DAR
Thanks for mentioning this. This is the GW skeptic claim which goes:

“Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect”

You can read a good response to this here.

No doubt you have heard of these things but perhaps hadn’t had the opportunity to hear a proper response. Keep them coming. I’ll respond to them as time allows.

D.

In 5000 years the earth has warmed and cooled. It will continue to do so and the minute increase in average temperatures (some of which are taken from thermometers near heat sources) will be statistically insignificant.

Bigd: Funny, you change the name to Al Gore and change publishing this book to making this movie and the result would be true.>>

DAR
No it wouldn’t be true. Gore’s book and movie are entirely based on the solid, peer-reviewed, science done by experts.

As referenced above, Plimer “has not published scientific papers on climate change.” (ibid) And yet he tries to overthrow the established science by writing a pop book for the populace. Gore hasn’t published of course but he isn’t going what Pilmer does, he is referencing the established science. That has a different standard, a different burden of proof.

Bigd: Freethinkers who are… truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.>>

DAR
I am sorry you so completely misunderstand. We thrive on having our words disputed. It’s the fire our beliefs must pass through before we believe them. This is how science gets it’s power to discern reality, it’s how our justice system gets at the truth and it’s how freethinkers and philosophers get rid of the junk. So dispute any and all of our “words.” Just make sure you have your ducks in a row, your references hold up to examination and your arguments are sound. When you have the better argument I will change to your position so fast your head will spin.

Bigd: “In 15 years when the world is not melting you guys will look foolish.”>>

DAR
Actually, some climatologist I have seen address this say we would need to see a fairly strong 20 year trend for there to be serious reservations about our present understanding.
The actual melting will probably be more for your great-great grandchildren. So who cares anyway!

D.

SAV
Actually, no you didn’t. I asked the question at 01:16 11Jul, and you haven’t referenced the 1998 “peak” since. In fact, you just explained that you weren’t answering it because you considered it silly.

DOG
I have made it through junior high, high school and college so I fail to see what you are trying to indicate about me seeing as how we have never met.

SAV
It’s quite simple. Claiming that global warming is not a problem because “warming peaked in 1998″ is like saying that George Brett isn’t a good hitter because he’s no longer .395, even if he’s batting .390. The fact that this is so incredibly obvious yet you fail to recognize the fallacy of the reasoning is the indicator that you aren’t thinking even the slightest bit critically.
Now that you’ve finally acknowledged that the reasoning is bunk when we apply it to batting average, why can’t you acknowledge that the very same reasoning is bunk when we apply it to temperature? Now, let me make something painfully clear: this is not the entirety of anybody’s argument, and I’ve never said that it is. But we can draw a conclusion when somebody uses a statistical argument rooted in statistical ignorance: the person make the argument must be ignorant of statistical mathematics. So when Plimer uses this erroneous reasoning, why should we consider his interpretations valid? We have positive reason to believe they are not valid. Throw on the slew of objections that Darrel presented, and it becomes clear that this guy’s a hack.
So, contrary to your claims that we’ve rejected his arguments because we disagree with them, we’ve shown you valid, compelling evidence that he is not a credible source.

DOG
I am getting tired of your berating attitude. You want to debate do so but I suggest you tone it down.

SAV
When I have to ask you three times to answer a very relevant question, you can bet your booty I’m calling you on your evasion. Period. I treat you like somebody who won’t answer a question because you’re somebody who tries to avoid answering a question. Why should I do any differently?

DOG
I answer your questions when I deem them worthy of my time. Some I have no interest in answering.

SAV
No kidding. Why would you have an interest in answering a question that undercuts your position? That’s why “Run Dog, run!” is appropriate.

DOG
I did not get my degree in nursing by sending in box tops.

SAV
And that’s how I got my degree in science? and a job in a lab? and my science teaching certificate? Or do you think I got them from a Cracker Jack box?

DOG
I said that you are using stats for the past 150 years.

SAV
And you would be wrong. I merely posted that graph to address and refute your source’s claim that the past 30 years of warming have been “erased.” I don’t need information going back 150 years, or 500 years, or 500,000 years to refute a claim that refers to the last 30 years. All I need is information that refers to the last 30 years.

I did not get my degree in nursing by sending in box tops.

SAV
Right! You think that .390 is a lousy batting average because it’s less than .395. People who take my class know why you’re wrong. Actually, they know before they get to my class, because they’ve already made it through junior high.
The thing here, though, is that you’ve had the opportunity to have lessons correspondence style, but instead of asking questions, or challenging the mathematical claims, or answering the questions posed to you, you plug your ears.

DOG
… the Freethinkers who are the all knowing, all seeing, truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.

SAV
Ah, so that‘s why you don’t answer my questions!

Run, Dog! Run!

I said that you are using stats for the past 150 years. Go back 5000 years and look at the temperatures and tell me what you see. The statistical analysis should give much better results using that many more data points.

I have to tell you Sav, I am getting tired of your berating attitude. You want to debate do so but I suggest you tone it down. I am not your child or your wife and will not tolerate much in the way I am treated at the site I permit you to use.

Understand?

Your credibility has been spiraling, but this is appalling. You are refusing to answer a simple question. We’re left with two glaring possibilities:
1. You do not understand why George Brett was still a great hitter even after his average dropped five points from .395.
2. You do understand why pitchers didn’t throw George Brett fat pitches when batting .390, but you refuse to acknowledge that arguing otherwise shows a profound, disqualifying misunderstanding of statistics.
Is there a possibility I’m missing, Dog, or is one of these the case? Because both make you look like a pathetic hack. Your response is a complete evasion of every one of my points. Run, Dog, run!

Funny, you change the name to Al Gore and change publishing this book to making this movie and the result would be true.

Of course, the ones who do not agree are moron knuckle draggers who have not been to a class taught by Darrel or Sav so they do not know what they are doing. They have been roasted by the Freethinkers who are the all knowing, all seeing, truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.

In 15 years when the world is not melting you guys will look foolish.

By the way, not to worry, I fixed things. Gore said the planet had a fever so I dumped a bottle of Tylenol in the storm drain to help bring it down.