Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Global Warming Swindle

The Global Warming Swindle (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Thats a false dichotomy. How can you say that the "theories" (which one is not) are either both true or not true? Correct me if i've misunderstood what you've said...
Yes, you misunderstood. The OP declared a continuum of objective "truth," one end of which being "true" and the other "untrue." I said that both theories are near the same point on that continuum, not that both theories are at all points on that continuum. The degree to which either is true or untrue is roughly the same as the degree to which the other is. It is your opinion that the two are at opposite ends of this continuum, and the reason you act a clown is that your starting point for discussion is that this opinion is fact. It's not. Science isn't concerned with truth and fact, because we cannot know absolute truth or fact, all we can know is evidence, the imperfect lens through which we look at truth and fact. Actual underlying truth, which we are unable to view, is a distraction. Science deals with evidence, philosophy deals with truth. The two are not often compatible.

Let me first point out that pollution is not a theory but a noun.
Very funny. Have you ever looked up "theory" in the dictionary? theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē| noun ( pl. -ries)


There is no theory of pollution. To argue that there is would be strictly semantic argument and would serve no practical purpose. Humans create waste which in terms of the environment is pollution. Its effects are up for theory and debate but pollution itself is not.
"Theory" doesn't mean the thing is objectively untrue. You're obsessing over the fact that you "believe" one theory and not the next. To you, if something is "right" then it's not a theory anymore, and if something is a "theory" it must not be "right" (yet). That's wrong. All theories, "right" or "wrong," can be disproved in the face of new evidence. The theory of a round earth could possibly be disproved in the face of new evidence that the earth is actually donut-shaped. Newton's theory of gravity was "right," but it was later disproved by Einstein's theory, which is now "righter." Underneath it all, theories in science are not concerned with objective "truth" at all, they're only concerned with evidence. The "right" theories are the ones that are consistent with all the evidence, and they are all subject to being disproved by new evidence, every last one of them.

Global warming is but a theory. Unless you mean the denotation of the term (ie. the earth gets warmer) but that depends on what context whomever is using the term is in. I think its safe to say for our purposes that no one here means it in that context.
You mean to imply that human-caused global warming is "but a theory." That's right. A theory backed up by lots of evidence. Just like the theories of gravity, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, the round earth, or human-caused pollution, they each are "but a theory." Any of them might be overturned tomorrow with the right evidence.

You can't complain that strong scientific evidence is good enough for most of the theories, but it's just not good enough for the ones you wish were wrong.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 11:39 PM
 
greg, just show us how the computer models show an accurate picture of the PAST, where we have the data to compare to the simulations. Screw the intarweb links as they are dubious at best. Instead of telling us we are wrong, show us you are right. Hanson, the embarrassing fool at the NASA Institute has the same credibility issues as his models don't work either. The rank and file NASA scientists are also questioning his methods.


( greg said: "We've lived on Planet Earth for tens of thousands of years, we've been studying our natural surroundings for at least a couple thousand years, and we've been quantifiably measuring for the past couple hundred or so.")


BTW - we may have been OBSERVING everything around us for thousands of years, we are just beginning to quantifiably measure, in the last century.

The same people who fall for the GW BS seem to be the same folks who voted for our current president without knowing any facts about him or his past. See a pattern?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Screw the intarweb links as they are dubious at best. Instead of telling us we are wrong, show us you are right.
Four Steps to Empowering Yourself or, stop wasting my time when you're going to argue against anything I'd reference anyway
Step 1: Go to Nature or Science
Step 2: Pay to sign up.
Step 3: Check out "climate change" or "atmospheric science" papers and articles. Read for hours. Read for days. Read for weeks.
Step 4: Get edumacated. Be careful; you might like it.

The same people who fall for the GW BS seem to be the same folks who voted for our current president without knowing any facts about him or his past. See a pattern?
I see that you're determined to rehash anything to do with climate science into a tired political debate. Is that what you mean?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 01:51 AM
 
Here's some links that might offer insight and help for some people in this thread - or not.
And there's tons tons more along these lines you can look up on your own. This is an easy way (video interview) to introduce yourself to some of the ideas behind my statements. It's a crucial and very relevant aspect to consider when approaching global warming propaganda and assessing some of the "solutions" offered. GW and it's interventional tactics are one of the vehicles by which Global Government will be packaged and delivered. Global Government = Collectivism = Socialism = Marxism = Stalinism = "Social Democracy" = Nazism = etc. etc.

Anyway watch and enjoy these videos - very educational.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 07:11 AM
 
Step 1: Go to Nature or Science <--- Foundation funded propaganda rags (fronts). You're deep into it. I bet you don't even feel brainwashed do you? Scary!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 09:43 AM
 
Hahaha... the Soviets are still secretly taking over the USA, and scientific publications like Science and Nature are propaganda rags to brainwash the masses?


W T F ? ! ?


I'm no doctor but you sound borderline paranoid delusional. I'm being very honest about this. I'm starting to understand why it seems impossible to have a rational, logical conversation with you about this subject.

Oh, and let's be honest here: you're no professor. No one seriously worth their academic salt would start providing unrelated Youtube'd videos in response to honest demands for proof behind your scientific claims.

No matter how much you might wish otherwise, the heart of the matter in this issue is the science. Do other factors play significant roles? Without doubt. But at the end of the day, the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) is what you should be looking at. Since you've clearly stated that you're one of those people who have no use for academic publications, having a discussion about this scientific topic is precisely as I first forecasted: just like pissing into the wind. The sprayback is messy, painfully awkward and not worth the attempt.

Have fun with your Youtube research, though.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 09:53 AM
 
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 10:49 AM
 
Yup, perfect post Doofy!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Do you mean... 20-28%? In another words, .20 to .28? I've never seen any serious climate scientist say less than one percent. Please give me a link or direction to these "serious scientists" you're referring to so I can read their reasoning.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Once again, then you should have no problems with providing sources and/or citations to back up your claims which run contrary to thousands of scientific publications, hmmmm?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Wait... good cosmologists haven't supported a Big Bang-type theory in the past thirty years? Where are you getting this from again? What's your source?

............*silence*...............


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
You can't complain that strong scientific evidence is good enough for most of the theories, but it's just not good enough for the ones you wish were wrong.


greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 02:14 PM
 
The part of the argument greg never can respond to:

just show us how the computer models show an accurate picture of the PAST, where we have the data to compare to the simulations. Hanson, the embarrassing fool at the NASA Institute has the same credibility issues as his models don't work either. The rank and file NASA scientists are also questioning his methods.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The part of the argument greg never can respond to:

just show us how the computer models show an accurate picture of the PAST, where we have the data to compare to the simulations. Hanson, the embarrassing fool at the NASA Institute has the same credibility issues as his models don't work either. The rank and file NASA scientists are also questioning his methods.
Do I look like a computer modeling climate scientist to you? I would just parrot those who are. So why don't you read what they have to say?

I was also going to point you to a free educational GCM that you could play with yourself, but it looks like the team has stopped giving it out. Too bad.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh, and let's be honest here: you're no professor. No one seriously worth their academic salt would start providing unrelated Youtube'd videos in response to honest demands for proof behind your scientific claims.
The Unabomber was a professor at Berkeley. Everyone has taken a class from someone they thought was a little unhinged. I don't find The Tess's hilarious antics to be incompatible with being a former professor, field unknown.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
This is an easy way (video interview) to introduce yourself to some of the ideas behind my statements
...
Global Government = Collectivism = Socialism = Marxism = Stalinism = "Social Democracy" = Nazism = etc. etc.
Here's a better video introduction to your ideas. It gets your point across more succinctly.

