Indeed, I did. But an "ad hominem" is not always a dick move, and not always falacious. It is acceptable to offer valid, topical criticism of a person's character or skills when it is material to the argument and the person has been offered as an authority. In other words, when you offer Dr. Spencer as a scientific expert, you make his credentials as a scientist fair game for criticism. So, in this case, offering evidence that Spencer may be a poor scientist is not only acceptable, it is generally expected as a rebuttal. You, on the other hand, wrote "SkS is a really, really bad site." That's not valid or topical criticism, and therefore is actually a fallacious ad hominem. So because you failed to provide valid criticism, it is in fact a "dick move". Eventually, you provided some weak criticism of a highly acclaimed paper by some of the people at SkS as justification for this evaluation, but even if I accepted that the criticism were in good faith, which I do not, it would barely be relevant.

Frankly, you seem to have a problem with understanding context and circumstances.

Additionally, I linked to three non-SkS sites that detail gross errors in the construction of that graph or the similar graph it was originally based off of, and your response is an article that mistakenly criticizes an SkS article that criticizes Spencer for errors made in a completely different forum, and claims their response to a different event contains cherry-picked data because it does not start in the same year as a graph which they make no reference to. Frankly, the article you cited appears to be written by someone who takes very little care in his writing or his reasoning. For example, it really looks like couldn't even be bothered to read the title of the article he's criticizing because the title clearly says they are debunking mistakes that Spencer made in a public appearance. One can only assume the author is grossly incompetent or grossly negligent. Of course, none that really matters, because I didn't link to that article on Skeptical Science in the first, so his invalid criticism actually has nothing to do with any of the valid criticism I provided that explains how Dr. Spencer has (intentionally or not) manipulated the data in that graph to make his position look better, and in the process produced a very misleading graph.

And according to the article you linked, if you really believe it, you should believe that the new graph that you linked contains cherry picked data (and is therefore invalid) since it also does not begin in 1979, but expecting any sort of consistency from you is clearly expecting too much.

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer has a history of getting these graphs wrong.

Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.

If your lawyer tells you that is "exetrmely likely" that you get more than half your money back, and that his best estimate is that you'll get all of it. Do you then conclude that you'll only get half?

Your problem is you are applying informal English assumptions to a formal document, and then using that to try to discount the very next sentence in the same paragraph.

Read it again:

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

The words "Extremely likely" qualify that there is a between 90% to 100% certainty that the statement is accurate, and as you should be aware, 100% is more than half. You are merely pretending that there is a different meaning because you don't want to acknowledge that you are incredibly and spectacularly wrong and that you are embarrassing yourself in public.

That's not an ad hominem or a smear attempt, it's an insult, because you are a ridiculously stubborn moron. I can only imagine how much trouble you have typing due to the puddles forming on your keyboard. How anybody conclude that you are anything but an idiot? When you are presented with clear evidence of your error, you choose to pretend the words don't mean what they mean, instead of admitting that you made a mistake. Frankly, I'm giving you more respect that you deserve.

This is nothing more than vapid posturing. You don't like the site because it's regularly used to prove how wrong you are.

The is absolutely no ambiguity in the report you complete and utter moron. It's right there in black and white. You just choose to ignore the words in front of your face because you are a god-damned idiot.

Given you demonstrated inability to read an understand entire paragraphs, I sincerely doubt that the summaries are at odds with the reports as often as you believe them to be. I find it more likely that are motivated to see disagreements where there are none.

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

Did you finish reading the paragraph? Apparently not. The next line says:

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

Then did you look at the graph? Apparently not. The graph shows total anthropogenic warming as higher than observed warming.

What else should I call someone who takes a single sentence out of context and tries to use it to prove the exact opposite of what his source says? You are categorically, 100% wrong. The source you chose to support your argument explicitly and in plain english says that I am right and you are wrong. Then they put a graph next to it to reinforce that fact, and somehow you manage to miss both? You're wasting my time, jackass.

Because you choose to act like an ass? Your only source explicitly says you're wrong, so why are you wasting my time?

Here's a tip: If you want to provide evidence of a trend, you need more than 1 data point.

Same here, this is a claim of a different trend with exactly one data point.

Personally, I wouldn't use a blog post that speculates about what a not-yet-released report might say as evidence for my case.

The problem is that people like you who apparently wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass, keep claiming that good science is bad and bad science is good, then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no integrity...

That is one very long bitch-fest with a lot of argument by anecdote. The author is clearly angry and ranting, but frankly, I didn't see any point where he quantified the impact of his findings. The approach seems to be to throw accusation after accusation and then claim that the study must be garbage because of the number of accusations thrown at it. Additionally, when the author immediately makes the accusation of fraud whenever he discovers an error, it only serve to discredit his position and demonstrate a strong bias. I strongly suspect the reason why the author has gotten very little response from the journal is that he failed to show that the errors that he discovered were material to the results. Almost 12,000 papers were categorised, if 20 of them were categorised or improperly included then that's an error rate of 0.16%, which is an acceptable margin of error for most endeavours. Lastly, the author of that rant seems to engage in the same kind of selective reading and selective reasoning that you demonstrate here as well. The paper explicitly says that "Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity", and yet much of the linked blog post is ranting about the SkS people talking about comparing and justifying their ratings. I looked at a number of the accusations and what I found was that the sentences were often taken out of context and blatantly wrong accusations made about them, which frankly makes it look like the author is significantly more fraudulent than the fraud he's claiming to have found.

