Warming vs. Cooling, Short-term vs. Long

I came across a reference to this older item on the Skeptical Science site: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1. It discusses the difference between cherrypicking relatively brief intervals during which global temperatures have cooled (which is what climate-change deniers do), and looking at the consistent long-term upward trend (which is what climate scientists do). It includes this neat graph, which sums things up nicely:

See those descending blue lines in the “skeptics” version? Those represent the “cooling” that shcb likes to go on about. See that overall rising red line in the “realists” version? That’s the trend that matters.

7 Responses to “Warming vs. Cooling, Short-term vs. Long”

  1. shcb Says:

    That’s basically the same criteria I use but I do read quite a few of them to glean as much as I can. I get lost in the fine points since as you say I’m no expert. I realize that is probably where the bulk of the evidence is but you can find some interesting tidbits in the periphery. I then use that to at least see if what both sides makes sense. Now both sides of an argument can make sense but one side be totally wrong and one side be totally right, especially if the definition of right or wrong depends on different visions or priorities.

    I doubt I could produce anyone that would pass your gauntlet, I’ve been playing that game with Enky for too many years, no matter who I put out there the noose would just tighten enough to eliminate therm. I will say one thing though, I don’t toss out the aging and crankish because most of them aren’t ill-informed and I suppose I’m on the edge of that group, and I think you have to be careful about eliminating people because of who is paying them, I could eliminate everyone that is paid by the environmental industry but if we both did that neither of us would have an expert to quote. It’s kind of like people not watching a movie with a liberal in it, you can only watch Bruce Willis and Tom Selleck so much. So I read what the people that are paid by the environmental industry say and try and be fair, that’s all you can do.

  2. shcb Says:

    One last,last thing, I do tend to give the old guys a little extra credability since they have less to lose, they are at the end of their working life. They don’t have to be as worried for their future as the young bucks in a politically charged issue.

  3. enkidu Says:

    WSJ has an opinion page article signed by 16 climate skeptics. No time to google or wiki their names today. For what it is worth:


    Don’t Panic!

  4. shcb Says:

    Good golly, a lot here. I complain a lot that the guys (and gal) on this site don’t ask me a straight question, I guess you should be carful what you ask for.

    “…your views as being superior to those of …” not really, but maybe so, I think my view is that my view, which of course has a lot to do with the view of the experts I agree with, is that I’m not superior, I know less than they do but they don’t think they know enough to be making the predictions they are. More on that later, I’ll try and take the link you provided, the one where they claim man has caused 150%, and use that as an example.

    Secondly, and more importantly is the second tier, the people that are saying what the experts are saying. I don’t think they are being very honest in reporting what the experts really say.

    So let’s see if we can pare this down a little 1) yes long term warming is happening, that is what I said in this very thread, Jan 25 11:50a. 2) yes it is being cause by humans to an extent, what extent is the question, the experts I trust say we have the ability to make about a 4% difference in our climate, without a full out nuclear war or something like that. We actually were able to change it in a measurable way in World War II because of all the bombs we were dropping raised so much dust, but it was a blip and had settled back into it’s normal patterns within a couple years after the war was over. 3) you are representing my view correctly. I’ve said this many times on this site, if we can make changes that fit into the AGW agenda that are needed for other purposes, less pollution in general for instance, and it doesn’t cost us much, I’m on board. For instance, if new technology comes out that makes coal plants cleaner, require it to be used as that equipment is replaced in the normal course of things.

    I’m going to take a little aside here for a local example. The AGW crowd doesn’t want us to burn coal for electricity even though we have an abundance of it, so we have converted to natural gas, now we need more natural gas so they are fracking all over to get more gas, now people are up in arms because they don’t want the possible negative effects of the fracking. So if the AGW is a hoax we are risking polluting our ground water for nothing, this is the danger of turning a problem into a crisis

    “So, on the one hand…contradictory view is superior.” That is because you are exaggerating the amount of consensus in the scientific community

    Why should anyone believe me? Because I’m right and you’re wrong :-).

    “…clear ideological predisposition to avoid facts that call for a collectivist response” yes I do, but why does this problem have to have a collectivist solution? Make a form of energy that is cost effective and has zero emissions and people will pay for it on the open market. The rest of the paragraph is covered by you exaggerating the weight of the authority.

    “Who else in the world agrees with you…” I’ve offered many, many links and quotes through the years, you don’t read but the first couple comments per your own admission, Enky and Smith just disregard any of them as kooks because the link came from a kook (me), your loss, their loss. Don’t know what to do for you, go back and read the last three years of my posts I guess.

    “Name for me a specific error that you think is embodied in the consensus scientific view…” well golly, what do you think I do here every day? The primary response I get from you is I’m no expert so my opinion doesn’t count, the primary response I get from Enky and Smith is I’m a conservative so my opinion doesn’t count. My views aren’t more authoritative than those with actual expertise, they are just more authoritative than those with actual expertise you believe, in some cases because our priorities are just different, in others because if a climatologist says my statistics and model is correct but a statistician and computer modeler say it isn’t I tend to side with the expert in that field, isn’t that what you say I should do? Then I look at both arguments as much as I can from a non expert point of view and see if one or both make sense. Go back and read what Miss Kate said and then read what Roger said in the comments. Now Roger could be anyone, but let’s say he is who he says he is, he makes Kate seem like exactly who she is a bright young college kid with a lot to learn. That is just one simple example, when Martin says a model is wrong because___, and he get’s real specific should I believe him even if I don’t understand what he is talking about anymore than the climatologist? At that point does it all run down hill, if the model is wrong and the prediction is based on the model can the prediction be right?

    I’ve spent way more time on this than I can afford right now, I’ll look for more this weekend if I have the time. I would really like to study the 150% of global warming was caused by man issue because it intrigues me. I scanned the actual study and I think I can make a case, but I might have misread it, we’ll see.

    So you don’t have to keep checking here I’ll send you an email that I’ve posted something and we can continue. I’ve never ducked questions here, some of them I just can’t answer. For instance if I heard an interview 3 years ago I don’t have a link, you’re just going to have to take my word for it. I don’t lie here, why should I? no one believes anything I say, this is just sport for me.

  5. shcb Says:

    Good Knarly! Now think about it, is it possible for not only two events, but three events to occupy the same timeframe? Could it be that the end of the little ice age, the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the beginning of recorded weather data? This is where we started to be skeptical. In the beginning of the AGW/ACC scare most of us that are now not convinced believed it, I mean why not, the experts were saying it is so, who were we to argue with experts. We got suspicious when the only solution was socialism, we have to take money from producers and give it to third world countries in the form of Kyoto/cap and trade. But how can you argue with a chart that shows industrial revolution (co2) and rising temps, it all fit so nicely “highest temps in history” they said. Then a few years into the scare/scam as it was morphing into, a smart guy gave us the other half of the chart and schooled us on the medieval warming period, it all made sense then.

    We had three things that happened at the same time and the scammers had sort of forgot to tell us the whole story because they figured there would be so much good come from us not knowing. But by this time it was too politicized and they were too deep into the scam to change course.

  6. jbc Says:

    Haha. Okay; I shall henceforth picture you as the honey badger rather than the grinch.

  7. shcb Says:

    A couple weeks ago my wife said she hadn’t seen the honey bager video, I thought she was going to wet herself when I showed it to her. It is now part of our daily banter.

    I just turned 55, there is a little grinch in this honey badger.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.