Youtube is not a way to build your credibility. There are many reasons for this.
1. It's undocumented. People don't trust wikipedia, they're not going to trust some loser who posts to youtube. At least wikipedia has citation links you can follow to make up your own mind about their credentials. Youtube has no such option.
2. It's blind. I'm at work. I'm not going to open some blind youtube link, especially when I know from experience that your links are never relevant to the questions posed to you.
3. It's bloody slow. I can read faster than the narrator of your shoddy video can talk. A lot faster. And I can skim. I'm not going to sit through a 10 minute video that's nothing more than doctored up commentary about one or two graphs, when I could get more information from a text version in 30 seconds. Anyone who would agree to waste their time on such an inefficient communication medium as youtube is someone that would just parrot the last thing they were spoon-fed anyway. Anyone you can reach through this method is irrelevant. I doubt very much that you yourself even watch the videos you post all the way through. I suspect you just get the links from a mailing list and copy them into here blindly.

It's clear that you think something is more convincing if it's on a video (even a homemade one) than if it's in print. That's great for you. It really adds to the wackiness that is Tesselator. The strength of the message doesn't matter, the credibility of the messenger doesn't matter, all that matters is the choice of media. It's a truly brilliant self-parody.

Also, just casually tossing out how you think that Marxism and Nazism are equal is a nice touch. Is there anything you actually do know the first thing about? What were you a professor of? Economics maybe?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Also, just casually tossing out how you think that Marxism and Nazism are equal is a nice touch. Is there anything you actually do know the first thing about?
They're actually extremely closely related.

Consider:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2009, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, you misunderstood. The OP declared a continuum of objective "truth," one end of which being "true" and the other "untrue." I said that both theories are near the same point on that continuum, not that both theories are at all points on that continuum. The degree to which either is true or untrue is roughly the same as the degree to which the other is. It is your opinion that the two are at opposite ends of this continuum, and the reason you act a clown is that your starting point for discussion is that this opinion is fact. It's not. Science isn't concerned with truth and fact, because we cannot know absolute truth or fact, all we can know is evidence, the imperfect lens through which we look at truth and fact. Actual underlying truth, which we are unable to view, is a distraction. Science deals with evidence, philosophy deals with truth. The two are not often compatible.


Very funny. Have you ever looked up "theory" in the dictionary? theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē| noun ( pl. -ries)



"Theory" doesn't mean the thing is objectively untrue. You're obsessing over the fact that you "believe" one theory and not the next. To you, if something is "right" then it's not a theory anymore, and if something is a "theory" it must not be "right" (yet). That's wrong. All theories, "right" or "wrong," can be disproved in the face of new evidence. The theory of a round earth could possibly be disproved in the face of new evidence that the earth is actually donut-shaped. Newton's theory of gravity was "right," but it was later disproved by Einstein's theory, which is now "righter." Underneath it all, theories in science are not concerned with objective "truth" at all, they're only concerned with evidence. The "right" theories are the ones that are consistent with all the evidence, and they are all subject to being disproved by new evidence, every last one of them.



You mean to imply that human-caused global warming is "but a theory." That's right. A theory backed up by lots of evidence. Just like the theories of gravity, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, the round earth, or human-caused pollution, they each are "but a theory." Any of them might be overturned tomorrow with the right evidence.

You can't complain that strong scientific evidence is good enough for most of the theories, but it's just not good enough for the ones you wish were wrong.
To argue here would be arguing in circles, we've covered all of this in that other thread. but i will say this, GW can't be compared to other established theories because quite frankly, its not established.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Do I look like a computer modeling climate scientist to you? I would just parrot those who are. So why don't you read what they have to say?
Well... as it turns out you're not really parroting what they have to say. What they have to say is an order of magnitude more tempered than what you're saying.
They're saying the models have improved a great deal in the past decade. I was going to cite their references in the study from prior to 1998, but that's just being a prick. They've improved a great deal. I'll accept that.
It is hoped that these advancements will enhance the public credibility of model predictions and help to justify the development of even better models. Okay. This all sounds reasonable.

You'll notice that their entire work in this study is contingent upon a performance index. What do they have to say about the performance index?
Another critical point is the calculation of the performance index. For example, it is unclear how important climate variability is compared to the mean climate, exactly which is the optimum selection of climate variables, and how accurate the used validation data are. Another complicating issue is that error information contained in the selected climate variables is partly redundant.
Clearly, more work is required to answer the above questions, and it is hoped that the present study will stimulate further research in the design of more robust metrics.


What you, a proponent is saying is that we've been at this for a thousand years, quantifiably measuring climate etc.... and what I, a skeptic have been saying is that this is all well and good. I appreciate the discipline, but recognize it is still in its infancy. I don't like to see legislators spread FUD using information that "clearly requires more work". When it comes down to who is more accurately parroting what scientists have to say, I'd have to say humbly that it seems to be me.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I see there's a Classroom version of An Inconvenient Truth with a worksheet. Here's a link to it.

It doesn't state anywhere on the worksheet that humans are responsible for Global Warming.
It doesn't say CO2 is responsible for Global Warming either, or the sun, or ________. That's right olePigeon, it doesn't say any of these things because it's a worksheet of questions.

7 questions on this worksheet directly relate to humans.
My favs;
- List the three factors causing the collision between civilization and earth.
1. Al Gore's house
2. My Jeep Wrangler
3. Your mom's SUV

- What country is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
Uh... um... CANADA?!?

- Which country has the lowest government standards for gas mileage of automobiles?
A country on earth? You mean, among humans?

- Which two nations have not signed onto the Kyoto Protocol?
Is Kyoto Protocol a type of gas? Um...
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
To argue here would be arguing in circles, we've covered all of this in that other thread. but i will say this, GW can't be compared to other established theories because quite frankly, its not established.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You were wrong once upon a time about Columbus discovering that the Earth was round in 1492, and you're wrong about this.

Look, I'll argue all day against the agenda of global warming. The template of scientific theories is that we can use them to take advantage of the nature of the world, not that we have to work to reverse the nature of the world, and the global warming police state flies in the face of this tradition. But the science itself telling us what is going on is as strong as any other field of science.

Scientific theories aren't based on truth, they're based on evidence. The ones supported by the current evidence are the best we can ever do. We don't know that the earth is round because we called up God and looked at his answer key and it said "yep, round." We only know it because of evidence. We don't know that gravity works as it does because it is "the truth," we only know it because of evidence. And the evidence we have right now supports the theory that humans are causing global warming. Period. It's open to attack by new future evidence, as is all science.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
olePigeon,
Nope!
The leading theory to the origins of the universe (or multiverse as it may be) is the Big Bang theory.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The GW dorks assume they know SO MUCH that they and their conclusions just CAN'T be wrong.
No. It has more to do with people not understanding the basic principles of scientific method and discovery. The "dorks" are stating the most probable conclusion based on the available, relevant data. Their conclusion can be wrong, and if it is, will be modified based on new evidence and observation. The most likely answers are based on relative certainty.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... as it turns out you're not really parroting what they have to say. What they have to say is an order of magnitude more tempered than what you're saying.
Read Uncle Skeleton's posts. Scientists use "may" or "should" instead of "will", "seems to" instead of "does", "theory" instead of "fact", and "unclear" instead of "I don't understand what the **** this means."

Why? Because as Uncle keeps stressing, everything in science is subject to change upon further investigation. As such, the first rule of writing scientific publications that gets beaten into your head in first-year university science lab classes is "never, ever write as though a result does mean X; write that it should mean X, because there's a good chance that someone, somewhere down the road, will discover that it didn't really mean X at all!"

It's also a point of honour to identify areas of weakness in your own study; not only does it show that you've thought about the issue in a comprehensive manner, it gives you a reason to ask for more research funding for your next project.

The point is (and I've been over this before, many times), that this method provides easy fodder for skeptics of an issue to instead focus on the stated problems and say "Ah HAH! See what they DON'T KNOW!" And of course that's perfectly valid in one sense, but not when you ignore the paper's actual conclusion, or its conclusion in the context of other papers in that scientific discipline. Furthermore, since that conclusion is probably stated with a lot of "shoulds, coulds, mays and theories", it's easy for the layperson to say "oh, they don't really know the answer at all!" In effect, you're drawing a conclusion from what the paper doesn't address, rather than what it does address.

