Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[beafheart]

Reddit is very cautious about the posts in their site. It is a possibility that the post in global warming as caused by humans is not very substantial. If thats the case the reason is very legit. But if your opinion is correct then possibly reddit is being controlled by multinationals especially the oil producing industries that has a big contribution to air pollution and global warming.

If you really believe that an information dissemination campaign is necessary then you should make a blog and recruit concern citizens to spread this important news around the globe. Remember, many heads is better than one.

How you can find a lot of supporters of this theory if in my country now -16 degrees Celsius. Do not believe it! Those who received from the government grant, and the cries about global warming, not to lose money.

[1714750812]

1714750812

[1714750812]

1714750812

[1714750812]

1714750812

[1714750812]

1714750812

[mOgliE]

Reddit is very cautious about the posts in their site. It is a possibility that the post in global warming as caused by humans is not very substantial. If thats the case the reason is very legit. But if your opinion is correct then possibly reddit is being controlled by multinationals especially the oil producing industries that has a big contribution to air pollution and global warming.

If you really believe that an information dissemination campaign is necessary then you should make a blog and recruit concern citizens to spread this important news around the globe. Remember, many heads is better than one.

How you can find a lot of supporters of this theory if in my country now -16 degrees Celsius. Do not believe it! Those who received from the government grant, and the cries about global warming, not to lose money.

OK here is a very little lesson for you:

Global warming = average rise of temperature. It doesn't mean it's rising EVERYWHERE.
In fact models show that global warming could lead to a new Ice age for occidental countries and especially Europe because of the stop of Golfstream.

As you can see the temperature is rising ON AVERAGE which doesn't mean you can't get extreme cold where you live:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Global warming leads to more extreme weather, extreme cold is one of them.

[protokol]

...
What is your explanation for the uniquely extreme increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, never seen before, and it's correlation to the extreme rise in surface temperature over the last 50-100 years? Coincidence?

CO2 lags temp.  The temp increase took a pause from about 20 years ago and CO2 is catching up.  Nothing especially mysterious about it, and nothing especially scary about 400 parts per million...it's still a trace gas and we are in geological terms at very low concentrations.  In trace concentrations it is easier for large percentage swings to occur.  Plants are much happier now.

Read my post again, I addressed the CO2 lag:

I understand that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated a lot more in the past than it is now, but never with the same correlation of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
I also understand that the concentration of CO2 has often lagged behind the temperature changes in the past, but as I understand it this is a two way street - if the CO2 concentration gets too high, too quickly, it can certainly cause warming and a feedback loop. Just because this hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it isn't happening now.

This article gives a solid case for why it might not be as simple as "CO2 lags temperature, therefore CO2 cannot cause a rise in temperature" : https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

[tvbcof]

...
What is your explanation for the uniquely extreme increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, never seen before, and it's correlation to the extreme rise in surface temperature over the last 50-100 years? Coincidence?

CO2 lags temp.  The temp increase took a pause from about 20 years ago and CO2 is catching up.  Nothing especially mysterious about it, and nothing especially scary about 400 parts per million...it's still a trace gas and we are in geological terms at very low concentrations.  In trace concentrations it is easier for large percentage swings to occur.  Plants are much happier now.

Read my post again, I addressed the CO2 lag:

I understand that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated a lot more in the past than it is now, but never with the same correlation of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
I also understand that the concentration of CO2 has often lagged behind the temperature changes in the past, but as I understand it this is a two way street - if the CO2 concentration gets too high, too quickly, it can certainly cause warming and a feedback loop. Just because this hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it isn't happening now.

This article gives a solid case for why it might not be as simple as "CO2 lags temperature, therefore CO2 cannot cause a rise in temperature" : https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

[Spendulus]

....
Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

[valta4065]

....
Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

I'm curious...

Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?

Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke

Where do you get your data from then?

[bitcoinboy12]

....
Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

I'm curious...

Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?

Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke

Where do you get your data from then?

I think it's safe to go to those who actually do it. Like research institutes or something. But then again it makes me wonder, do actual agencies and legitimate offices post updates and news somewhere? Like their own public website or something?

