Why the AGW religion is false

http://youtu.be/oxFm1TXshZY

Dr. Christy: Heatwave not what "Global Warming Looks Like" Rather what "Mother Nature Looks Like"

http://youtu.be/KDFH0Hs4Q8shttp://youtu.be/SHclQ4UNjeE

It's no use Ajax, I've posted Burt Rutan's presentation about 50 times since becoming a member here. They refuse to read it, what they do is they go on skeptical science and if they can't find a dodgy rebuttal by Dana they flat out refuse to acknowledge it. Ad Hominems and fallacies are then thrown around including my new favorite "Gish Gallop", because they're being "drowned" in so much information, to hard to cope ;)

MAYBE they might give it a go since it's in video formation, but I highly doubt it. It would require them to look at pictures and actually think for themselves, but without skepticalscience to give them fallacious excuses, you're probably out of luck.

Just a reminder there's no rebuttal on the internet I've found, besides a single open letter literally addressing 1 or 2 points.

They'd rather blame kids lighting fires on Abbott and have nice circle jerk over energy alternatives.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:29pm:

It's no use Ajax, I've posted Burt Rutan's presentation about 50 times since becoming a member here. They refuse to read it, what they do is they go on skeptical science and if they can't find a dodgy rebuttal by Dana they flat out refuse to acknowledge it. Ad Hominems and fallacies are then thrown around including my new favorite "Gish Gallop", because they're being "drowned" in so much information, to hard to cope ;) MAYBE they might give it a go since it's in video formation, but I highly doubt it. It would require them to look at pictures and actually think for themselves, but without skepticalscience to give them fallacious excuses, you're probably out of luck. Just a reminder there's no rebuttal on the internet I've found, besides a single open letter literally addressing 1 or 2 points. They'd rather blame kids lighting fires on Abbott and have nice circle jerk over energy alternatives.

I'm sure they've read it, but their faith is stronger than their reason.

Just like the orange people......!!!!!!

Burt Rutan and John Christy make every alarmist / global warming zealot look like the dodgiest of dodgy used car salesmen....standing in front of a whole yard of Leyland p76's.

Apologies to the Leyland p76 btw, I just couldn't think of another lemon in the available time, but if there was a worse car, then that is the alarmist position.

Rider wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 10:33am:

Burt Rutan and John Christy make every alarmist / global warming zealot look like the dodgiest of dodgy used car salesmen....standing in front of a whole yard of Leyland p76's. Apologies to the Leyland p76 btw, I just couldn't think of another lemon in the available time, but if there was a worse car, then that is the alarmist position.

Burt Rutan simply uses his extensive knowledge of data analysis to point out the manipulation done by Mr Gore and the IPCC. One extremely important point is not what he says but that data he shows that includes entire data sets including the arbitrarily cherry picked stats that created things like the hockey stick.

Even if you agree with his conclusions the evidence of manipulation is overwhelming.
What do you find so unbelievable about his presentation?

Do these guys disect the deniers graphs and data. That is so obviously cherry picked and manipulated its not funny.

Didnt Screaming (not-a) Lord Monckton actually invert real data to fit one of his graphs ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:56pm:

Do these guys disect the deniers graphs and data. That is so obviously cherry picked and manipulated its not funny. Didnt Screaming (not-a) Lord Monckton actually invert real data to fit one of his graphs ?

Actually as far as Burt goes in his presentation he actually shows the data that AGW proponents cherry pick to suit them and shows the data they leave out. Most of the graphs in his presentation are comparison graphs showing the total data set against the cherry picked.

There's also a great section about the Hockey Stick able to be replicated by their bias computer system with a single tree ring.

---

What do you think about this? Any thoughts?

- Deleted data
- Computer that produce a hockey stick even with random input
- Completed data a lot less ridiculous

In subsequent slides he event puts the scary hockey stick against historic data and it is no where near as ridiculous as Mr Gore's graph that goes off the chart. That being despite the cherry picking.