The point is: our way of conducting science is to start from the premise that we probably won't ever get to a final answer! Instead, we just keep filling in bits and pieces here and there, one step at a time, and keep accumulating more and more evidence, until at last you can stand back and conclusively shout: "Ah HAH! The evidence seems to indicate that the answer may be X!" Look at Uncle Skeleton's mention of gravity, or plate tectonics, or electromagnetism – and you'll see the exact same wording when scientists write about them, no matter how "established" Snow-i seems to think they are.

See where I'm going with all this? In effect, I'm translating into layman's terms scientific publications that seems to indicate that our current global warming may stem from anthropogenic activity. You can - and certainly will of course - argue that I'm doing this too early in the game, but I've got a high level of confidence that you would argue this no matter what "stage in the game" we're in, because there will always be problems and areas of further study. The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence at this point indicates that AGW is real – just as it did five years ago when you probably argued against it, just as it did ten years ago when you may have scoffed at it, just as it did 15 years ago when you probably thought it was ridiculous (but perhaps not as it did 40 years ago!). My question is: when are you going to get tired of finding new problems as your old ones get answered, piece by piece?

My conclusion is that your argument stems from Uncle Skeleton's analysis: that AGW is a theory you wish was wrong. And since this is the intarweb and no matter of typing is going to make you change your mind, you'll keep seizing on every little problem you can find in order to justify your wish. And since everything in science always has a little problem and never really reaches a satisfactory conclusion, this will continue indefinitely...

They're saying the models have improved a great deal in the past decade. I was going to cite their references in the study from prior to 1998, but that's just being a prick.
You didn't read the study.

1. They don't make a reference in the study to any publications prior to 1998 that I can see.

2. Even if they did, who cares? You can use references from whenever the hell you want, as long as they're still relevant and appropriate to your argument.

3. While the models might have "improved a great deal in the past decade", that wasn't the focus of the study. It was a comparison of three generations of coupled climate models, which extended back considerably before 1998. The last decade was just highlighted as a particular bright spot of development.

What you, a proponent is saying is that we've been at this for a thousand years, quantifiably measuring climate etc.... and what I, a skeptic have been saying is that this is all well and good.
Nonsense. That's not only not exactly what I said, but it's egregiously out of context from what I said.

As you know, I was specifically talking about using another planet (of which we comparatively know almost nothing about) as a proxy for Earth's climate. I didn't say "we know enough about Earth". I said "We don't know enough about that planet."

I appreciate the discipline, but recognize it is still in its infancy. I don't like to see legislators spread FUD using information that "clearly requires more work". When it comes down to who is more accurately parroting what scientists have to say, I'd have to say humbly that it seems to be me.
...and we're back to "ignoring the conclusions of a multitude of papers within a scientific discipline, and instead basing your argument on the fact that those papers "didn't have all the answers."

Originally Posted by olePigeon
It has more to do with people not understanding the basic principles of scientific method and discovery. The "dorks" are stating the most probable conclusion based on the available, relevant data. Their conclusion can be wrong, and if it is, will be modified based on new evidence and observation. The most likely answers are based on relative certainty.
greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2009, 06:10 PM
 
Ahh yes, just what the world needs- another multi-paged global warming blowhard thread.

Once again, I'm curious how many degrees the world will have cooled by the time this thread dies.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2009, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Read Uncle Skeleton's posts. Scientists use "may" or "should" instead of "will", "seems to" instead of "does", "theory" instead of "fact", and "unclear" instead of "I don't understand what the **** this means."

Why? Because as Uncle keeps stressing, everything in science is subject to change upon further investigation. As such, the first rule of writing scientific publications that gets beaten into your head in first-year university science lab classes is "never, ever write as though a result does mean X; write that it should mean X, because there's a good chance that someone, somewhere down the road, will discover that it didn't really mean X at all!"

It's also a point of honour to identify areas of weakness in your own study; not only does it show that you've thought about the issue in a comprehensive manner, it gives you a reason to ask for more research funding for your next project.
What you've used from Uncle Skeleton had absolutely nothing to do with the issues I raised in my critique of the link you provided. At times it seems you present almost a caricature of science as if mere discussion among contributors alone would not beg discourse over the challenges. The mundane, daily grind of science.

I didn't take issue with "mays", "mights", "maybes", "seems to", "shoulds", or "unclears". In fact, I simply used statements from the study you cited to affirm the models' credibility. I'll reiterate; it is unclear how important climate variability is compared to the mean climate, exactly which is the optimum selection of climate variables, and how accurate the used validation data are. Another complicating issue is that error information contained in the selected climate variables is partly redundant. Clearly, more work is required to answer the above questions...

These aren't "maybes", "mights" or "unclears" greg. In fact, they weren't shy at all about using the word "clearly" in context of what is unclear. These are very honest and specific assessments of the challenges indicating the very state of the science. While I'd be among the first to claim that scientists are all for perpetual grants, they are also generally honest in the studies themselves. I'd be very surprised to hear you even hint at an argument to the contrary.

The point is (and I've been over this before, many times), that this method provides easy fodder for skeptics of an issue to instead focus on the stated problems and say "Ah HAH! See what they DON'T KNOW!" And of course that's perfectly valid in one sense, but not when you ignore the paper's actual conclusion, or its conclusion in the context of other papers in that scientific discipline.
This is the conclusion greg;


When you use this link as a kind of "SEE?!?", it doesn't really garner the reaction I'm suppose to think it should. Somehow I'm not so sure it would from scientists either. I'm just sayin'.

The conclusion in the paper you cited was; However, we do not think that our specific choices in this study affect our overall conclusion that there has been a measurable and impressive improvement in climate model performance over the past decade.
I don't know if I have the ethic (time really) to follow the info provided for the supplemental that details the exact models used for the comparisons. I guess I'm hoping the ones that scored toward the higher I2 levels in the top three rows of that graph weren't used for AR4 a couple years ago.

Furthermore, since that conclusion is probably stated with a lot of "shoulds, coulds, mays and theories", it's easy for the layperson to say "oh, they don't really know the answer at all!" In effect, you're drawing a conclusion from what the paper doesn't address, rather than what it [i]does address.
Well... I don't know what else to say. The conclusion didn't have a lot of "shoulds", "coulds", "mays", and "theories". What it did have however is very specific examples of challenges.

The point is: our way of conducting science is to start from the premise that we probably won't ever get to a final answer! Instead, we just keep filling in bits and pieces here and there, one step at a time, and keep accumulating more and more evidence, until at last you can stand back and conclusively shout: "Ah HAH! The evidence seems to indicate that the answer may be X!" Look at Uncle Skeleton's mention of gravity, or plate tectonics, or electromagnetism – and you'll see the exact same wording when scientists write about them, no matter how "established" Snow-i seems to think they are.
One major difference in your examples and global warming greg is that there are calls for major policy action to mitigate an observation of this science under the premise of alarming anthropogenic causation. Perhaps if global warming were as apparent as say... gravity, we wouldn't be having this discussion as far as the layperson is concerned.

See where I'm going with all this? In effect, I'm translating into layman's terms scientific publications that seems to indicate that our current global warming may stem from anthropogenic activity. You can - and certainly will of course - argue that I'm doing this too early in the game, but I've got a high level of confidence that you would argue this no matter what "stage in the game" we're in, because there will always be problems and areas of further study. The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence at this point indicates that AGW is real – just as it did five years ago when you probably argued against it, just as it did ten years ago when you may have scoffed at it, just as it did 15 years ago when you probably thought it was ridiculous (but perhaps not as it did 40 years ago!). My question is: when are you going to get tired of finding new problems as your old ones get answered, piece by piece?
While I appreciate your candidness greg, you didn't have to tell me this. What you're saying essentially is that my view on this science is purely political; that my view is so rigid that it has no regard for science itself. This is nothing new. Of course you understand where this "logic" can be applied just as easily (and I dare say effectively) to you. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how your arguments more accurately and effectively represent the discipline.