[tvbcof]

....

Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

I'm curious...

Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?

Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke

Where do you get your data from then?

Since you ask...

I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.)  Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap.

These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc.

In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in.  Or as many as my mental ability allows at least.  Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place.

There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts.  Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'.

So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

[valta4065]

....

Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

I'm curious...

Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?

Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke

Where do you get your data from then?

Since you ask...

I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.)  Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap.

These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc.

In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in.  Or as many as my mental ability allows at least.  Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place.

There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts.  Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'.

So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

[ekaterina77]

It is now -16 degrees Celsius. Cold! What is this warming? It seems to me that there is no warming is actually there. Scientists earn money on the grants of the government imposes new taxes and also earn money. That's the whole Scam.

[Spendulus]

....

Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

I'm curious...

Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?

Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke

Where do you get your data from then?

Since you ask...

I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.)  Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap.

These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc.

In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in.  Or as many as my mental ability allows at least.  Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place.

There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts.  Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'.

So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

Whatsupwiththat.com is pretty much the #1 climate blog, variety of topics, some skeptics hang out there.

[tvbcof]

...
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

Basically I don't often need datasets because I don't do original research.  People who do think they need datasets are probably wrong and would not have the slightest idea of what they mean or what to do with them.

What I need to have a sense of whether a researcher is basing their work on appropriate datasets.  For this, I basically rely on the researcher themselves as much as anything, and I choose to rely on a researcher's means and motives.  If, say, Judith Curry publishes something on her blog I'll tend to take it seriously and study it more carefully.  Also I tend to spend a good bit of time going through the discussion threads.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

After witnessing such obvious fraud and opacity prevalent in the climate change hoax, it is easy from the 'denier' side to write off all adjustments as scams.  This oversimplifies the very legitimate need to do adjustments.  As I've often stated here, the biggest sin that the Warmunistas have perpetrated is in making real scientific understanding vastly more complex and difficult than it was already.  It is more and more obvious that it serves their political and professional interests to do just this because they are trying to base their higher goals on a scientific fraud.

Dr. Curry, like others, have achieved little but professional grief for their outside the party line positions as best I can tell in my research.  On the contrary, researchers who tow the line are academically and financially rewarded.  I suspect that ultimately the 'heretics' such as Curry will be remembered as the Galileo of their times, but in the mean time they get a lot of grief.

If you are interested, here is a site which is reputed to be a usable site for obtaining datasets:  http://www.climate4you.com/
I've not used the resource much in part because I've not bitten off the task of turning data into a meaningful synthesis (which would benefit by the equiv of a graduate degree and several years of focused study.)

[Spendulus]

...
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

Basically I don't often need datasets because I don't do original research.  People who do think they need datasets are probably wrong and would not have the slightest idea of what they mean or what to do with them.

What I need to have a sense of whether a researcher is basing their work on appropriate datasets.  For this, I basically rely on the researcher themselves as much as anything, and I choose to rely on a researcher's means and motives.  If, say, Judith Curry publishes something on her blog I'll tend to take it seriously and study it more carefully.  Also I tend to spend a good bit of time going through the discussion threads.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

After witnessing such obvious fraud and opacity prevalent in the climate change hoax, it is easy from the 'denier' side to write off all adjustments as scams.  This oversimplifies the very legitimate need to do adjustments.  As I've often stated here, the biggest sin that the Warmunistas have perpetrated is in making real scientific understanding vastly more complex and difficult than it was already.  It is more and more obvious that it serves their political and professional interests to do just this because they are trying to base their higher goals on a scientific fraud.

Dr. Curry, like others, have achieved little but professional grief for their outside the party line positions as best I can tell in my research.  On the contrary, researchers who tow the line are academically and financially rewarded.  I suspect that ultimately the 'heretics' such as Curry will be remembered as the Galileo of their times, but in the mean time they get a lot of grief.

