Go back

"When Science Becomes Treason"

Debates

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Again with the slicing up of time to suit his tales.
All polemic, no data.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Who do we listen to? You with your lawn growing experiments or a mathematician with 6 years full time paid experience in the field.
Certainly not a welder in Gisborne.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

The temp was cooler in 75 than 40, this represents a cooling with a few ahem anomalies thrown in.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
The temp was cooler in 75 than 40, this represents a cooling with a few ahem anomalies thrown in.
But the temperature did not cool for 25 years. It cooled over a much shorter period and simply did not warm (probably due to global dimming). The two are not synonymous.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But the temperature did not cool for 25 years. It cooled over a much shorter period and simply did not warm (probably due to global dimming). The two are not synonymous.
Personally I couldn't care less, the point was to show your twisting and squirming, and you responded as expected, good show.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Personally I couldn't care less, the point was to show your twisting and squirming, and you responded as expected, good show.
Yes. I maintained my position without changing.

Good job.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Look at the graph again, they give yearly and the 5 year mean, what would the 10 year mean look like, or a 15 year mean, each time the graph would be smoothed out until eventually it indicated a 30 year cooling period, use a greater span of time and the cooling period would level out (as you selectively claim it to be) then keep going and the dip would disappear all together.

You maintained your position, and that is of a snake.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Look at the graph again, they give yearly and the 5 year mean, what would the 10 year mean look like, or a 15 year mean, each time the graph would be smoothed out until eventually it indicated a 30 year cooling period, use a greater span of time and the cooling period would level out (as you selectively claim it to be) then keep going and the dip would disappear all together.

You maintained your position, and that is of a snake.
But the graph isn't presented that way. He has deliberately over-simplified the data in order to maintain a position that isn't tenable in light of the evidence presented.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

If you really want to play it that way. The graph shows 3 cooling periods in the 40 - 75 period, and not the single 5 year cooling period then leveling that you claim.

Can't have it both ways scottish, try to define your position F FS.

Edit: Again, I'm not concerned at all with the ups and downs, it's happened before and will continue long after I'm gone, but your writhings, well, haha.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

And if we use the 1 year mean there are 5 distinct coolings in that period.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you really want to play it that way. The graph shows 3 cooling periods in the 40 - 75 period, and not the single 5 year cooling period then leveling that you claim.

Can't have it both ways scottish, try to define your position F FS.

Edit: Again, I'm not concerned at all with the ups and downs, it's happened before and will continue long after I'm gone, but your writhings, well, haha.
Correlations and trends do not mean that every single data point follows the relationship, but that the majority do. Irrespective of the individual data points, or of the cyclic phenomenon (such as the 11 year sunspot cycle) which must be superimposed and rationalised, the long term trend is one of warming - and rapid warming at that.


[edit' really, is arguing a single peak in a graph the best you can do? Why are you unwilling to debate the graph as a whole, the entire trend?]

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Correlations and trends do not mean that every single data point follows the relationship, but that the majority do. Irrespective of the individual data points, or of the cyclic phenomenon (such as the 11 year sunspot cycle) which must be superimposed and rationalised, the long term trend is one of warming - and rapid warming at that.


[edit' real ...[text shortened]... the best you can do? Why are you unwilling to debate the graph as a whole, the entire trend?]
That is what my point is. Instead of a 1 year mean or a 5 year mean, you now want to use the 50 year mean or 100 year mean. You select a period of time that happens to suit your faith and discard everything else as being anomalies. This all came up by you saying that Dr David Evans was a liar.

Answer this one question: According to the graph was the earth cooler in 1975 than 1940?

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
05 Aug 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
That is what my point is. Instead of a 1 year mean or a 5 year mean, you now want to use the 50 year mean or 100 year mean. You select a period of time that happens to suit your faith and discard everything else as being anomalies. This all came up by you saying that Dr David Evans was a liar.

Answer this one question: According to the graph was the earth cooler in 1975 than 1940?
Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time.


And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6929668.stm

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
05 Aug 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time.


And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6929668.stm
scottish says: "Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time."

Twist and squirm scottish, twist and squirm. Did Dr David Evans say anything about "cooling trend". Why did you use quotation marks here, who are you quoting?

scottish says: "He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A LIE."

The quote from Dr David Evans article:

"We now know that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased..."

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf

scottish says: "And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?"

Why are you asking me this? Did I call someone a liar in regard to these dates? Is this diversion from you lodging your foot in your mouth? again?

a
AGW Hitman

http://xkcd.com/386/

Joined
23 Feb 07
Moves
7113
Clock
05 Aug 07
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
scottish says: "Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time."

Twist and squirm scottish, twist and squirm. Did Dr David Evans say anything about "cooling trend". Why did you use quotation marks here, who are you quoting?

scottish says:[i] "He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A these dates? Is this diversion from you lodging your foot in your mouth? again?
[/i]"Someone else said so. Independent repeatable observations only please,
otherwise it's not science."

Here's an interesting quote from that paper, bottom of page 8.
Same was said by us quite a while back, still waiting! 😛

Incidentally: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.