My conclusion is that your argument stems from Uncle Skeleton's analysis: that AGW is a theory you wish was wrong. And since this is the intarweb and no matter of typing is going to make you change your mind, you'll keep seizing on every little problem you can find in order to justify your wish. And since everything in science always has a little problem and never really reaches a satisfactory conclusion, this will continue indefinitely...
I'll certainly concede that I wish the theory was wrong just as I wish drinking and driving weren't harmful, but I think you'd be hard-pressed in getting even the most hardcore of alcoholics to insist it isn't. I don't think Uncle's logic holds up because there's nothing of Uncle's theory to suggest it doesn't apply in a wealth of different ways. For example, it could as easily apply to an International body compiled specifically to study the affects of human-induced climate change and draft policy to mitigate it.

You didn't read the study.

1. They don't make a reference in the study to any publications prior to 1998 that I can see.

2. Even if they did, who cares? You can use references from whenever the hell you want, as long as they're still relevant and appropriate to your argument.
I was teasing and even said if I wanted to be a prick. A prick would shamelessly nitpick one point of an article and twist it to suit an argument. Not to argue a point, but to belittle. Consider it a failed illustration.

3. While the models might have "improved a great deal in the past decade", that wasn't the focus of the study. It was a comparison of three generations of coupled climate models, which extended back considerably before 1998. The last decade was just highlighted as a particular bright spot of development.
I understand full well what the study says. I read it in its entirety. My point was that it really wasn't as convincing as you seemed to think it was.

Nonsense. That's not only not exactly what I said, but it's egregiously out of context from what I said.

As you know, I was specifically talking about using another planet (of which we comparatively know almost nothing about) as a proxy for Earth's climate. I didn't say "we know enough about Earth". I said "We don't know enough about that planet."
Originally Posted by greg
*snort*
We've lived on Planet Earth for tens of thousands of years, we've been studying our natural surroundings for at least a couple thousand years, and we've been quantifiably measuring for the past couple hundred or so. We've got fancy satellites, we've got fancy thermometers, we've got thousands upon thousands of people all over the world in disciplines like biology, physics, mathematics, computer programming, chemistry, climatology, geology, yadda yadda yadda all doing work on the subject.
For the record, I think I represented your sentiment accurately.
What do you think the crux of the debate is? I mean, in case I've not been clear enough; I do not want science to mix with politics. I apologize to anyone employed in the field of science if I've so misrepresented my arguments that I've come off as belittling your profession. I have no problem acknowledging the advancement of science and appreciate the building of a vast database of knowledge. What I don't appreciate is the constant abuse of "consensus" as if this is as qualified an opinion as one who questions who, what, and where the consensus lies or one who's spent his entire life carefully crafting the conclusions of his study in the interest of scientific integrity.

...and we're back to "ignoring the conclusions of a multitude of papers within a scientific discipline, and instead basing your argument on the fact that those papers "didn't have all the answers."
Read my post again greg and try to recall the context in which it was presented to you. Like I always say, it does no good for me to take such care in the words I use when someone spends all of .5 seconds to formulate the strawman they feel more comfortable with. There's a multitude of papers yes, but I'm not entirely certain you're as intimately familiar with them as you'd wish me to believe.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2009, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
These aren't "maybes", "mights" or "unclears" greg. In fact, they weren't shy at all about using the word "clearly" in context of what is unclear. These are very honest and specific assessments of the challenges indicating the very state of the science. While I'd be among the first to claim that scientists are all for perpetual grants, they are also generally honest in the studies themselves. I'd be very surprised to hear you even hint at an argument to the contrary.
What?!? I didn't hint that they're not honest. Jesus. I said they don't say anything with certainty.

Of course you understand where this "logic" can be applied just as easily (and I dare say effectively) to you. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how your arguments more accurately and effectively represent the discipline.
Uhhh, well, you see it's in the part where I say "it looks like AGW is real, because right now we have a ton of evidence for it and no good evidence against it."

See, if you were posting scientific publications that raised serious and unanswerable questions about AGW, and I completely ignored those questions and continued saying the same thing over and over again, then you might have a point. But that hasn't happened, has it.

(Well... yes it has, but we'll leave that alone.)

For the record, I think I represented your sentiment accurately.
Well, no, no you didn't. I already said you didn't. I will repeat: my point was to say that we know a hell of a lot more about the Earth than we do about the other planets, so to throw out our current knowledge just because of some planetary correlation is entirely unreasonable and foolish. And for the record, what you didn't quote was my helpful concluding statement:
Originally Posted by me
And you'd like to discount all this because... Jupiter's moons might be warming? Or Mars? Do you know how little we know about those planets, or the way their atmosphere works?
Nowhere in any of that do you see stated or implied, "we know enough about the Earth." Anyone who thinks so is foolish.

Read my post again greg and try to recall the context in which it was presented to you. Like I always say, it does no good for me to take such care in the words I use when someone spends all of .5 seconds to formulate the strawman they feel more comfortable with. There's a multitude of papers yes, but I'm not entirely certain you're as intimately familiar with them as you'd wish me to believe.
I'm not intimately familiar with them at all. I don't manage to read more than a few a month, and I don't even understand all those.

But the rest of your post can be summed up by this:

Originally Posted by me
this method provides easy fodder for skeptics of an issue to instead focus on the stated problems and say "Ah HAH! See what they DON'T KNOW!" And of course that's perfectly valid in one sense, but not when you ignore the paper's actual conclusion, or its conclusion in the context of other papers in that scientific discipline.
You just did precisely that. Exactly that. I posted two publications and an online article by NASA people because someone wanted clarification. You ignored all but one paper, and then have spent this entire time talking about what that paper admitted it didn't know or address.

And then, without considering the fact that this was merely one publication, plucked out of the air at random because it was easy to find, you concluded:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
My point was that it really wasn't as convincing as you seemed to think it was.
And now, I'm supposed to... what? Go find another one that says pretty much the same thing but also isn't quite "certain"? Maybe two more? How about 8 more? Wait, I'm pretty sure I've posted more than that over the past couple years... so maybe 15? Is that good enough? 100?

My post, and its point, rests.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Mar 3, 2009 at 09:13 PM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2009, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What?!? I didn't hint that they're not honest. Jesus. I said they don't say anything with certainty.
That's why I said I'd be surprised if you did. BTW, they were actually quite certain about the challenges to their data.

Uhhh, well, you see it's in the part where I say "it looks like AGW is real, because right now we have a ton of evidence for it and no good evidence against it."
What you're looking for is "AGW Debunked" and you're simply not going to find that in a credible study for reasons we've both acknowledged. There's no reason for it. Climate change is real and we have a great deal more evidence of natural, cyclical patterns of climate change. The most damning evidence you'll find for a warming globe caused primarily by humans comes from a panel compiled specifically to study AGW and draft policy to mitigate it. I've already given you a study (and multiple studies in the past) showing you can remain open to the role humans play as contributors while letting the data speak for itself; showing how the warming predictions may be incorrect, what they're missing, and why natural variability will supersede the predicted anthropogenic factors. What was your response to that study?

Originally Posted by greg
That study created quite a bit of debate as well. It'll be interesting to see how far the climate pans out in their favour over the next 6 years.
How is this any more an effective response than what I've given you? Why was the study debatable, because of what they might be missing? I thought it was damnable to question science on this premise.

See, if you were posting scientific publications that raised serious and unanswerable questions about AGW, and I completely ignored those questions and continued saying the same thing over and over again, then you might have a point. But that hasn't happened, has it.
Of course we can pretend that a multitude of studies haven't already been provided showing other factors for climate change. You basically end up saying the same things you reject from contrarians.

(Well... yes it has, but we'll leave that alone.)
I'm game.

