Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 NASA-1934 Warmest Year on Record!
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:12:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by filthy

Lessee, '34.... Wasn't that around the time that OK & surrounding area suffered a drought that sent Okies, et al., scrambling to escape the "Dust Bowl?" Woody Guthrie wrote some music concerning it.




Ahh, Haa!

This is anecdotal evidence of a cyclical environment.

How so?






Just that it was hot in the 30's, then cooled, then got hot again.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:20:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So, you consider this ancedotal?



When I put forth an ancedote, I'll tell you so. Further, there is no such thing as "ancedotal evidence." Ancedotes are no evidence at all.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 09/24/2007 16:23:57
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:46:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

So, you consider this ancedotal?



When I put forth an ancedote, I'll tell you so. Further, there is no such thing as "ancedotal evidence." Ancedotes are no evidence at all.






You are correct there is no anecdotal evidence. What you presented was an anecdote of evidence.


By the way, great picture!

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:47:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

I appreciate the graphs presenting factual evidence of a small period of time in which the earth is warming. This unfortunately says nothing about the warming that occurred in the 1930's and the cooling that took place after. Your evidence shows that there was and is a warming after a cooling. This is to my point that we are experiencing a natural cyclical temperature change.
Okay, 1934 had a very hot summer, in the US -- but not in the world at large. If you look at the charts, you can see that yearly variations are wild, especially locally. That's typical of local weather fluctuations, not global climate changes.

Again, the charts that Kil linked to, that you clearly either ignored or could not read:


Freakishly hot 1934 in the US.



Nothing expecially hot about 1934 across the globe.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:52:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You are missing the point.

When 1998 was the hottest year on record it was presented as pop culture evidence that man was causing warming.

When 1934 was determined to be the real hottest year on record it is claimed irrelevant.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  16:56:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Again, the charts that Kil linked to, that you clearly either ignored or could not read:


You know me well enough to know that I look at almost all links.

You do know I know how to read the charts.

Why the snide comment?



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 09/24/2007 16:57:11
Go to Top of Page

dv82matt
SFN Regular

760 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:15:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dv82matt a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are missing the point.

When 1998 was the hottest year on record it was presented as pop culture evidence that man was causing warming.

When 1934 was determined to be the real hottest year on record it is claimed irrelevant.
Well Jerome I'll say you have a point with this. But it's evidence of a double standard within the pop culture debate on global warming not within the science of global warming. Really, the global warming "celebrities" do say a lot of dumb things as do the various deniers.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:20:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Last week, conservative blogs were positively atwitter with news that a climate change skeptic caught an error in NASA's weather data.
The problem here is the writer is expressing a bias with contempt right off the bat. From this stand point one has to question the motivation and presentation of what follows.
Blogs with conservative agendas tend to deny global warming and confuse their readership by disseminating questionable or false information (of which you've often been a victim). Pointing out this bias is not in itself a bias.

Nice try though.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25977 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:35:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are missing the point.

When 1998 was the hottest year on record it was presented as pop culture evidence that man was causing warming.

When 1934 was determined to be the real hottest year on record it is claimed irrelevant.
You are missing the point. Prior to 2005, 1998 was the hottest year on record for the whole globe. Now, 2005 is that year, because 2005 was hotter than 1998, which is number two even after the recent correction of data. 1934 isn't even in the top-ten from a global perspective.

Therefore, you are seen to be doing two things. One is that you are obviously confusing the local weather of the continental United States with the global climate. Two is that you are relying upon conservative bloggers whose goal is anti-AGW propaganda for your science reporting.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

dv82matt
SFN Regular

760 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:47:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dv82matt a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
You are missing the point. Prior to 2005, 1998 was the hottest year on record for the whole globe.
Whoops, looks like I missed that too. But the particular year that holds the record is a rhetorical point not a scientific one. One needs to look at the totality of the data not pick out particular exceptional data points to make a valid scientific argument.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:49:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by dv82matt

Originally posted by Dave W.
You are missing the point. Prior to 2005, 1998 was the hottest year on record for the whole globe.
Whoops, looks like I missed that too. But the particular year that holds the record is a rhetorical point not a scientific one. One needs to look at the totality of the data not pick out particular exceptional data points to make a valid scientific argument.


Agreed. One does need to look at all the data.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:53:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Here is an example of "massaging" data to present a point. Keep in mind this graph was used to cement the idea of MMGW. It has since been debunked.





What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:54:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are missing the point.

When 1998 was the hottest year on record it was presented as pop culture evidence that man was causing warming.

When 1934 was determined to be the real hottest year on record it is claimed irrelevant.


Wow-- I'm totally wrong. I thought he'd dodge the issue or change the subject. In fact, he just repeats the lie!! I should have known, though.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  17:58:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote


Agreed. One does need to look at all the data.

I cannot believe you said that!

You must look at all the data and not cherry pick it. The totality of the data. This is because if you don't look at it all, you cannot possibly get an accurate view of the subject.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  18:00:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are missing the point.

When 1998 was the hottest year on record it was presented as pop culture evidence that man was causing warming.

When 1934 was determined to be the real hottest year on record it is claimed irrelevant.


Wow-- I'm totally wrong. I thought he'd dodge the issue or change the subject. In fact, he just repeats the lie!! I should have known, though.


How is this a lie?


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.59 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000