Dear Loudmouth,

So the figures you have been touting were made up by you and you hadn't gone and done any research yourself?

Well I suppose that is an admission of sorts.

You put that you need to see “temperatures have risen, say, five degrees, and sea-levels by half a metre” before you start to panic.

His puts you firmly in the camp of those needing to see the incoming civilisation destroying meteor with your naked eyes before agreeing to any measures to divert it.

Of course there has to be a part of you which says this is complete idiocy, that waiting until it is too late is the providence of fools, but still you hold on to it. Why?

To SteeleRedux.

The pro/con site shows the arguments and counter arguments. The validity of those augments might be worth seeking out regardless of the topics they cover, otherwise it's just addressing the different points, not the merit of those points. However with regards to global warming, what can be said? I use to think global warming might be a threat. Never to the degree they've popularized and feared, but enough to consider action needs to be done.

After a while though of seeing no real international action being done to reduce global warming, and also seeing no direct consequences like famine, rising sea levels, or other global warming disasters. Then one starts to ask. Is any of it real or is it all crap. With that in mind you look at the Skeptic's arguments a little more openly, and see if there is any merit to the global warming side.

Nonetheless, you've offered to look at any of the arguments in the pro/con site, so I'll take you up on that. Take on arguments 7, 8, or 10 of the con side of those arguments. Answers to any one of those arguments or why those arguments don't matter (careful that also could mean the pro's side of counter arguments on the same points also don't matter).

Misopinionated,

But not so many in our VET/TAFE colleges, it seems.

Joe

Dear Josephus,

With heavy heart but steely resolve I clicked your latest 'smoking gun' link.

Which prompted me to click another link if I wanted to look at the 'data'.

Which led me to http://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/australia-shows-no-warming-since-1876/ (which you could have linked to in the first place old chap) which also didn't have the raw data nor even a link to such. Instead it had two graphs. One, done by the proponent was of average temperatures since the 1870s. It was compared to the BOM graph and the declaration was made that “The real graph looks nothing like the fake graph generated by BOM”.

The BOM graph however was not of average temperatures but rather Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies and the date series started in 1910.

So I ask you why shouldn't I view this as just another piece of tortured denialist rubbish which couldn't even be bothered comparing like for like?

I am imploring you to put a little more effort in your links in future because my motivation to wade through dross is quickly being depleted.

Dear NNS,

I asked for you to pick one and you delivered three. I'm going to request you pick the one you feel is the most prominent of them and we will discuss it and see if it is worth tackling the others. I was just going to select one myself but I didn't want to be accused of cherry picking.

SR,

"There was not a single peer reviewed paper"

I had quotes from the IPCC, quintessential peer-review.

Still trying to muddy the water rather than just admit error.

BTW, since you're suddenly righteously only accepting peer reviewed data, might I point out that article you linked to that started this sub-thread wasn't peer reviewed either. But that's different, isn't it SR?

Josephus,

Yep the work done on those 25 long-term stations is more than a little interesting. Most of these long term stations are ones that aren't affected by the Urban Heat-island Effect (UHIE)and therefore give a much better reading on actual changes in temperature over time.

Along the same lines is the data I showed earlier from the USA where a series of special sites have been established to avoid any UHIE. This was started in 2005 and analysis now shows no warming and a non-significant cooling over continental USA between 2005 and now.

http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html

The interesting thing to remember is that almost all the warming we see in the statistics is not from the raw data but from the data after it has been 'homogenised' by the alarmists.

Never mind SR. He struggles with type of thing. Now he's making a dill of himself by suggesting that average temperatures and Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies are somehow not two different ways of showing the same data.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“Now he's making a dill of himself by suggesting that average temperatures and Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies are somehow not two different ways of showing the same data.”

Oh you really are thick sometimes, especially when you are so focused on shooting yourself in the foot yet again.

I will type slowly for you so you can keep up. Look it isn't entirely your fault. You are linking to denialist sites which do this kind of stuff all the time.

In this case the dodgy characters at realclimatescience.com decided that instead of doing like for like and linking to the BOM's Annual Max Temp Anomaly graph they would link it to the Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly. Why? Because the Annual Mean is more pronounced than the Annual Average graph which suited their purposes.

Look at the difference between the two.

Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmax%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0

Average Max Temp Anomaly
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmax%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0

Actually from what you have written I get the sneaking suspicion you thought the mean and average graphs would be the same.

You really are a dill aren't you.