Well, no, no you didn't. I already said you didn't. I will repeat: my point was to say that we know a hell of a lot more about the Earth than we do about the other planets, so to throw out our current knowledge just because of some planetary correlation is entirely unreasonable and foolish. And for the record, what you didn't quote was my helpful concluding statement:

Nowhere in any of that do you see stated or implied, "we know enough about the Earth." Anyone who thinks so is foolish.
I never claimed you said "we know enough about the earth". You have an overall tendency to chest-pound "consensus" on global warming including our "fancy" equipment and how many are involved in the discipline, of course implying they are all in agreement about climate change on earth.

But the rest of your post can be summed up by this:
Which is exactly how you respond to studies that say otherwise as shown above.

You just did precisely that. Exactly that. I posted two publications and an online article by NASA people because someone wanted clarification. You ignored all but one paper, and then have spent this entire time talking about what that paper admitted it didn't know or address.
I explained exactly why I took issue with the particular link you provided. You were challenged by the following;
show us how the computer models show an accurate picture of the PAST, where we have the data to compare to the simulations.
Your response was that you're not a computer modeling climate scientist; that you just parrot those who are, then posted a link that says little more than... "Well gosh, they sure are getting better"

And now, I'm supposed to... what? Go find another one that says pretty much the same thing but also isn't quite "certain"? Maybe two more? How about 8 more? Wait, I'm pretty sure I've posted more than that over the past couple years... so maybe 15? Is that good enough? 100?
I never challenged science itself, I challenge those with a blatant disregard for the state of it. I challenge those with seemingly more concern over political climate than global climate. How many years of stasis will you need, maybe two more? How about 8 more? Wait, I'm pretty sure there's already been a few years of it, maybe 15 then? Is that good enough? 100?
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2009, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I never challenged science itself, I challenge those with a blatant disregard for the state of it. I challenge those with seemingly more concern over political climate than global climate. How many years of stasis will you need, maybe two more? How about 8 more? Wait, I'm pretty sure there's already been a few years of it, maybe 15 then? Is that good enough? 100?
Sorry, didn't get this part... what stasis are you referring to?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2009, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
The only mention I even saw of your claim was: *insert graph*
The fact that they're still using data from the Oregon Institute (adjusted for time or not) is enough to discredit the whole damn thing. They shouldn't have anything to do with that radicle, religious group.

Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
LOL meaning what? That they (Chief Executives and other profiteering individuals), really expect us to believe that there is no evidence that the Sun warms the Earth? LOL!!!!! Go swimming in the Ocean on a hot summer's day or walk barefoot on the sun-baked black-top. Alan Thorpe is an extreme moron! LOL!!!!
LOL meaning that the people who produced the film had a religious and personal agenda. Instead of producing peer reviewed studies that demonstrate an alternate conclusion, they just do interviews with particular people (most likely taking it out of context) and subscribe to useless dribble from a religious group that falsely claims to be a scientific and academic institution.

This isn't religion for me. The current climate models and theories regarding global warming could be turned completely upsidedown if a peer reviewed study was produced providing a different conclusion. If the evidence supports that alternate conclusion, I have no problem supporting it and policies that reflect that change.

I can't speak for Alan Thorpe, but to believe that the current climate models don't take into account the warming of the sun is moronic. I find it equally amusing that you, a professor no less, would overlook such an obvious blunder in an argument against global warming.

This all boils down to producing a peer reviewed study with a conclusion contrary to the current theory. There just aren't any. Opponents to the current theory are not helping themselves by whining and crying about it. Produce something, then maybe people will start to take you a little more serious.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2009, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
Step 1: Go to Nature or Science <--- Foundation funded propaganda rags (fronts). You're deep into it. I bet you don't even feel brainwashed do you? Scary!
I hope you were being sarcastic.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2009, 02:10 PM
 
In regards to the Big Bang theory, it has been revised many times throughout the years, but the main premise is still sound and still supported by the majority of astronomers and cosmologists. Our universe originated from a singularity and was born out of a violent eruption of space, time, energy, and matter. We are relatively certain of this thanks to Edwin Hubble, Arno Penzias, and Robert Wilson.

When we turn on the Large Hadron Collider, we'll learn even more. Perhaps even the definitive nature of our universe and its origins.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2009, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
In regards to the Big Bang theory, it has been revised many times throughout the years, but the main premise is still sound and still supported by the majority of astronomers and cosmologists. Our universe originated from a singularity and was born out of a violent eruption of space, time, energy, and matter. We are relatively certain of this thanks to Edwin Hubble, Arno Penzias, and Robert Wilson.

When we turn on the Large Hadron Collider, we'll learn even more. Perhaps even the definitive nature of our universe and its origins.
Yes, and we still haven't the faintest what exactly a singularity is. In fact, the equations show that within a singularity causality breaks down and that if anyone/thing observed it reality would fall apart.

Hmm, it does sound alot like MMGW.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Sorry, didn't get this part... what stasis are you referring to?
Did you get this ebuddy? Think it kinda got buried.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Did you get this ebuddy? Think it kinda got buried.
I was going to say climate stasis, but upon more reading I'd like to temper the statement. I was giving you a hard time, but we really are going to want at least a couple more years under our belt to establish this with the degree of certainty for me to be comfortable enough to defend or argue it. There in fact remains a very slight trend upward, but the global climate has fluctuated mildly up and down. In short, I apologize for jumping the gun as even I would like to see a couple more years before I'd call it stasis or cooling.

Up and down is not really "stasis" even if it could be established the more recent trend is downward than upward, but there is information to suggest it has peaked in '98 and has begun a natural decline.
Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 07:34 PM
 
To be fair, that isn't a paper. It's a presentation by a retired geology professor at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

I take more issue with the fact that the very paper that started this discussion – the one in this post clearly states that they feel this is a temporary occurrence which will work to offset anthropogenic global warming.

That... sort of goes against your argument, doesn't it?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
To be fair, that isn't a paper. It's a presentation by a retired geology professor at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
I see where it says he's a retired geology professor in the Wikipedia link, but I've not been able to affirm it anywhere else. In fact, his homepage at the Dept. of Geology at Western Washington University is still live with contact info intact through the University's website. He's got listed some, 11 research projects he's currently involved in.
Western Washington University
I'm comfortable enough to accept the notion that the statement he delivered at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union was founded from his contribution to the science. Unless of course you have something more specific to indicate why he shouldn't be regarded as credible? By the way, isn't this a play out of the skeptics handbook of "attack the messenger"?

I take more issue with the fact that the very paper that started this discussion – the one in this post clearly states that they feel this is a temporary occurrence which will work to offset anthropogenic global warming.
I've not read the Global Warming Swindle, but I'd be willing to bet they make a wealth of assertions using a variety of articles and studies to indicate a swindle. I've already given you a recent link to a paper that makes a similar assertion regarding temporary offsets to AGW. If you're going to argue that temporary natural occurrences can work to offset AGW, I'd be curious to know how that supports your argument.

That... sort of goes against your argument, doesn't it?
What, that there's a wealth of assertions on the table regarding global climate change because the science itself is in its infancy? No, not so much.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I see where it says he's a retired geology professor in the Wikipedia link, but I've not been able to affirm it anywhere else. In fact, his homepage at the Dept. of Geology at Western Washington University is still live with contact info intact through the University's website. He's got listed some, 11 research projects he's currently involved in.
Western Washington University
I'm comfortable enough to accept the notion that the statement he delivered at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union was founded from his contribution to the science. Unless of course you have something more specific to indicate why he shouldn't be regarded as credible? By the way, isn't this a play out of the skeptics handbook of "attack the messenger"?
No, it's a play out of the science handbook of "anyone can stand up and say random crap if they want to; peer-reviewed literature is where the rest of us get to point out where you're wrong."

I've not read the Global Warming Swindle, but I'd be willing to bet they make a wealth of assertions using a variety of articles and studies to indicate a swindle.
Read? I thought this was about the show? And no, it doesn't make "a wealth of assertions" – it basically makes a lot of claims, some of which are outright wrong, and uses the opinions of some scientists (instead of published literature) to back it up.

