I will pay you $1000 if you can disprove www.surfacestations.org

Go ahead and check my evidence.

You're just highlighting the fact that the science is shady. Temperatures have only been measured for a very, very limited time. Instruments of measure have been inconsistent.

This lack of evidence supports the idea that claims of science backing man-caused global warming are, at best, premature. Ie, a lie.

see we remember when it was incontrovertible evidence for global WARMING

now it's

man pollutes
solar heat gets trapped
????
climate change

"Say we're playing dice and you're winning. I accuse you of cheating by using a loaded die. That's my hypothesis then. But in order to support that theory, I'd have to formulate a null hypothesis and test it statistically. The null hypothesis usually is that the observations are the result of chance. If statistics show the chances of getting the observations by chance are very low then the hypothesis hasn't been disproved.

Watts didn't test his hypothesis of surfacestations.org. Which is what a scientist would have done before posting wild claims on the Internet."

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/arch_denialist_scores_own_goal/

This right there is why Global Climate Bitching sucks ass.  Your crew has taken "science" back to the Dark Ages, back to Peter Abelard, in fact, who said "If I, in my awesomeness, pwn the Bishop of Thbbpptt in a flamewar concerning our imagination of the Holy Spirit, I not only prove he sucks, I prove the true nature of the Holy Spirit."  I'm translating for the gist, you understand.  But it's a quote.

You would not, in fact, have to come up with a hypothetical model of the universe and put it through a limited, self-rewarding series of trials before coming up with results which you, using circular reasoning, extrapolate to the larger universe, and say "See I deduced the Laws of God, and you can't disprove it!" inviting a contrary hypothetical model of the universe subjected to a limited set of trials and opposing, contrary extrapolations.  Yes, yes, I know this passes as "science" by professional whores sucking at the teats of professional research.  If you just fill enough pages with test results, it counts as "work"...work being "science"...and justifying guess about the physical laws of the universe.  Yes this is what thousands of professionals call "science". 

It's still bullshit.

Pilgrim, if I suspect you of using loaded dice, I will not create hypothetical models of the universe and test them in limited trials subject to peer review.  I will proceed directly to physical observation of the universe itself.  I will put your dice in a glass of water, and some honest dice in a glass of water, and mister, if your loaded dice displace more water than the honest bones, then I know they got more than bone in there don't I?  And ye'll swing for it.

A neat example of making-shit-up "science" versus the Science of direct observation.  Galileo did not have to prove the law of gravity to disprove Ptolemaic circles.  He just observed moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter instead of the Earth, which the Ptolemaic system did not allow.  GAME OVER.

"Of course your argument fails to understand that there is evidence for man-made climate change"

I'm simply pointing out that the evidence is for a tiny period which is insufficient to produce statistically significant results, and that this evidence was taken with inconsistent instruments. Hell, the evidence, as you have pointed out, is often faulty. God isn't guiding people to measure temperatures at the right locations to accurately measure temperatures indicative of regions. And they're certainly not everywhere--the data is very limited.

It's a huge presumption to think you're working with accurate data for enough of everywhere. And it's a lie to pretend significantly significant results for such tiny changes over such a tiny period.

As a scientific hypothesis it is destroyed by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Man pollutes.
Heat enters the polluted atmosphere.
It is trapped.

Remember that?

EITHER

Solar heat is trapped by pollution and remains heat

OR

Solar heat is trapped by pollution and is converted to an equal amount of some other form of energy or a chemical reaction -- on the same scale as solar radiation onto the earth

OR

the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false.

At this point the whores turn into Jesse Ventura "I'm just a guy asking questions" and insist on respect for Science...they're MERELY entertaining the hypotheses that solar radiation over the whole earth is transformed from heat to some other form of energy - sometimes - in a manner we can't observe. 

Anybody who says "That's bullshit" is ANTISCIENCE!!1!

But as I said elsewhere this is merely the science of climate.  The politics of climate is already settled - we are NOT confronted with imminent catastrophic straightline floods and droughts forever and ever unless we destroy industry.  Smog please!

You_Fool your stuff does nothing in the face of evidence.

Confronted with evidence of a murder scene and saying "well the body ain't here" does not mean a murder did not happen.

Aka the problems my site identifies do not go away with a wave of the hand.

Ahhh, timing is everything

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

So as a forestry guy (highschool classes) I should educate you all on some of this. Ring periods will match at certain points. A 20 year old tree will match at year ten with a fifteen year old trees year five. This is how they determine a long long span.

In this case they used a heck of a lot of high quality bores and with a significant sampling pool.

They proved an interesting set of points. Multiple heating and cooling periods, all done by the interaction with the sun.

While the mean temperature is in a downward angle the specific periods show a significant set of spiking for the Medevil warm period and downward levels of significance as well.

Flint, so the fact that the whole point of your site has been proved to be wrong (i.e. that the shown stations have different sources of heat than just the natural world) means nothing to you? How about I link to the actual report by the NOAA? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013094.shtml

So the findings are that the bias was known, already taken into account and also the stations singled out actually show a bias towards cooler average temperatures, i.e. not at all what surfacestations.org is saying... It seems to me that it is disproved and you owe me $1000... I am happy to use Zarf as an intermediatery

Kemp: Sorry about the Holocene, what I meant was hotter than the latest one, the one which we seem to still be in though we should be out of it.... I confused myself twice, I am sorry.
So to be clear... we are at the tail end of a Halocene, which has been going for much longer than any past ones, all evidence points to the fact we should be heading out and back towards a glacial period, thus temperatures should be dropping (or at least staying reasonably static) however they are increasing. It is true that this could be natural, and I am sorry if you believe that I am completely against that possibility, I am actually open to it, but the science seems to point to man-made climate change as being the better possibility, in fact I notice on the news last night (though I haven't gone to find the report itself) that a study was done and the possibility that the extreme weather conditions we (the world) have had lately (record high temperatures, extreme cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes, etc..) are 30-60 times more likely to be due to man-made climate change than natural causes. Statistics I know, but occam's razor does apply, and if something is more likely then it is more likely.

Of course we can play the famous Pascal's Wager with man-made climate change. If there is none and we act as though there is we waste money, if there is none and we do nothing we lose nothing, if  there is and we do nothing we lose the earth, if there is and we do something then we save all of our world and eco-systems. I am willing to waste that money to ensure we don't lose the earth. It really comes down to how much you value your life, your children's lives and their children's, and so on and so on.

As for global temperatures, you are right in that we don't have precise records, but we have pretty good ones for many places, enough evidence to be reasonably certain about the temperature cycles we should be following (those cycles Flint talks about but doesn't understand.) We even know of times when there was no polar ice, multiple times, hence the need for "Ice Age" and "Glacial Epoch" definition differences.

You are also extremely stupid... but that's ok... you can pretend you have "won" this internet debate because there is no point even discussing it with you as your point of view is "I am right and I don't care about science or studies cause i think they are wrong if they don't conform to my world view"

You_Fool,

You've not pointed us to a single study. What studies are you claiming actually legitimately show anything, let alone conclusively?

My point was that science requires data, and there is not enough data to scientifically conclude what you're claiming scientists conclude. I'm not saying I don't care about science; I'm pointing out how you and many others are abusing it. This obviously upsets you.