Additionally, you moved the goalposts here, I was talking about the SkS site which you claim is "really, really bad" but to show that you had to link to a site criticising a paper produced by some of the people at SkS. A study and their entire site are not the same thing at all, which just makes this seem like a smear attempt, an ad hominem, if you will. Dick moves like this are why you don't get respect, you just come off as an asshat who's trying to "win" at any cost.

Interestingly enough, I just heard about a study of the effect of the measles vaccine in a country that recently started vaccinating against measles showed a 50% drop in child mortality after the introduction of the vaccine. It has long been known by the experts that measles is a "gateway disease" in that wild infections of measles re-tune your immune system to fight measles and only measles. This leads to an increased mortality rate from secondary infections because the survivors are effectively immune system compromised against anything that is not measles. However, the study found that the effect doesn't end between 6 months to 12 months after the infection as was previously thought, but continued at a less severe level for addition 4-5 years according to the epidemiological data they gathered.

Even if measles itself isn't fatal, being infected can make you more susceptible to other diseases and more likely to suffer the more severe effects of those diseases. So yes, we should continue vaccinating against a disease that we have eradicated in North America because it might be re-introduced into the population by someone from a different country. The risks do justify the precaution.

We don't need to use proxies to estimate the termperatures when we have actual temperature records. It seems like you're trying to make something sinister out of using the best available data.

In addition to the availability of actual direct measurements since the 1900s, which greatly reduces the value of more recent proxy values, there are also some problems with getting recent data from some of the proxies. For instance, there is the divergence problem in dendroclimatology which seems to show that pollution (or other factors) may be inhibiting tree growth since the industrial revolution. I imagine there's probably some difficulty with ice cores as well, since it may be difficult to get recent temperature measurements from glaciers that are shrinking.

Of course, there are actually people studying these problems and even the quality of the calibration period which is used to match instrumental records to proxy values, you might want to try searching with the "proxy calibration" keyword, or reading up on the divergence problem in dendroclimatology.

Actually, it's quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research. However, I can see why some people might consider that "bad".

Speaking mathematically, 100% is more than 50% so there's no actual disagreement between what SkS wrote and what you claim the IPCC says.

I went looking for what you claimed and didn't find it, not that I tried very hard because, well, it's not like you bothered to provide a reference for your claims... However, what I did find supports what I wrote:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations

and

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling.

Are you trying to be an ass? The answer to both questions appears to be "yes".

I think I should further expand on these points, because you seem like a pedantic twit who will most likely focus on the fact that the IPCC report only says "most" of the warming is due to GHG concentrations increased by human activity. You should already know that GHG concentrations are not the only anthropogenic drivers of global warming, there are other anthropogenic contributions including land use changes and albedo changes due to air pollution, among others. The IPCC has attributing most of the warming to a single anthropogenic climate forcing, which does not, in any way, preclude the sum total of all anthropogenic factors from exceeding the actual observed warming, particularly when combined with the observation that the two most important natural factors would likely have contributed to cooling over the same period.

So, the real question is do you actually have anything to support your argument other than reading comprehension failures and a bad attitude?

Here's a chart of human versus natural factors influencing global warming over the past 50-65 years taken from various studies of the effects. The sum of the natural factors is negative, meaning that if we had a second earth with no humans on it, it would cool while ours warmed.

Not really, I would be saying that the requirement was unreasonable. Unlike sub-dermal tracking implants or whatever hypothetical bullshit you want to make up, making sure your children are immunized against dangerous communicable diseases isn't unreasonable.

All of those statements include verifiable facts, and when those facts are checked they do not support the opinions expressed. So none of them are tenable positions for rational people to hold.

Temperatures would be declining without human activity, so we are entirely responsible for the increases. The temperature 10,000 years ago was lower than today's temperatures. There's no no known mechanism for why temperatures would cool off. We know that we're adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere in massive quantities. Logic says if you turn up the heat, it will get warmer, not colder.

Not really. Most often one side or the other in an argument is actually correct. I'd say it's actually fairly unusual for both sides to be equally wrong.

Correct.

Not according to any the historical temperature graphs that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.

Seems plausible. It's often noted that the difference between a mile of ice in Northern United states and today is about 4 degrees.

Only if by "massively faster" you actually mean "about the same". The worst case scenario is about 3.5 degrees by the year 2100. The expected rise is between 2 and 6 degrees by 2400. So human warming is maybe a little more, maybe a little less than the end of the last glacial period.

There was a paper published by Easterbrook, I think, that made that claim, but he goofed on the "present" date. He thought the last temperature in his data series went up to 2010, when it was actually 1855 (the last entry was 95 years before the "geological" present which is 1950). So while the end of the last glacial period was warmer than 1855, when you adjust for his misunderstanding of current temperatures (ie, you don't use 1855 as your benchmark for 21st century temperatures), you find that the end of the glacial period is actually somewhat lower than present day temperatures.

Not actually true unless you use some bizarre definition of "man made co2". Human contributions have raised the the CO2 level from around 280 ppm to around 400 ppm. That's 120 ppm, the human contribution of the last 18 years is about 36 ppm. Which means the last 18 years represent about 30% of our total contribution and a little less than 10% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.