Yes I did, but just in case it was at me I had to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

check that out

lol I thought for sure you must and you were being funny :P

Sarcasm, so hard to do in text.

@YJ: The person who was complaining about you trusting the word of these so-called "experts" and not believing his unwavering facts that only he knows.

No it is not...............
You are right, it is.

I bet bolshoi is also a religious rightwing nutjob.

it seems bolshoi has chosen option #4 from the above list? I thought for sure after the crap he was spewing about math it was gonna be #3.

I guess I'll revise my hypothesis of what flavor of douchebag he is in light of this new data. That's how we stay true to the scientific method, after all.

Or the second option I listed.

the fact that the earth's temperature hasn't increased in the past 10-15 years is established. i don't know which reference you want, maybe this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg

Nope YJ he was just off looking for sources...

No upward trend there, none at all...

Errr, are you blind bolshoi?

It's silly that you put it that way.... what reference do I WANT? My point is that such references likely do not EXIST in sufficient numbers to make finding one easy for you - hence why I am confident declaring a consensus among scientists. You disagree with me. Therefore it is your job to prove me wrong by finding one... so what I WANT is a published article of a climatologist in a peer reviewed journal that supports the claims you are making. The graph you've posted certainly looks interesting, but I'm not sure what it's trying to prove. It looks like the temperature was less than expected till '85 or so, then trended to more than expected afterwords.

Standing alone with no context, this doesn't appear to mean much for either argument - it certainly doesn't convince me that the temperature hasn't increased in the last 10-15 years. Unless I'm missing something? I often do.

Just fyi, if you intend to keep searching, know that I have already looked. Not extensively by any means, but I have looked. And I haven't found a damn thing. I did, however, find 900,000 articles that support MY claim

"the fact that the earth's temperature hasn't increased in the past 10-15 years is established. i don't know which reference you want, maybe this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg"

By whom? Names of the climatologists involved please? Citations?

hehe yeah I forgot that Gobbledy. I guess I'm done kicking THAT horse.

See, regardless of all of the other problems with it, bolshoi's source undermines his argument. We needn't bother refuting it.

oh yes of course i spent all that time trying to find a reference. it's not that wikipedia was the first result from google. and if you think that graph shows a warming in the past 10-15 years then you all need to learn statistics.

YOU'RE telling US to learn statistics? Have you forgotten the first 8 or so pages of this thread, in which you proved that you were incapable of understanding basic algebra? How exactly can you argue that there isn't an increase?

Here're similar data from a more reputable source, if anyone cares:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

Well, you're wasting your breath because he obviously doesn't care.

meteorological station temperature data over long periods of time are notoriously unreliable, that's why they gathered the satellite data. all i'm saying is that all these models back in 2000 were saying by now the temperature would be much higher, and it hasn't increased at all. how many models have to be disproven before you revise your theory?

Excuse me but the fact that new models are being made is because the theory is not perfect and has to be revised. Revision is indeed taking place. Or maybe by revision you mean discarding?

if you cut out all the warming before the whole co2 theory was popularized, then there really is no trend. let me give you an analogy. i look at the data for wins on this website, find which country's wins are increasing, let's say austria. i look at the types of games that are being played, i see more live games are being played. so i make a model showing the number of austrian wins increases with live games. oops, it turns out my model gives the same results independent of input, i'll have to try again. then the number of live games increases dramatically but austrian wins don't change. hm.... ok let's revise the model again! i make some new predictions, but again they don't match reality. but not to fear, there's always another model, hey my models all explained past behavior, so it must be scientific. it's not like real science requires falsifiability. oh wait...

You cannot cut off the trend before the theory was formulated.

The theory, in simple words, is that increased greenhouse gas emissions starting since the Industrial Revolution has increased the greenhouse effect, causing global warming. Since the theory claims that the effect started from the 1800s it is not legitimate to discount data after that date.

"how many models have to be disproven before you revise your theory?"

Just the one would do.

Prove it, don't say it. Also, I love how you attempt to explain the scientific method while at the same time completely ignoring it. Perhaps bolshoi you should share with us some of your background since you are such a smart fellow and we are in need of education.

For instance, I'm a grad student in medical physics who has actually submitted work for publication in scientific journals. I would like to know what you do for a living that makes you feel my statistical background is inadequate to understand your carefully crafted proof.

hmm you all realized diplomat33 has created this thread and then posted to it exactly once with "hear hear." All this in 10 pages.

Well trolled sir, well trolled. Still, you have to admit you got lucky with a retard like bolshoi coming onto the scene.

troll or not, have the rest of us not been enjoying our smug superiority, or at least an interesting conversation???

@YJ, completely true, but the no increase in earth's surface temperature in the 2000s was in my country covered in national media.
To think global warming is true because it is backed up by a lot of scientists (not all of them experts) is the pretence of science.

@carpenter: there have been well documented increases in the global average temp in the 2000s. I don't know what your national media said.... but i recall something along the lines of 7/8 of the highest recorded temperatures in the past 10 years.

The question of whether CO2 levels and global average temperature are linked is a good one.

It is possible that in the past CO2 levels lagged behind temperature (so there would be a correlated rise but the temperature would rise first) - i don't know i'm just speculating here - which would mean that in the past when temperature rose 'natural' mechanisms, such as the ocean's capacity to hold CO2 and permafrost melting/releases, caused a CO2 rise.

However this doesn't mean it is impossible to trigger a temperature rise via CO2 emissions (and that temperature rise will in turn trigger a positive feedback loop, releasing more CO2 and increasing the temperature even more)

"global warming...is backed up by a lot of scientists (not all of them experts)"

But it is the best theory backed by ALL the experts. That is, while some non-experts also back the theory, those who are considered experts almost to a man back the theory.

As for models, well i'm sure you can come up with 1,000s of different models, and various climate scientists have indeed done that, but while they all disagree on the amount of warming, none of them suggest increased CO2 levels will correspond to lower global temperatures.

There is certainly a lot of picking and choosing of models to fit the past data best, but they are always trying to best include new phenomena or better model them... if a model happens to correspond to the past data but doesn't include as many features then it may

carpenter is right. The Shell corporation's opinion should be given just as much weight as a climatologist's. Asshole! The reason scientist's opinions are the only ones that matter in this situation is because the rest of you are not smart enough to follow the data and conclusions drawn without it being spoonfed to you in a misrepresentative or downright lying soundbite on Fox News.

Need proof? See everything bolshoi has said so far.

Ugh, I give up. This is actually irritating me. Can you hear yourself?

"To think global warming is true because it is backed up by a lot of scientists (not all of them experts) is the pretence of science."

Asshole! Believing in the conclusions of experts isn't pretense, it's common fucking sense! As far as the non-expert scientists go, yes, there are a lot of them. I am one of them - and the only reason our opinion on this matter counts is because we ARE familiar with the scientific rigor necessary to get these results published in prestigious journals.

Heirarchy of believablility:

Experts.
Non expert scientists
You.

Get it?