simply quoted from an essay he wrote on it.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-saga ... 1481304135

And Venus was not 'dead' when the climate went on afterburner. There is an entire radar surven indicatiing Venus probabally had oceans, and where there is water there is the opportunity for life.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evi ... arly-venus


You sure are working hard to avoid defending your position!