I've already given you a recent link to a paper that makes a similar assertion regarding temporary offsets to AGW. If you're going to argue that temporary natural occurrences can work to offset AGW, I'd be curious to know how that supports your argument.
See, it's that part about "AGW" that I was focusing on. Anthropogenic Global Warming. They say it's real, but that the natural occurrence will "temporarily" offset it. That doesn't change the predicted outcome, does it?

What, that there's a wealth of assertions on the table regarding global climate change because the science itself is in its infancy? No, not so much.
Assertions != Scientific literature. And you're still not producing much of THAT, are you?

Again, focusing your argument on the holes in the literature that sides with AGW will only get you so far....

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2009, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
No, it's a play out of the science handbook of "anyone can stand up and say random crap if they want to; peer-reviewed literature is where the rest of us get to point out where you're wrong."
You start off mentioning "he's retired" as if that's some sort of zinger. I point out that by all information I can find, he's still very actively employed both at the University and in the field. He's got multiple publications, grants, and pending research projects. He's as credible and qualified to speak on the matter as anyone you'd readily lap up. Again, this is nothing more than a play out of the skeptics handbook of "attack the messenger". I know, I know, his is just a statement. "hee-hee-hor-hor give me AR4"

Read? I thought this was about the show? And no, it doesn't make "a wealth of assertions" – it basically makes a lot of claims, some of which are outright wrong, and uses the opinions of some scientists (instead of published literature) to back it up.
Right. Exactly like the IPCC assessment reports. I've already cited examples of discord between contributing scientists and the IPCC assessment report authors' methods and conclusions. As a skeptic, I can do this because you'd expect no less right? What I'm left wondering is do you have an argument that's not also out of the skeptics handbook?

See, it's that part about "AGW" that I was focusing on. Anthropogenic Global Warming. They say it's real, but that the natural occurrence will "temporarily" offset it. That doesn't change the predicted outcome, does it?
Yeah greg, that's pretty much the core of what they're saying, the predictions are wrong. I guess you're still hoping they happen across the right outcome through a combination of errors? Don't try that on the golf course.

Assertions != Scientific literature. And you're still not producing much of THAT, are you?
You're not interested in it greg we've done this before. I mean, I suppose it's much more noble to simply say; "well that leaves a lot of debate open". Yeah greg, it sure does. The crap you post leaves even more open to debate. I guess we're at that impasse again huh? *snort*

Again, focusing your argument on the holes in the literature that sides with AGW will only get you so far....
If I were reliant on your examples, I'd have to conclude it's an effective tactic right? If you could just establish where someone stopped at an Exxon-Mobile gas station, you feel pretty good about someone's lack of credibility. Science-shmience as long as they're saying what you want to hear. Tell me how you're not just focusing on holes in literature in general. Like I said, they don't have to debunk AGW, all they have to do is debunk warming and challenge the predictions of it right? If AGW can be mitigated by natural, cyclical climate change we're not really going to need that panel compiled specifically to draft international policy on mitigating AGW.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2009, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You start off mentioning "he's retired" as if that's some sort of zinger. I point out that by all information I can find, he's still very actively employed both at the University and in the field. He's got multiple publications, grants, and pending research projects. He's as credible and qualified to speak on the matter as anyone you'd readily lap up. Again, this is nothing more than a play out of the skeptics handbook of "attack the messenger". I know, I know, his is just a statement. "hee-hee-hor-hor give me AR4"
Well, this is somewhat true, in the sense that professors never want to actually retire – why would they? They have the best job in the world; they get paid great money to dick around in a lab and write some papers now and again.

Having said that, despite looking for "all the information you could find" you somehow missed the obvious point that his title is Professor Emeritus. Feel free to look up what that means.

As for publications: his last one was, what, 2005? The bottom line is he's no longer publishing, or maybe even working, in the global climate science field.

Finally, we've already had this conversation, but your point about "attacking the messenger" is hypocritical because that's the only thing you're providing in the context of this "scientific" debate. You're saying "but Professor Easterbrook said this." Well, what am I supposed to say to that? That scientists at NASA and at climate research centers all over the world say he's wrong? The scientific publication on "temporary cooling" that you even provided contradicts his claims in that presentation.

If you wanted to turn this into a worthwhile debate, then show me Dr. Easterbrook's publication(s) which question AGW, and we can go from there.

Right. Exactly like the IPCC assessment reports. I've already cited examples of discord between contributing scientists and the IPCC assessment report authors' methods and conclusions. As a skeptic, I can do this because you'd expect no less right? What I'm left wondering is do you have an argument that's not also out of the skeptics handbook?
Of course there's going to be discord; hundreds of scientists contribute to each assessment. Find me 15 scientists who completely agree on something and you'd be a hero; the very nature of their work is question things.

It doesn't somehow invalidate the conclusions drawn. Calls them into question, perhaps, but that's a point that needs to be determined from the science, not people's opinions. (And this is of course ignoring the obvious point of the weight placed upon a few contributing dissenters in a field of hundred(s) of assenters.)

Yeah greg, that's pretty much the core of what they're saying, the predictions are wrong. I guess you're still hoping they happen across the right outcome through a combination of errors? Don't try that on the golf course.
No. You're wrong. They said the short-term predictions may be wrong, over the period of the next ~10 years. Their study – or their conclusion(s) – didn't call into question the outcome of AGW, which they implicitly took as fact BTW. That outcome still hasn't changed AFAIK.

Given the number of people in this thread who've denied AGW as being real... well, once again, published literature indicates they're wrong.

You're not interested in it greg we've done this before. I mean, I suppose it's much more noble to simply say; "well that leaves a lot of debate open". Yeah greg, it sure does. The crap you post leaves even more open to debate. I guess we're at that impasse again huh? *snort*
But the "crap" I post all concludes that AGW is real as far as we can tell. Once again, you can focus on all the "holes" in said crap, but every year more and more holes are filled. (You might not remember back 5 or 6 years ago, when the dissenters in here were talking about volcanoes and the ice sheets not actually melting and such... where are they now? Oh, still here, but now ignoring those arguments and focusing on new ones.)

You should be focusing on the scientific publications which increasingly point to the problems with AGW, shouldn't you? I mean, that would be a far more valid method of argumentation. But wait... you can't really do that, can you, because those papers are so few and far between and they usually get responded to quite quickly.

If I were reliant on your examples, I'd have to conclude it's an effective tactic right? If you could just establish where someone stopped at an Exxon-Mobile gas station, you feel pretty good about someone's lack of credibility. Science-shmience as long as they're saying what you want to hear. Tell me how you're not just focusing on holes in literature in general.
Paranoid ranting about how the world's against you? If you want the problem solved, then how about posting a valid scientific publication on the subject instead of someone's powerpoint opinion lecture?

As for focusing on "holes in the literature" – how am I doing that when I'm agreeing with the conclusions that the papers have drawn? The "holes" are the problem points, aren't they?


Like I said, they don't have to debunk AGW, all they have to do is debunk warming and challenge the predictions of it right? If AGW can be mitigated by natural, cyclical climate change we're not really going to need that panel compiled specifically to draft international policy on mitigating AGW.
Why not? This doesn't make any sense at all. That AGW can be temporarily mitigated by natural climate cycles doesn't in any way affect the long-term trend or its dangers; measuring AGW on a scale of "the next decade" is ridiculous anyway. What you've just said is "well AGW might not be as much of a problem as we thought over the next 10 years; guess we don't need that panel even though we'll have the exact same problem in 15 years."

Aren't you the one accusing politicians of being short-sighted?

Plus, I don't think anyone has ever said or indicated that "natural cycles" can't have an effect. Solar variability has long been recognized as an important driver of climate change, as are cycles such as La Nina and El Nino.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2009, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Well, this is somewhat true, in the sense that professors never want to actually retire – why would they? They have the best job in the world; they get paid great money to dick around in a lab and write some papers now and again.

Having said that, despite looking for "all the information you could find" you somehow missed the obvious point that his title is Professor Emeritus. Feel free to look up what that means.

