Do you have to have selective reading to be an AGW doubter?

Question

I'm noticing a pattern recently.

Tomcat reads this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138

And the only thing he gets from it is "The oceans have been cooling now for about four years." Then william8_5 selects this as the "best answer".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmPvm6SEkATKS7gnxEs95m3ty6IX?qid=20070825213053AAD3mYM&show=7#profile-info-JJZ1QFBbaa

Jello is told that the average global temperature was low in 1934

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

But continues to select 3 cities as examples to "prove" that 1934 was the hottest year in Earth's history. Coincidentally, he got all 7 best votes for a similarly inaccurate answer:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Apl.l5NzgTxQL90gtR0QifYjzKIX?qid=20070815062151AAQToiO

There are many more such examples, including here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtfsHu0.codZOUHiD_NPVH0AAAAA?qid=20070827222953AA6X4j9

Is it a coincidence that AGW doubters have selective reading skills?

We've got a new one, with Mt. Zion concluding that global warming is great because it's opened up the northwest passage.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070828210012AAE5ZYb&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiTxWVh1b_JlwsqxUDiA6NZ6TpZBdqyXD.qZrchmVqo6ECz0iD1c_LVGSiy3be3VpiQ--&paid=answered#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX

Answer 1

The interpretation of the evidence by some skeptics (not all) is truly remarkable. It quite clearly illustrates that they are very closed-minded and will select and believe only what they want to believe and dismiss out of hand anything else.

For example, they'll happily quote from Wikipedia to substantiate their claims. However, if a GW believer were to quote from Wikipedia it would be dismissed as being unreliable.

They'll tell you that NASA has announced that Mars is warming but conveniently forget to mention that other parts are cooling.

If there's a cold day then many will jump up and declare global warming to be a hoax but fall strangely silent when it's a hot day.

They'll tell you 1934 was the hottest year on record but forget to mention that this was in the US only and that globally it was very much an average year.

So yes, some of them can be very selective when they want to be. This type of behaviour is apparently quite normal for someone who knows they're in the wrong - children do it to avoid getting into trouble, suspects do it to avoid prosecution, spouses do it when they're caught cheating etc.

Answer 2

No, you are getting it all wrong, you have to be a cherry picker to believe in AGW. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been very stable over the last two centuries, and only started rising recently because we are measuring it at the mouth of a volcano, ... give me a break.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003818.html

CO2 has been measured for over 150 years, the IPCC knows that but the IPCC likes superimposing Volcano burps over Ice Core proxy data, because it makes the models work better and it makes for better propaganda films.

It is warmer now than in anytime in human history.... right

http://biocab.org/Global_Warmings_and_Coolings_Since_Medieval_Age.jpg


I am waiting dana1981......let me hear you say some demeaning comments about the capabilities of the many scientists responsible for the data found in the links provided.

Answer 3

I think Trevor pretty much covered it. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of GW theory proponents (not on this site) do the same thing. I think it's just a general sign that the person has chosen their position ideologically rather than scientifically.

But the skeptic's growing resemblance to creationists is getting somewhat worrisome.

Answer 4

As usual, you give the "skeptics" way too much credit. Oceans cooling? The magnitude of this massive (and mistaken) cooling? 0.03 degrees.

That tiny difference was always an improbable finding of a few guys, and proves not to be true.

"Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data."

Correction to “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson
Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters

Tomcat - There are CO2 monitoring sites all over the world. They show exactly the same thing as the Mauna Loa data. Tons of CO2 data here:

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

And it's easy to prove the Mauna Loa data is not being affected by the volcano. Care to show me the eruptions?

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

Here's a site in Utah, which has no active volcanoes. Exact same curve.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200702143011

Answer 5

Lol-One of the complaints I have about my ex is his constant 'lies of omission'. I guess some are just naturally good at it. Of course, that's with the assumption that they get the whole picture. I guess some just have a reading comprehension problem.