Why do the alarmist of global warming only look at data that agrees with what they believe?

Question

Why do the alarmist of global warming only look at data that agrees with what they believe?

Answer 1

That is what propaganda is all about.  Cherry picking your data.

It came to my attention today that many of the alarmists "climatologists" never really studied climatology.  They just learned their job on the fly.  Such as:

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)

Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences

Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics

Meanwhile there are many retired skeptical climatologists, who studied climate all of their lives but yet their judgment  can not be trusted.

Answer 2

You mean from organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, GPU, WMS and so on?

I'm glad you changed your name from "Speaker of the Truth." The problem is you still don't. When are you going to post something relevant, instead of just disinformation?

Answer 3

To be honest, they go even lower than that.

- They skew the data leaning towards the non-alarmists to where they then get the media on their side to believe it's real.

Answer 4

Alarmists seem to be unteachable - they continue to spread misinformation:

Eg.:

They continually claim Polar Bears are carnivores that need ice to survive.  If you only read WhakoPedia - that's their information source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear

However when you read other more real sources - you will discover Polar Bears are Land Omnivores that don't require ice to survive - they  will eat berries, eggs, plants or anything they can get and in the summer and can dwell in land caves.

http://www.thewildones.org/SFC/Seana/sop...

Here they call them 'largest land carnivores' = BUT later in the article admit they are OMNIVORES.

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/art...

Almost as confused as alarmists are.

We could go into undersea volcanoes - but they will NEVER.

Answer 5

You have to be in the USA. My God - Americans are conceited!! You are a fool - like millions of your wasteful countrymen. Thank heavens I am miles and miles away from you sorry lot!

Answer 6

I'm guessing that the answer to your question is: They do that for the same reason YOU only look at data that agrees with what YOU think!  Am I right?  Now don't automatically deny that!  Think about it!  

The fact is we human beings are programmed to disregard anything that we don't want to believe.  It takes a revelation, kind of like the one St Paul is supposed to have had on the road to Damascus, for us to change our way of thinking.

I'm not saying that I accept the fact of GW, but don't make the common mistake of disbelieving it just because you maybe don't like Al Gore, or something like that.

Answer 7

THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT THE DATA.

but global warming is not about global warming.

it is about the far left radical treehuggers getting control.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/artic...

they have there own agenda and the global warming scam lets them do it with the greatest power of law.

the tree huggers found that they could not easily change US law.

so they did a end around and are trying to get the UN to make US laws.

this is a unconstitutional way to take over the US by the treehuggers.

Answer 8

Because the rest of the data just makes their argument fall apart.

I always like letting them ramble on and then ask about the wooly mammoth.

Answer 9

...For the same reason prescribed religions exist. Anything can be justifiable in a certain context, and no-one likes to be proved wrong.

Answer 10

It's called 'tunnel-vision'.

Unfortunately, agencies like NOAA..... who we should rely on for accurate information.... are spreading false information regarding global warming.

surface stations used to collect temperature data for use in forcasting climate trends, have been found to be faulty and have been reporting higher than actual temperatures for years.  And the situation is getting worse.

To date.... NOAA has done nothing to correct the situation.

If the data is flawed....there can be no science!

Answer 11

Denial, pure and simple. The mid troposphere from latitudes -20 to 20 (the tropics), invalidates the AGW theory as a source for any of the recent warming observed. All they can do is to attempt to justify by using the radiosonde dataset which is next to worthless compared to the satellite data.

http://www.ssmi.com/rss_research/climate...

They just love the theory so much they can't accept it that their tiny 1.6 Watt of forcing is so lost in the chaos of convection it is a meaning less amount of energy.

.

.

Answer 12

Excellent point.  I can see we have our thinking cap on today.  Alarmists tend to look at data from NOAA, UK Met Office, NASA and other subversive organizations like that.  Those quasi-governmental organizations have a long history of making bad data look plausible so you can't really blame them.  What data should the alarmists be ignoring and what data should they be looking at instead?

Answer 13

What data would you like people to consider?  You've taken several opportunities to take careless shots at others here today, but you're presented no science or data.  

Please do show us if you're aware of something we haven't considered.

As for the scientists, look up the definition of the word "consensus".  It is the process of examining all theories and data and reaching the most plausible conclusion.

The IPCC process for example did include and consider skeptics such as Gray, Lindzen, McKitrick, et al.  They were considered, and the consensus was reached.  Their theories simply may not have proved to be the most credible.  

Skeptics currently have their fifth opportunity to provide better scientific evidence in time for the next IPCC report in 3 years.  If you know of some science or data that may change their conclusions, you'd better get it to them, because no one else seems to have anything credible.

Answer 14

They don't.

Scientists look at all the data, even that from the skeptics.  But the overwhelming amount of data says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  Here's a thousand pages worth, backed by hundreds of references to the peer reviewed scientific literature.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Conservatives know the data is real.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Why do deniers make ridiculous accusations, without any proof?

Answer 15

I think you make a good point.There's nothing that can't be question to some degree.You have to give them credit,they have brought to light some major issues.Some alarmist will even state that one answer will bring thousands of questions.Skeptics are at a disadvantage we don't have the resources and depended on individual scientist.We are limited to whats provided from well known organizations.That means we have to dig harder for theses facts.They are there hidden neatly away,usually on the last page of a 80 page article.It can be entertaining if one has the time.

Answer 16

Tell me what data is missing:  We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we have to take the time to get it right. We can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on 1-31-08. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone now want to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak NG in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Over the next 90 years carbon dioxide is projected to skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but we have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuk winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available. Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 17

Okay Bob, enough.  Fess up... which oil company do you work for?

I ask that because surely you aren't so blind as to suggest the *head-in-the-sand* crowd (the deniers) use good unbiased data, like, oh... SCIENCE.  Their data is the bilge spread by oil companies, science-ignorant people like Bush, and religious nutjobs who think it's inconceivable humans could change God's planet.  

Eric C, retired climatologists probably shouldn't be your best source of information.  On the grand scale of scientific study, this is quite a young science.  The old timers you refer to understandably had little knowledge of the concept of global warming, and even less good data.  By the way, I trust you have a source for your accusations...?

To 'life in nz'.... PLEASE don't generalize.  The questioner does not represent all Americans, though it does seem like an awful lot of them!  I can't even stand to use the word "us" -- I'm an American who, like you, thinks he's a conceited fool.  There *are* a lot of reasonable people in this country.  We're as disgusted as you are by people like Bob (the asker, not the educated answerer of the same name).

Tomcat, I followed your link, and I fail to see how the data on that page "invalidates AGW."  Also, you say, "They just love the theory so much they can't accept it that their tiny 1.6 Watt of forcing is...a meaning less (sic) amount of energy."  Science does not "love" theories without evidence (or even with).  It follows evidence as it's revealed and modifies theories accordingly.  Nor does science allow personal bias to affect a consensus.  But your irrelevant data and poor grasp of science aside for the moment... You're too busy being pompous to see the problem with your wattage argument.  Consider the effects of nearly SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE... *each* with "their tiny 1.6 Watt of forcing..." (whatever that means).  This is a common oversight for people who see the world so subjectively.  That self-centered naivety is why we get ever-closer to a huge mess.