“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I don't know if both sets of data come from the same satellite, but they certainly don't come from the same instruments. The UAH data pertains to atmospheric temperatures, while the Atmospheric Infra-Red Sounder (AIRS) data measures Earth's surface temperature.

you are correct in not all here today at hospital dad was just diagnosed with sarcoma .
The fact is still that sp Dr Spencer was involved with both projects.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

No, for reasons I've explained before, "denier", which is shorthand for "climate change science denier" is more accurate than "skeptic", which is shorthand for "climate change science skeptic".

Well, for the sake of accuracy, it's based on reasons you've opined about before, as have I. You've only explained, as have I, why we each believe our respective & opposite opinions are correct. Not a nitpick, just another example illustrating the distinction between opinion & fact. In my opinion, only an irrefutable fact can logically be "denied."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

No, for reasons I've explained before, "denier", which is shorthand for "climate change science denier" is more accurate than "skeptic", which is shorthand for "climate change science skeptic".

except for one major point . I don't deny anything as to the fact that the climate is changing . It has always changed and will continue to change for the next approximately 4.5 billion years till sol becomes a yellow giant and its corona envelops the earths orbit .
I just don't agree that man has had any significant effect on the climate of the planet .
The testing of nuclear weapons not withstanding.

We all know that has had an effect .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you are correct in not all here today at hospital dad was just diagnosed with sarcoma.

Ugh. Sorry Newhaul. Fingers crossed for effective treatment.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you are correct in not all here today at hospital dad was just diagnosed with sarcoma .
The fact is still that sp Dr Spencer was involved with both projects.

Not a happy diagnosis. Wishing your father and family the best.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ugh. Sorry Newhaul. Fingers crossed for effective treatment.

waiting to find out if its malignant or benign .

Thanks for the well wishes

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Not a happy diagnosis. Wishing your father and family the best.

thanks for that
I know we Al! Debate sometimes to much but in the end we are all sailors
And that trumps all the other stuff

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

thanks for that
I know we Al! Debate sometimes to much but in the end we are all sailors
And that trumps all the other stuff

Oh no. We know you didn't mean to trigger anyone, but let's hope SailOar is still on his methane high. Maybe JimB can tell us how long that stuff lasts at ground level.

Hoping, of course, for you & your Dad to hear "benign."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

today at hospital dad was just diagnosed with sarcoma

Very sorry to hear about that. Your dad has my best wishes for a successful treatment and a full recovery.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

except for one major point . I don't deny anything as to the fact that the climate is changing . It has always changed and will continue to change for the next approximately 4.5 billion years till sol becomes a yellow giant and its corona envelops the earths orbit .
I just don't agree that man has had any significant effect on the climate of the planet .
The testing of nuclear weapons not withstanding.

We all know that has had an effect .

Yes, I understand that. That is why I further clarified that "denier" is shorthand for "climate change science denier." As you've stated many times you deny the conclusions of the vast majority of climate change scientists. You don't deny that climate changes.

For some of the reasons you deny conventional climate science you have a fig-leaf's worth of scientific rationale. In those few instances one might consider calling you a climate change science skeptic. But on a large number of CC issues you refuse to accept even well-documented scientific conclusions (for instance, that the heat-island effect has been properly accounted for, and that high-latitudes are warming faster than mid- and lower-latitudes). IMHO, these conclusions you've reached take you out of the climate change science skeptic camp and put you into the climate change science denier camp.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yes, I understand that. That is why I further clarified that "denier" is shorthand for "climate change science denier." As you've stated many times you deny the conclusions of the vast majority of climate change scientists. You don't deny that climate changes.

For some of the reasons you deny conventional climate science you have a fig-leaf's worth of scientific rationale. In those few instances one might consider calling you a climate change science skeptic. But on a large number of CC issues you refuse to accept even well-documented scientific conclusions (for instance, that the heat-island effect has been properly accounted for, and that high-latitudes are warming faster than mid- and lower-latitudes). IMHO, these conclusions you've reached take you out of the climate change science skeptic camp and put you into the climate change science denier camp.

except it isn't
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/...-term-warming/

Except it isn't
The recently published paper Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRS used 15 years of infrared satellite data to obtain a rather strong global surface warming trend of +0.24 C/decade. Objections have been made to that study by me (e.g. here) and others, not the least of which is the fact that the 2003-2017 period addressed had a record warm El Nino near the end (2015-16), which means the computed warming trend over that period is not entirely human-caused warming

Roy Spencer, PhD

All the relevant data is here .

See all the above and hence I am a skeptic .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh no. We know you didn't mean to trigger anyone, but let's hope SailOar is still on his methane high. Maybe JimB can tell us how long that stuff lasts at ground level.

Hoping, of course, for you & your Dad to hear "benign."

small t = trumps
not capital T. =Trump's

There is a difference one means it takes precedence

The other means improves the American capitalistic economy
Aka snowflake trigger.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yes, I understand that. That is why I further clarified that "denier" is shorthand for "climate change science denier." As you've stated many times you deny the conclusions of the vast majority of climate change scientists. You don't deny that climate changes.

For some of the reasons you deny conventional climate science you have a fig-leaf's worth of scientific rationale. In those few instances one might consider calling you a climate change science skeptic. But on a large number of CC issues you refuse to accept even well-documented scientific conclusions (for instance, that the heat-island effect has been properly accounted for, and that high-latitudes are warming faster than mid- and lower-latitudes). IMHO, these conclusions you've reached take you out of the climate change science skeptic camp and put you into the climate change science denier camp.

Moving beyond Newhaul's particular opinions for the time being, doesn't it depend on what exactly the conclusions of the "vast majority" of climate change scientists are, and which of those conclusions somebody is rejecting? Otherwise you run the risk of putting everyone into two camps, and even you would probably agree there are more than two opinions in the science as to many aspects of the overall issue. Different scientific opinions on the role of natural forces alone is likely something less than a "vast majority," to say nothing of varying opinions on the degree of impacts. Wouldn't it just be simpler, and certainly less divisive, to say that some people disagree with [fill in blank] conclusions of CC scientists?

You may not agree and that's fine, but I for one would think it might then be easier to promote the add'l actions you desire by invoking, to cite one example, the oft-cited "precautionary principle." That way those who believe (again, for e.g.) that CC exists, that it supercedes natural forces, but are skeptical about its impacts may be persuaded to come onboard. Maybe the "actions" you guys have been clamoring for should be less about encouraging more solar, wind, and carbon taxes, and more about thinking of ways to find such areas of common ground. Leaving aside my previously stated objections to the use of such labels for a moment, I also fail to see -- as a more practical manner -- how they do anything but lose potential constituents.

So what is it exactly you believe so important (i.e. will be accomplished) by placing people into these affirmer/skeptic/denier categories? Hopefully it's something more productive (and less silly) than just some of the gratuitous insults many of us toss at each other in the course of these threads.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

...Maybe JimB can tell us how long that stuff lasts at ground level...

Troposphere = surface (0) to 5-10 km (depending on temperature and pressure)

[transmitterdan]

The only purpose for labeling people is so the labeler can feel superior to those they label. Other that that creating labels has no usage and can be safely ignored by those of us who have no need to feel superior to anyone else.