Actual Weather Station Data from Rural Weather Stations

[KW]

What sheer unadulterated nonsense you've posted, provable by the fact that we have seen massive melt off in Greenland and Siberia, and that's just for starters.

Which fact that I’ve posted are you disputing?

 

[metis]

He believes lies.

Oh really, and is that also true with the climate scientists he relied on to help him with the data? Did you ever read "Lodato Si"?

As you have shown us over and over again, you rely on right-wing sources no matter how biased and absurd they are. That's not science, KW, and that's not how we are supposed to work in science. You should know that, so I tend to think your partisan politics has trumped what you've been taught to do and what not to do.

Maybe consider reading "Scientific American" on a regular basis. BTW, my subscription runs back over 50 years now, so I've seen how this climate change evidence has changed over the decades.

 

[metis]

Which fact that I’ve posted are you disputing?

Your OP source.

 

[KW]

Your OP source.

Which fact?

You can’t find one?

 

[KW]

Maybe consider reading "Scientific American" on a regular basis. BTW, my subscription runs back over 50 years now, so I've seen how this climate change evidence has changed over the decades.

So you remember when they were worried about global cooling?

 

[metis]

So you remember when they were worried about global cooling?

It was not even a scientific hypothesis as there was no data to suggest that.

 

[metis]

Which fact?

You can’t find one?

It's your own source!!!

 

[KW]

It's your own source!!!

Which fact in the source?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have a BS in Chemistry and a BSE in engineering from Purdue.

I am aware that you have mentioned your chemistry background several times to add credibility to your claims and to entice others to ask about it so that you could make the post you have here. Perhaps you are providing valid information in support of your answer to my query. Without any means to verify it, I cannot say. What I can say is that I see nothing about it that lends any weight to the correctness of your claims or give reason to convince me that your reliance on what others have demonstrated is cherry-picked climate data gives a clear representation of the facts.

No doubt, you will dismiss this with your usual claims of leftism or that you got it, whatever you mean by that. When all else fails, it seems derisive hand waving is still the favored retreat strategy.

I have advanced degrees too. Chemistry. Biology. Entomology. I also have decades of experience as a scientist. You can accept that or not. I am not offering a means to verify it anymore than you are. While my training and experience are not in climate science, I feel pretty confident I can see the difference between bad arguments and good ones on that subject.

If you have a valid argument that the observed changes we see in climate do not indicate change or that change has nothing to do with the actions of people I would love to see it. Further, I would love to know why we should ignore the change even if it were determined to be natural. That seems to be a position implicit to your argument. But not one that makes much sense.

Incidentally, if you could leave out the politics and stick with the science, that would be much appreciated. It is my considered opinion that disagreeing with you does not automatically default a person to being a "leftist" or mean they are automatically wrong. It is my opinion that your actions are intended to make and maintain this a political issues and largely because I think you know on a scientific basis, your view is dead in the water.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He believes lies.

He is right that we should be good stewards of the earth.

If you can refute any of the facts I’ve posted please do so.

It is not the facts, but the claims based on the facts or purposefully incomplete facts that are the issue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Up until 2002.

Note that there is little to no warming when urban centers are excluded.

What the Stations Say (john-daly.com)

Do you have something more recent, more complete and less selective that leads to your conclusion?

How does a record Antarctic winter refute the recorded global temperature increase as seen in more complete, up-to-date data from actual climate scientists?

 

[KW]

I am aware that you have mentioned your chemistry background several times to add credibility to your claims and to entice others to ask about it so that you could make the post you have here. Perhaps you are providing valid information in support of your answer to my query. Without any means to verify it, I cannot say. What I can say is that I see nothing about it that lends any weight to the correctness of your claims or give reason to convince me that your reliance on what others have demonstrated is cherry-picked climate data gives a clear representation of the facts.

No doubt, you will dismiss this with your usual claims of leftism or that you got it, whatever you mean by that. When all else fails, it seems derisive hand waving is still the favored retreat strategy.

I have advanced degrees too. Chemistry. Biology. Entomology. I also have decades of experience as a scientist. You can accept that or not. I am not offering a means to verify it anymore than you are. While my training and experience are not in climate science, I feel pretty confident I can see the difference between bad arguments and good ones on that subject.

If you have a valid argument that the observed changes we see in climate do not indicate change or that change has nothing to do with the actions of people I would love to see it. Further, I would love to know why we should ignore the change even if it were determined to be natural. That seems to be a position implicit to your argument. But not one that makes much sense.

Incidentally, if you could leave out the politics and stick with the science, that would be much appreciated. It is my considered opinion that disagreeing with you does not automatically default a person to being a "leftist" or mean they are automatically wrong. It is my opinion that your actions are intended to make and maintain this a political issues and largely because I think you know on a scientific basis, your view is dead in the water.

Feel free to disprove a single fact I have posted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Feel free to disprove a single fact I have posted.

It isn't the facts that have been disproven already. It is your use of them that has. No need for further action on my part to go after a wild goose.

Feel free to properly address what others have already said regarding your use of the facts.

 

[KW]

It isn't the facts that have been disproven already. It is your use of them that has. No need for further action on my part to go after a wild goose.

Feel free to properly address what others have already said regarding your use of the facts.

I posted facts that undermine the credibility of those claiming that human actions are causing dangerous warming.

Rather than deal with the facts, the leftists here attack me personally to avoid reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I posted facts that undermine the credibility of those claiming that human actions are causing dangerous warming.

Rather than deal with the facts, the leftists here attack me personally to avoid reality.

No one has said that what you posted are not facts. You have not established that they do undermine the credibility of climate change. You have not properly addressed flaws in your conclusions using that data that others have pointed out. I would expect that from a Purdue science graduate, knowing many as I do.

Falling on political bias as a defense is not cutting it. Disagreeing with you is not the establishing criteria for political position, much as you seem to believe it is.

Either you have a sound argument using valid, up-to-date evidence that does not have the flaws of the evidence you have offered or you will have to accept that your argument fails on those flaws and not on the political views of those you are trying convince. Demonizing people for pointing out the flaws in your own reasoning is not boosting my confidence in your credibility.

 

[KW]

No one has said that what you posted are not facts. You have not established that they do undermine the credibility of climate change. You have not properly addressed flaws in your conclusions using that data that others have pointed out. I would expect that from a Purdue science graduate, knowing many as I do.

Falling on political bias as a defense is not cutting it. Disagreeing with you is not the establishing criteria for political position, much as you seem to believe it is.

Either you have a sound argument using valid, up-to-date evidence that does not have the flaws of the evidence you have offered or you will have to accept that your argument fails on those flaws and not on the political views of those you are trying convince. Demonizing people for pointing out the flaws in your own reasoning is not boosting my confidence in your credibility.

You are offering your opinion..

That’s fine. At least now you have more facts to consider.

Over time opinions can change.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It was not even a scientific hypothesis as there was no data to suggest that.

Cause and effects of global cooling - Nature

Note: it's a pdf.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are offering your opinion..

That’s fine. At least now you have more facts to consider.

Over time opinions can change.

For some that may be true. For others it does not seem so.

I'm still waiting for you to address the flaws in your argument that have been pointed out by others.

 

[KW]

For some that may be true. For others it does not seem so.

I'm still waiting for you to address the flaws in your argument that have been pointed out by others.

Like what?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like what?

I understand.