---

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:56pm: Do these guys disect the deniers graphs and data. That is so obviously cherry picked and manipulated its not funny. Didnt Screaming (not-a) Lord Monckton actually invert real data to fit one of his graphs ? Actually as far as Burt goes in his presentation he actually shows the data that AGW proponents cherry pick to suit them and shows the data they leave out. Most of the graphs in his presentation are comparison graphs showing the total data set against the cherry picked. There's also a great section about the Hockey Stick able to be replicated by their bias computer system with a single tree ring.

No, I asked you, does he also dissect the denier graphs and data ?

if not, it would appear he has a bias and is cherry picking his analysis himself.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:47pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:24pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:56pm: Do these guys disect the deniers graphs and data. That is so obviously cherry picked and manipulated its not funny. Didnt Screaming (not-a) Lord Monckton actually invert real data to fit one of his graphs ? Actually as far as Burt goes in his presentation he actually shows the data that AGW proponents cherry pick to suit them and shows the data they leave out. Most of the graphs in his presentation are comparison graphs showing the total data set against the cherry picked. There's also a great section about the Hockey Stick able to be replicated by their bias computer system with a single tree ring. No, I asked you, does he also dissect the denier graphs and data ? if not, it would appear he has a bias and is cherry picking his analysis himself.

What graphs are you referring to? He hasn't done anything recently AFAIK. However self criticism is essential I agree, however he doesn't really make claims, he says he isn't qualified to make claims only qualified to analyze data. When he did that presentation in 2011 it was out of inconsistencies he started to see in "the inconvenient truth" and the IPCC.

It's like noticing something is really wrong and then setting out to look into it as deep as possible. That doesn't mean he's made it his job to analyze every claim in the debate. Though either way it ignores the fact that data was selected for a specific agenda and the rest ignored. Whatever he doesn't do , has no bearing on what he does do. Unless you want to Ad Hominem attack his credibility (which can be relevant if he is wrong) instead of his actual analysis.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:47pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:24pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:56pm: Do these guys disect the deniers graphs and data. That is so obviously cherry picked and manipulated its not funny. Didnt Screaming (not-a) Lord Monckton actually invert real data to fit one of his graphs ? Actually as far as Burt goes in his presentation he actually shows the data that AGW proponents cherry pick to suit them and shows the data they leave out. Most of the graphs in his presentation are comparison graphs showing the total data set against the cherry picked. There's also a great section about the Hockey Stick able to be replicated by their bias computer system with a single tree ring. No, I asked you, does he also dissect the denier graphs and data ? if not, it would appear he has a bias and is cherry picking his analysis himself. What graphs are you referring to? He hasn't done anything recently AFAIK. However self criticism is essential I agree, however he doesn't really make claims, he says he isn't qualified to make claims only qualified to analyze data. When he did that presentation in 2011 it was out of inconsistencies he started to see in "the inconvenient truth" and the IPCC. It's like noticing something is really wrong and then setting out to look into it as deep as possible. That doesn't mean he's made it his job to analyze every claim in the debate. Though either way it ignores the fact that data was selected for a specific agenda and the rest ignored. Whatever he doesn't do , has no bearing on what he does do. Unless you want to Ad Hominem attack his credibility (which can be relevant if he is wrong) instead of his actual analysis.

So he's bias and out of date.

Look, all I'm saying is deniers spend a lot of time and energy trying to discredit the IPCC, and no time applying the same skepticism to other deniers and their bogus data.

Its as if a denier can make up any old graph, and it never gets questioned.

Skepticism is not a one way street.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm:

So he's bias and out of date.

Seems more impartial to me due to 0 vested interest but okay.
Is 2011 out of date when looking at the IPCC and past claims still used today?


Quote:

Look, all I'm saying is deniers spend a lot of time and energy trying to discredit the IPCC, and no time applying the same skepticism to other deniers and their bogus data. Its as if a denier can make up any old graph, and it never gets questioned. Skepticism is not a one way street.

For sure totally agree.
The thing to understand is skepticism is like the null-hypothesis, the whole point for the majority is to be a sort of devil's advocate and the burden of proof is on the AGW supporters as it's their idea that's being put forward, if it's wrong then that's it.

However yes some skeptics have put forward their own claims and AGW supporters do the same analysis in return to defend their position/ disprove a skeptic position. Of course someone skeptical should look into claims made by skeptics.