As for publications: his last one was, what, 2005? The bottom line is he's no longer publishing, or maybe even working, in the global climate science field.
While I grant you I missed the Emeritus tag, what earth-shattering new discoveries have changed the face of the debate since 2005 greg? None of this; "he retired three years ago" even matters. How much of the apparatus and subsequent modeling used to draft the IPCCs 2007 AR was conceived after 2005? How many of its designers, programmers, and contributing scientists are now retired? Again, this is simply a non-point right out of the skeptics handbook.

Finally, we've already had this conversation, but your point about "attacking the messenger" is hypocritical because that's the only thing you're providing in the context of this "scientific" debate. You're saying "but Professor Easterbrook said this." Well, what am I supposed to say to that? That scientists at NASA and at climate research centers all over the world say he's wrong? The scientific publication on "temporary cooling" that you even provided contradicts his claims in that presentation.
A. Show me a study that says what Easterbrook claims is wrong.
B. Show me how the publication on "temporary cooling" contradicts Easterbrook's claims.

The fact of the matter is that there is a long continuum of thought and academia on climate science greg.

If you wanted to turn this into a worthwhile debate, then show me Dr. Easterbrook's publication(s) which question AGW, and we can go from there.
Global Warming: are we heading for global catastrophe in the coming century?

Of course there's going to be discord; hundreds of scientists contribute to each assessment. Find me 15 scientists who completely agree on something and you'd be a hero; the very nature of their work is question things.
This is precisely why the bully pulpit of "consensus" is entirely lost on me. Statements like; "scientists at NASA and at climate research centers all over the world say he's wrong..." simply don't hold a lot of weight in light of your statement on the likelihood of finding 15 scientists who completely agree. Don't get me wrong as this is what I happen to appreciate most about science and least about politics. Politicians have no desire to defend the integrity of science. Both opponents and proponents alike have shown propensity to abuse it for their own agendas.

It doesn't somehow invalidate the conclusions drawn. Calls them into question, perhaps, but that's a point that needs to be determined from the science, not people's opinions. (And this is of course ignoring the obvious point of the weight placed upon a few contributing dissenters in a field of hundred(s) of assenters.)
You're attributing a degree of solidarity among scientists that I simply don't buy greg. The most damning evidence you'll find for catastrophic global warming comes in the form of a policy summary statement by authors on a panel compiled specifically to study man made climate change and draft policy to mitigate it. Their findings do not surprise me in the least.

No. You're wrong. They said the short-term predictions may be wrong, over the period of the next ~10 years. Their study – or their conclusion(s) – didn't call into question the outcome of AGW, which they implicitly took as fact BTW. That outcome still hasn't changed AFAIK.
If short-term predictions are wrong greg, there's absolutely nothing in the study to suggest long-term predictions are correct. Nothing at all. You're not going to somehow "back into" the correct answer mathematically through a combination of errors.

Given the number of people in this thread who've denied AGW as being real... well, once again, published literature indicates they're wrong.
I can't speak for them greg. I believe AGW is real. I also believe natural climate change is real. Again, I suppose I could refer to AGW proponents as being natural climate change deniers, but this is counter-productive. I believe the crux of the debate is the degree to which humans contribute. My main gripe is the mingling of science with politics. For example, let's say we were to draft aggressive policy on AGW; enough to actually have an appreciable affect on global climate just as celestial phenomena are likewise acting to mitigate warming. Wouldn't this also have a potentially disastrous affect on global climate?

But the "crap" I post all concludes that AGW is real as far as we can tell. Once again, you can focus on all the "holes" in said crap, but every year more and more holes are filled. (You might not remember back 5 or 6 years ago, when the dissenters in here were talking about volcanoes and the ice sheets not actually melting and such... where are they now? Oh, still here, but now ignoring those arguments and focusing on new ones.)
I don't remember anyone denying glacier melt. The arguments I've seen are often lodged by those intimately familiar with the regions in question, citing examples of both an increase and decrease in the glacial state and/or other factors for glacial shrinkage. The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?

You should be focusing on the scientific publications which increasingly point to the problems with AGW, shouldn't you? I mean, that would be a far more valid method of argumentation. But wait... you can't really do that, can you, because those papers are so few and far between and they usually get responded to quite quickly.
I agree they get responded to quickly, but I'd argue the responses are nothing more substantive than those found in the skeptics handbook. The overwhelming majority of time is spent attacking the person for lacking credibility when they are as qualified in relevant field work and otherwise, as anyone the proponents readily lap up. Not only can I point to problems with AGW, I can cite them as easily from sources friendly to the presupposition of AGW as those hostile to it. I've done it repeatedly. Unlike what you're suggesting, I'm availing myself and others of data through all ranges of thought on this issue, not simply those who dogmatically tout the horrors of AGW.

Paranoid ranting about how the world's against you? If you want the problem solved, then how about posting a valid scientific publication on the subject instead of someone's powerpoint opinion lecture?
Expertise on a particular subject manifests itself in many forms greg. Sometimes it takes the form of multiple peer-reviewed publications, sometimes in power points, sometimes in debatable policy summary statements, sometimes in films that win nobel peace prizes. Sometimes credibility isn't important at all, but I'm not seeing any evidence to suggest the AGW community is any more discriminating of their sources than skeptics.

As for focusing on "holes in the literature" – how am I doing that when I'm agreeing with the conclusions that the papers have drawn? The "holes" are the problem points, aren't they?
Originally Posted by greg
That study created quite a bit of debate as well. It'll be interesting to see how far the climate pans out in their favour over the next 6 years.
What conclusions did you agree on???

Why not? This doesn't make any sense at all. That AGW can be temporarily mitigated by natural climate cycles doesn't in any way affect the long-term trend or its dangers; measuring AGW on a scale of "the next decade" is ridiculous anyway. What you've just said is "well AGW might not be as much of a problem as we thought over the next 10 years; guess we don't need that panel even though we'll have the exact same problem in 15 years."
You're right greg, 10 years is ridiculous. 6 years is much more effective.

BTW, what natural climate cycles that can temporarily mitigate AGW will magically end greg? In 15 years there will be another natural cycle and it will affect global climate the way it always has and always will... regardless of anthropogenic activity.

Aren't you the one accusing politicians of being short-sighted?
Not when it comes to agendas. They have amazing resolve on policy agendas.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2009, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
While I grant you I missed the Emeritus tag, what earth-shattering new discoveries have changed the face of the debate since 2005 greg? None of this; "he retired three years ago" even matters. How much of the apparatus and subsequent modeling used to draft the IPCCs 2007 AR was conceived after 2005? How many of its designers, programmers, and contributing scientists are now retired? Again, this is simply a non-point right out of the skeptics handbook.
You missed my point. It was that Dr. Easterbrook isn't accountable for what you posted. It wasn't a paper. It was a presentation. No one else got the opportunity to read it beforehand and point out where he wasn't being accurate, where he was lying, or where there were already answers to the questions he posited.

A. Show me a study that says what Easterbrook claims is wrong.
Surrrrre....right after you show me a study that says what Easterbrook claims is right.

Or have you forgotten how the scientific method is supposed to work?

B. Show me how the publication on "temporary cooling" contradicts Easterbrook's claims.
Totally different temperature scales and predicted outcomes.

I asked for a publication. By that I meant "scientific publication"; the other kinds are, you know, kinda useless in the context of this debate.

Having said that... is this one? I don't see this title on his publications list, and I don't see any publication info.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 12:35 PM
 
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift


MILWAUKEE -- The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.

The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.

Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

"Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.

Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other.

Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.

"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 01:21 PM
 
BadKosh, did you actually read the article?

You even copied & pasted it. I assumed as much, but then I was wondering why you're posting that article if your position is against anthropomorphic climate change.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 02:56 PM
 
Interesting, I need to find that study.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
BadKosh, did you actually read the article?

You even copied & pasted it. I assumed as much, but then I was wondering why you're posting that article if your position is against anthropomorphic climate change.
The article is about how we can't blanketly assume that global climate change is primarily or directly caused by human intervention:

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 03:48 PM
 
Greg, this might be the paper Anti-persistence in the global temperature anomaly field - PDF

Interesting comment on this same article from Watts up with that?

