[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Then why has the earth been cooling for the last 7 years?

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

Plotted UAH data shows linear cooling trend.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by sounding

Plotted UAH data shows linear cooling trend.

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

This shows what is happening here.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

This shows what is happening here.

Doesn't matter what your reference says or shows. What matters is the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years -- going on 8 -- according satellite and surface temperature data. For reality sake, please tell me why.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Plotted UAH data shows linear cooling trend.

I don't feel like taking the time to change settings to see your new plot. YOU provided the data source to support your seven-year claim and THAT data shows a four-year warming trend. If you have now manipulated the data to show something else then it only reaffirms that you are cherry picking data and that your confirmation bias is blinding you to what the data is really saying.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Doesn't matter what your reference says or shows. What matters is the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years -- going on 8 -- according satellite and surface temperature data. For reality sake, please tell me why.

Already did that...

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I don't feel like taking the time to change settings to see your new plot. YOU provided the data source to support your seven-year claim and THAT data shows a four-year warming trend. If you have now manipulated the data to show something else then it only reaffirms that you are cherry picking data and that your confirmation bias is blinding you to what the data is really saying.

That's neat trick. Using 7-year data to produce a 4-year trend. I think we went to different schools.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

This shows what is happening here.

Yeah. That is what happens when a "science" becomes dogma. The True Believers are not interested in information, but VALIDATION.

The point is that real "data" reflecting global climate change over thousands of years just doesn't exist in any definitive form. Sure, there are bits and pieces picked up here and there based on geological observations of this-or-that, but actual INFORMATION goes back only to the advent of writing, maybe 5,000 years ago, and even that is sketchy in the extreme. It got better as time went on, of course, but vast swathes of the planet were complete mysteries, weather-wise, until maybe the last 200 years or so, simply because there was no way to report trends, temps, etc. Siberia, for example. Australia. Antarctica. The islands of the Canadian arctic. Probably many other places as well. Even hurricane predicting and reporting, as we have it today, just didn't exist before the advent of satellite imagery. Most Atlantic hurricanes, for example, don't hit America but fizzle out over the ocean, and other than occasional haphazard reporting by sailing ships there would be no accurate record of the number of such storms year by year, such as we have now.

It is my opinion that far too much long-term "data" is too circumstantial and vague for it to be the basis of any real "science". Conjecture? Yes. But not science.

[Taltarzac725]

We have seen that argument before-- Scientific theories aren't mere conjecture – to survive they must work

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Yeah. That is what happens when a "science" becomes dogma. The True Believers are not interested in information, but VALIDATION.

The point is that real "data" reflecting global climate change over thousands of years just doesn't exist in any definitive form. Sure, there are bits and pieces picked up here and there based on geological observations of this-or-that, but actual INFORMATION goes back only to the advent of writing, maybe 5,000 years ago, and even that is sketchy in the extreme. It got better as time went on, of course, but vast swathes of the planet were complete mysteries, weather-wise, until maybe the last 200 years or so, simply because there was no way to report trends, temps, etc. Siberia, for example. Australia. Antarctica. The islands of the Canadian arctic. Probably many other places as well. Even hurricane predicting and reporting, as we have it today, just didn't exist before the advent of satellite imagery. Most Atlantic hurricanes, for example, don't hit America but fizzle out over the ocean, and other than occasional haphazard reporting by sailing ships there would be no accurate record of the number of such storms year by year, such as we have now.

It is my opinion that far too much long-term "data" is too circumstantial and vague for it to be the basis of any real "science". Conjecture? Yes. But not science.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

One hundred and forty three posts (so far) in just two days on yet another global warming thread. Seems to be one a week on average. And we have the same people saying the same things, over and over and over and...

Nobody's mind is changed. Nobody thinks any differently. Heels are dug in. Flags are waved. Feelings are hurt. Nothing is accomplished.

Politics and science, like oil and water, do NOT mix.

I feel otherwise. The comparatively large number of posts SIMPLY means that it is a worthwhile subject that many are interested in. Why say that a thread is NOT valuable when obviously the many posts prove otherwise? Many threads go only 2 pages, some just one. Does that make those threads more valuable? Certainly NOT. I have seen threads like "I would like to find someone to come and tune my piano, please help". These are the 2-page type. Should threads like that be kept off of a forum? Certainly NOT. But, it needs to be acknowledged that those types of threads are going to be interesting to ONLY a few people.
..........It seems to be intuitively obvious that a thread going 10 pages or more is good for the community.

As far as the criticism that basically no minds will be changed - that assumes that minds NEVER change and I can't believe that. Humans are flexible, minds are malleable. People click on a forum to take the pulse of their community. Opinions change as facts change. For example, OJ Simpson was a football hero and then he wasn't. That was NOT a GREAT example. Let's see.......opinions about the death penalty have changed over the years. Vietnam was a hateful enemy and now they are a reliable trading partner. Opinions about marriage have evolved.
........So, my thesis here is that DEBATE was a foundational building block in American History. Therefore a local community forum anywhere in the US should welcome debate.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

We have seen that argument before-- Scientific theories aren't mere conjecture – to survive they must work

An opinion of an opinion. And like all such there are opinions that totally disagree with that of Mr. Solomon.

Scientism Fails Another Defense (March 12, 2017 | David F. Coppedge)

A physicist’s latest attempt to justify scientism reveals a deplorable ignorance of history, logic and philosophy of science.

"Tom Solomon, astronomer and physicist at Bucknell University, makes a valiant attempt to defend scientism (the view that ‘science’ is exceptional and superior to any other search for knowledge). In his article on The Conversation, “Scientific theories aren’t mere conjecture – to survive they must work,” he begins by expressing his frustration at public distrust of Big Science.

Etc. Etc."

Interesting article. Might want to check it out.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I feel otherwise. The competitively large number of posts SIMPLY means that it is a worthwhile subject that many are interested in. Why say that a thread is NOT valuable when obviously the many posts prove otherwise? Many threads go only 2 pages, some just one. Does that make those threads more valuable? Certainly NOT. I have seen threads like "I would like to find someone to come and tune my piano, please help". These are the 2-page type. Should threads like that be kept off of a forum? Certainly NOT. But, it needs to be acknowledged that those types of threads are going to be interesting to ONLY a few people.
..........It seems to be intuitively obvious that a thread going 10 pages or more is good for the community.

As far as the criticism that basically no minds will be changed - that assumes that minds NEVER change and I can't believe that. Humans are flexible, minds are malleable. People click on a forum to take the pulse of their community. Opinions change as facts change. For example, OJ Simpson was a football hero and then he wasn't. That was NOT a GREAT example. Let's see.......opinions about the death penalty have changed over the years. Vietnam was a hateful enemy and now they are a reliable trading partner. Opinions about marriage have evolved.
........So, my thesis here is that DEBATE was a foundational building block in American History. Therefore a local community forum anywhere in the US should welcome debate.

Debate is good. Why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by sounding

Debate is good. Why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

The last 7 years have been Earth'''s 7 hottest

I find different data.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Debate is good. Why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

Same question, same answer

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

I should add that YOUR data also shows warming trends over 10 and 20 years. The 7 year mark is an interesting anomaly but certainly not a trend.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The last 7 years have been Earth'''s 7 hottest

I find different data.

Good try, but no. It's the same data, but from a different perspective. When you reach the top of mountain and then slowly start back down ... those downward steps are at relatively higher altitudes -- but they are still trending DOWN. And so, we'll see what happens in year 8. In the meantime, I'm enjoying this morning's global warming.