The thing you seem to forget though is, Skeptics VS IPCC for example is two sides using the same data, from the same papers. The issue isn't usually with the data in the paper but it's interpretation and potential manipulation. Unless looking at say the ocean cooling data that was claimed to be faulty due to a flaw in the ARGO buoys, but usually it's the same data.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 3:05pm: So he's bias and out of date. Seems more impartial to me due to 0 vested interest but okay. Is 2011 out of date when looking at the IPCC and past claims still used today? Quote: Look, all I'm saying is deniers spend a lot of time and energy trying to discredit the IPCC, and no time applying the same skepticism to other deniers and their bogus data. Its as if a denier can make up any old graph, and it never gets questioned. Skepticism is not a one way street. For sure totally agree. The thing to understand is skepticism is like the null-hypothesis, the whole point for the majority is to be a sort of devil's advocate and the burden of proof is on the AGW supporters as it's their idea that's being put forward, if it's wrong then that's it. However yes some skeptics have put forward their own claims and AGW supporters do the same analysis in return to defend their position/ disprove a skeptic position. Of course someone skeptical should look into claims made by skeptics. The thing you seem to forget though is, Skeptics VS IPCC for example is two sides using the same data, from the same papers. The issue isn't usually with the data in the paper but it's interpretation and potential manipulation. Unless looking at say the ocean cooling data that was claimed to be faulty due to a flaw in the ARGO buoys, but usually it's the same data.

The problem is that Deniers are masquerading as skeptics and poluting the debate with so much misinformation that the populas is confused.  Politicians, afraid of the tough decisions they need to make, are exploiting this confusion to do nothing.

The deniers have been far more successful than anyone expected. The other problem is that the dramatic changes of climate change dont kick for another 80 years, so hard to prove now, and then it will be too late.

There will be no smoking gun proof that hard-wired rightwingers who only see black and white will see in the next 20 years.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis%20v11.pdf
Quote:

My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different perspective ...

Quote:

[I] do not hide the fact that I have a clear bias on AGW. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion ...

So his view, on a field in which he has no qualifications, is influenced by ideology.

Worth keeping in mind.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Rider wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:33am: Burt Rutan and John Christy make every alarmist / global warming zealot look like the dodgiest of dodgy used car salesmen....standing in front of a whole yard of Leyland p76's. Apologies to the Leyland p76 btw, I just couldn't think of another lemon in the available time, but if there was a worse car, then that is the alarmist position. Burt Rutan simply uses his extensive knowledge of data analysis to point out the manipulation done by Mr Gore and the IPCC. One extremely important point is not what he says but that data he shows that includes entire data sets including the arbitrarily cherry picked stats that created things like the hockey stick. Even if you agree with his conclusions the evidence of manipulation is overwhelming. What do you find so unbelievable about his presentation?

Not a lot actually, it is the least cherry picked presentation of full data sets put forward without an agenda.  He puts the cherry picked data to perspective perfectly. Good work I say  :)

Though I guess he'll be accused of being on the payroll of big oil or tobacco or something by others, all of whom are clearly on the payroll directly or indirectly of big green.

# wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 3:39pm:

So his view, on a field in which he has no qualifications, is influenced by ideology. Worth keeping in mind.

That's why it's about analyzing the data, he's a data analyst. :)
Any claims he makes are interpretations of the data.
The data and the analysis of it is what's important.

He doesn't have a vested interest as far as funding goes that is important to keep in mind also. But credibility aside the claims of data manipulation is most important of all wouldn't you say?

Data analysts are a dime a dozen. You don't need a  retired aerospace engineer to do something so basic.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:

Data analysts are a dime a dozen. You don't need a  retired aerospace engineer to do something so basic.

Apparently some of the data was very hard to come by.
I'm glad there are people willing to expose fraud.

I doubt if any fraud was perpetrated. The "Medieval Warm period" is a red herring.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

I doubt if any fraud was perpetrated. The "Medieval Warm period" is a red herring.

Why....................?????

That means that the current melting of the arctic and Greenland caused by global warming is also a white elephant....!!!!!!...in the arsenal of the AGW religion.