It is a cute experiment though and has paractical implications; like the multiple strings on the same note on a piano, are weakly coupled via the blacks at each end, that they run over.

But there’s one thing that is missing from this story. All of those clock pendula (ums) are fairly closely tuned to the same frequency, by design, and the effect of the extremely weak coupling is not to retune them, but to simply phase lock them.

If you couple together oscillating systems that are not tuned to the same frequency; then they most certainly will not retune themselves into mutual synchronism.

They will in fact transfer energy back and forth between themselves, so that one will gain in amplitude while another collapses to zero; and then the process will reverse, and they will swap the energy again. That’s with just two coupled oscillators; but with three or more they will get totally chaotic; but the one state they will never assume, is all (n) of them to come to the same frequency and then phase lock.

So if you are imagining from this experiment, that climate systems will synchoronize with each other; forget it; they drive each other bonkers; but they certainly will not operate co-operatively and synchronize. well unless by sheer accident, each oscillator, operating freely and uncoupled, happens to be tuned to rather closely the same frequency.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 04:08 PM
 
After skimming the article, in figure 11, it seems that the two areas they studied (NZ and UK) see-saw temperature-wise, one goes up, the other goes down. It's hard to say from just those two samples, but it seems to show that the total energy of the Earth is balanced, despite local variations.

I can see this being used for closely coupled systems (water, atmosphere) but I don't think the idea can be extended to the uncoupled systems (solar cycling, plate tectonics, orbital variations, etc) where there doesn't appear to be any mechanism for them to influence each other.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You missed my point. It was that Dr. Easterbrook isn't accountable for what you posted. It wasn't a paper. It was a presentation. No one else got the opportunity to read it beforehand and point out where he wasn't being accurate, where he was lying, or where there were already answers to the questions he posited.
This is absolutely no different than the IPCC assessment reports greg. Anyone seeking grants is accountable for their productivity. In the case of the IPCC, they've allowed scientists to read the assessment reports, encouraged and received feedback, but have been shown to ignore challenges to the working group and to the statements. Who are the panel of authors accountable to greg? There is a very long and vast continuum of thought among experts of all relevant fields on this issue. You're not consistent in your application of standards.

Surrrrre....right after you show me a study that says what Easterbrook claims is right.
Originally Posted by greg
That scientists at NASA and at climate research centers all over the world say he's wrong?
Why on earth do you say the things you say then greg? Honestly. It's like you're playing a sort of shell game... with yourself. ???

Or have you forgotten how the scientific method is supposed to work?
Put the stick away tough guy. The only one who seems confused on what scientific standards are is the one who keeps changing them contingent upon whether or not their statements are useful to them in an online debate.

Totally different temperature scales and predicted outcomes.
That was easy wasn't it? What if I were to tell you that the temperature scales and predicted outcomes are totally different between AR3 and AR4?

I asked for a publication. By that I meant "scientific publication"; the other kinds are, you know, kinda useless in the context of this debate. Having said that... is this one? I don't see this title on his publications list, and I don't see any publication info.
i.e. you're hardpressed in refuting it? I don't know the man personally greg, but it seems he's done a lot of work for the International Quarternary Association featured in the journal Nature; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../138692a0.html
From reading the attendees I'm guessing they are generally wrought from the inside out, with peer review and accountability. Granted, all Easterbrook did was give some little presentations for his peepz at the meeting.

Why must you immediately resort to belittling and marginalizing other scientists greg? Seriously, I don't get it. I mean, say you disagree... whatever. I just don't understand why you insist on taking a man that, for all intents and purposes seems to have dedicated a substantial portion of his life to his discipline and immediately attempt to marginalize him for nothing more than the fact that he's being used by me in a discussion with you. He is absolutely qualified to speak on this issue. You're just nitpicking to the nth degree. In light of you carrying on about how science and scientists work it's worse than nitpicking, it's asinine. The first thing they generally don't do is immediately belittle one another. I'm guessing all you really have left is that you simply don't agree with Easterbrook. Why? Who knows because you've not offered much of anything at all. At least you're doing a good job of illustrating why the skeptics handbook is an easy read.

In regards to the Kilamanjaro study linked, it is not from Easterbrook, but then I didn't know it had to be. I thought maybe I'd take the opportunity to talk about something else related to your statement on what deniers thought several years ago and why you've perhaps misinterpreted their statements. Google the paper's name greg, there's at least 10 links on the first page alone, all relevant and all showing reference to this paper in websites ranging from common blogs, through news outlets, government sites, and sites like C02 science-generally favorable to AGW. Interestingly, they're pointing to moisture deficits ultimately as the result of deforestation, not carbon emissions. Again, a long continuum of thought on the issue, all challenging one another for accuracy, all interested in favorable reviews and accountability, fellowship, notoriety, and all interested in future grants.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The article is about how we can't blanketly assume that global climate change is primarily or directly caused by human intervention:
Not even the most recent IPCC report blanketly blames climate change directly by humans. Natural, cyclical climate changes were included in the climate models.

It's frustrating when some news outlets report on something like the Sun causing changes to the global temperature, that it somehow invalidates global warming theories; as if thousands of scientists across the planet working on climate models some how just forgot about the brightest and largest object in the sky.

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Again, reread it. This does not invalidate current climate models or warming theories. It does however, provide more interesting information into the workings of our planet's climate. A lot of the warming and cooling may be natural, that isn't in dispute. It never was.

Here's the problem: "a lot" could even mean 99%, but being able to manipulate the climate on a global scale -- even at just 1% -- at any measurable difference is a problem. We only have one planet, and we need to take care of it. For the sake of everyones' safety, I think it's prudent that was assume God isn't going to save us from our own stupidity and that we need to exercise our free will and protect our world.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2009, 11:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
... have been shown to ignore challenges to the working group and to the statements.
You must be reading different science journals that I am. When did the IPCC or the UCS deny publication of peer-reviewed study?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Who are the panel of authors accountable to greg?
Every other expert in the field.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Put the stick away tough guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy. (just had to get that in there)
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2009, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
You must be reading different science journals that I am. When did the IPCC or the UCS deny publication of peer-reviewed study?
I'm not sure what you're reading at all. I've seen you pop up at least twice to indicate what it is others' links are supposedly saying only to have someone else who read the article provide copy-pastes showing your misunderstanding or worse... inaccurate kneejerk reactions to data you're not fond of. Still... I'm not one to disappoint.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarmin...icalRecord.htm
Although the IPCC no longer uses the hockey stick graph, they have replaced it with a “spaghetti-graph” of multiple proxy studies, as shown in Figure 1-11. Recently IPCC AR4 reviewer Steve McIntyre described his review of the usage of bristlecone and foxtail pines in the IPCC temperature proxy figure (shown below) [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2245]. In his review, McIntyre criticized the IPCC for including proxies that were based on bristlecone and foxtail pines (since tree rings from these trees have been shown in various studies to exhibit no correlation with temperature). McIntyre calculated correlations for the included studies and found that some had zero correlation to temperatures at the study locations. The IPCC lead author of the section rejected the reviewer’s comment stating: “the purpose of this Figure is to illustrate in a simple fashion, the variability of numerous records that have been used in published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes”. The figure shown above also includes the discredited MBH1999 hockey stick.

In other words, your data does not presuppose what our data is intended to illustrate therefore, it is of no use to us. Thanks anyway.

Every other expert in the field.
No sir. The IPCC is a bureaucratic agency beholden to no one other than the Parliamentary Acts it was created under. i.e. funded by local governments with the express intent of drafting government policy to mitigate human induced climate change. The most damning evidence it produces for AGW have not come from nor been reviewed by scientists with critical analysis included in the policy summary statements and assessment reports.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2009, 12:51 PM
 
You have to wonder about the 'science' they are doing which allowed the "hockey Stick graph" to be accepted in the first place.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,