If you are interested, here is a site which is reputed to be a usable site for obtaining datasets:  http://www.climate4you.com/
I've not used the resource much in part because I've not bitten off the task of turning data into a meaningful synthesis (which would benefit by the equiv of a graduate degree and several years of focused study.)

You almost do not need all those facts when you have fools posting here claiming a "correlation" between temperature and co2.

Let's just call them on it.

Show the correlation coefficient between 20th century temperatures and co2.

Go.

[valta4065]

...
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

Basically I don't often need datasets because I don't do original research.  People who do think they need datasets are probably wrong and would not have the slightest idea of what they mean or what to do with them.

What I need to have a sense of whether a researcher is basing their work on appropriate datasets.  For this, I basically rely on the researcher themselves as much as anything, and I choose to rely on a researcher's means and motives.  If, say, Judith Curry publishes something on her blog I'll tend to take it seriously and study it more carefully.  Also I tend to spend a good bit of time going through the discussion threads.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

After witnessing such obvious fraud and opacity prevalent in the climate change hoax, it is easy from the 'denier' side to write off all adjustments as scams.  This oversimplifies the very legitimate need to do adjustments.  As I've often stated here, the biggest sin that the Warmunistas have perpetrated is in making real scientific understanding vastly more complex and difficult than it was already.  It is more and more obvious that it serves their political and professional interests to do just this because they are trying to base their higher goals on a scientific fraud.

Dr. Curry, like others, have achieved little but professional grief for their outside the party line positions as best I can tell in my research.  On the contrary, researchers who tow the line are academically and financially rewarded.  I suspect that ultimately the 'heretics' such as Curry will be remembered as the Galileo of their times, but in the mean time they get a lot of grief.

If you are interested, here is a site which is reputed to be a usable site for obtaining datasets:  http://www.climate4you.com/
I've not used the resource much in part because I've not bitten off the task of turning data into a meaningful synthesis (which would benefit by the equiv of a graduate degree and several years of focused study.)

Well my problem here is that as interesting as you links can be, I don't see difference of quality with the sources I can provide.

So please stop just saying that "this source is shit" or prove it. It doesn't help any kind of debate in any way! If you have legitimate doubts on sources I'm providing feel free to expose and explain thos doubts but just saying that what I'm saying is shit because the data I have come from a website which is plain shit isn't exactly what I would call a constructive argument.

[valta4065]

...
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

Basically I don't often need datasets because I don't do original research.  People who do think they need datasets are probably wrong and would not have the slightest idea of what they mean or what to do with them.

What I need to have a sense of whether a researcher is basing their work on appropriate datasets.  For this, I basically rely on the researcher themselves as much as anything, and I choose to rely on a researcher's means and motives.  If, say, Judith Curry publishes something on her blog I'll tend to take it seriously and study it more carefully.  Also I tend to spend a good bit of time going through the discussion threads.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

After witnessing such obvious fraud and opacity prevalent in the climate change hoax, it is easy from the 'denier' side to write off all adjustments as scams.  This oversimplifies the very legitimate need to do adjustments.  As I've often stated here, the biggest sin that the Warmunistas have perpetrated is in making real scientific understanding vastly more complex and difficult than it was already.  It is more and more obvious that it serves their political and professional interests to do just this because they are trying to base their higher goals on a scientific fraud.

Dr. Curry, like others, have achieved little but professional grief for their outside the party line positions as best I can tell in my research.  On the contrary, researchers who tow the line are academically and financially rewarded.  I suspect that ultimately the 'heretics' such as Curry will be remembered as the Galileo of their times, but in the mean time they get a lot of grief.

If you are interested, here is a site which is reputed to be a usable site for obtaining datasets:  http://www.climate4you.com/
I've not used the resource much in part because I've not bitten off the task of turning data into a meaningful synthesis (which would benefit by the equiv of a graduate degree and several years of focused study.)

You almost do not need all those facts when you have fools posting here claiming a "correlation" between temperature and co2.

Let's just call them on it.

Show the correlation coefficient between 20th century temperatures and co2.

Go.

I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers 

So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures

Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?

[dwma]

....

Pffft.  skepticalscience.com is a joke.  Even their name.  Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'.  I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.

Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.

I'm curious...

Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?

Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke

Where do you get your data from then?

Since you ask...

I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.)  Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap.

These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc.

In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in.  Or as many as my mental ability allows at least.  Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place.

There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts.  Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'.

So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

That is a fancy way of dodging his answer. You come across as real smart too. You're pretty good with words, but it could be summed up as your "hunch".  And your hunch is because of your extreme anti-government biases.

Global warming can not be addressed through normal market incentives. There is a tragedy of the commons type issue solving global warming in a market approach. It will require government intervention. That sucks, but it doesn't invalidate the science.

[Spendulus]

...
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.

You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"

Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?

Basically I don't often need datasets because I don't do original research.  People who do think they need datasets are probably wrong and would not have the slightest idea of what they mean or what to do with them.

What I need to have a sense of whether a researcher is basing their work on appropriate datasets.  For this, I basically rely on the researcher themselves as much as anything, and I choose to rely on a researcher's means and motives.  If, say, Judith Curry publishes something on her blog I'll tend to take it seriously and study it more carefully.  Also I tend to spend a good bit of time going through the discussion threads.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

After witnessing such obvious fraud and opacity prevalent in the climate change hoax, it is easy from the 'denier' side to write off all adjustments as scams.  This oversimplifies the very legitimate need to do adjustments.  As I've often stated here, the biggest sin that the Warmunistas have perpetrated is in making real scientific understanding vastly more complex and difficult than it was already.  It is more and more obvious that it serves their political and professional interests to do just this because they are trying to base their higher goals on a scientific fraud.

Dr. Curry, like others, have achieved little but professional grief for their outside the party line positions as best I can tell in my research.  On the contrary, researchers who tow the line are academically and financially rewarded.  I suspect that ultimately the 'heretics' such as Curry will be remembered as the Galileo of their times, but in the mean time they get a lot of grief.

If you are interested, here is a site which is reputed to be a usable site for obtaining datasets:  http://www.climate4you.com/
I've not used the resource much in part because I've not bitten off the task of turning data into a meaningful synthesis (which would benefit by the equiv of a graduate degree and several years of focused study.)

You almost do not need all those facts when you have fools posting here claiming a "correlation" between temperature and co2.

Let's just call them on it.

Show the correlation coefficient between 20th century temperatures and co2.

Go.

I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers 

So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures

Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?

Just the number, please. 

1900 on will do.

Let's hear it.

[dwma]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.

Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.

[Spendulus]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.

Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.

I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION.  Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least.  Now I've asked for the correlation.  Those who made the claim need to support the claim.

Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made.  As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it.  As if you've been caught in a lie.

Stop the silliness please.  I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim.  Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.

In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.

Q.  What is "A"?
A.  Oh, of course.  "A" is 123.45%.
Q.  Thank you.  That is <<on and on discussion>>

[dwma]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.

Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.

I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION.  Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least.  Now I've asked for the correlation.  Those who made the claim need to support the claim.

Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made.  As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it.  As if you've been caught in a lie.

Stop the silliness please.  I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim.  Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.

In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.

Q.  What is "A"?
A.  Oh, of course.  "A" is 123.45%.
Q.  Thank you.  That is <<on and on discussion>>

Someone gave you links to show you the correlation.  You just choose to ignore them from your trait that seems to be bordering on mental illness.

If you want someone to calculate the correlation coefficients you need to give them the datasets. Otherwise you'll have infinite outs. Just like there is always something wrong with the data.  (And to be fair, we should question the data.. but not in some weird way that just suits our own personalized biases) Almost all skeptic arguments are based around that.

It makes denial cognitively easy, because this data is very complicated with lots of nuances and places for people to screw up.

Wait, there isn't anything wrong with the data from the guy that all the skeptics cite just take him as the truth! The skeptics never question his motives or even his data. It is clearly you people just have huge cognitive biases.

If you are willing to give me the dataset, pay for my time, I can calculate a coefficient. That means you have to agree on the input. You won't even take that step, let alone pay for my time. So so silly.