[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh heh.
It's always been fun watching the wheels come off the MM-Glowarm bus.

Now the thing is upside down in a ditch but there's still a ton of peeps with their wagons hitched to it, down in the mud right along with it!

Good show! Carry on!

[stupendousman]

Fool me once, shame on me....

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

[BadKosh]

Where is the data they used then to show it was cooling? Why isn't it part of the data they are using now?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And this from John R. Lott, Jr., economist and author of "Freedomnomics."

FOXNews.com - What Are Global Warming Supporters Trying to Hide?

Even our own NASA, which has been caught in really embarrassing mistakes not correctly identifying which years have had the warmest temperatures, refuses to give out its data so that others can figure out inconsistent temperature estimates in the past. In NASA’s case they have refused giving out this data for almost two years. On Thursday, Christopher Horner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, announced that he would give NASA until the end of the year to honor his Freedom of Information Request or he will be forced to bring a lawsuit.

As with the University of East Anglia, all that researchers really wanted, from both Queen’s University and NASA, was the data used in papers that global warming advocates had already published. The researchers requesting the data required no special effort if those with the data had simply been willing to turn over just the data that they had already used.

NASA faces a particularly embarrassing position. In 2007, Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.org pointed out serious (though very simple) math errors with NASA’s published work and that, correcting for these, 1998 was not the warmest year, 1934 was. And the third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006. Instead of the majority of the 10 hottest years occurring since 1990, six of the top 10 had occurred before 1940. Or so everyone thought. NASA did eventually release the corrected average temperature estimates. But NASA, without clearly explaining what it was doing, later recalculated the series again and, somehow, 1934 is yet again, said to be slightly cooler than either 1998 and 2006.

As with all these errors, how many more errors might be lurking in the other estimates made at these climate research institutions? On the other hand, perhaps the latest revision was a statistical "adjustment," similar to what apparently happened at East Anglia. Nobody outside a small group at NASA is privileged to know. Given the political advocacy of NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, we are at least suspicious. The U.N.'s announced investigation into the leaked University of East Anglia should be extended to these other sources that have refused to provide their data as well.

The two institutions of University of East Anglia and NASA have provided the primary data used by global warming advocates. With an alleged increase in global temperatures of about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century, even very small corrections or adjustments can potentially make a big difference. There are also significant differences in the data between surface and atmospheric temperatures that might be explained by these data mysteries.

This is the age of computers and Web sites. If the institutions have the data sets available on their computers, they can easily be put up on a Web site for the world to see. No researcher should be trusted if he or she is not willing to share their data gladly. Are we now to believe that NASA, the very institution who managed to put man on the moon, finds the task of uploading data to a Web site too difficult?

Haha.. what an idiot.

The dataset was given. That is why Steve McIntyre was able to find the math error using the raw data. NASA did release the corrected average temperature estimates.

However, it was for US temperatures. Not world temperatures.

The US average temperatures are NOT Global average temperatures.

Watts Up With That?: 1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA


For the dataset, FORTRAN program, and the instructions on creating the anomaly maps, you can get it here:

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)



John R. Lott, Jr needs to stop making a fool of himself.

He must first be able to distinguish between US temperatures and global temperatures.

[BadKosh]

But again they are mixing recent weather data into climate discussions. Apples and oranges. Since before 1400 we didn't have measurements from anywhere in the north American continent, was the earlier data just hearsay from Europeans? The data and methods are suspect, now more than ever.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Stay with me here.

If 100 American soldiers die securing the freedoms for millions of Americans, then that is a gain, correct? Kill one to save a hundred, right?

If the summit produces 40,000 tons of CO2, yet raises awareness for new legislature that will reduce billions of tons of CO2 in the future, that is also a gain, right?

Good argument... not one I buy – it also annoys me that the biggest eco-fanatic I know enjoys flying around to North American/Europe vacation destinations on a regular basis - but I like your logic.


Although it sounds good "in theory" I also don't buy the argument that this sort of thing could've been done "via videoconference." That's not much different than negotiating over the internet, really. It's tough enough to get nations to agree to things in person; can you imagine what it'd be like if everyone was sitting at home on their own computers?

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Although it sounds good "in theory" I also don't buy the argument that this sort of thing could've been done "via videoconference." That's not much different than negotiating over the internet, really. It's tough enough to get nations to agree to things in person; can you imagine what it'd be like if everyone was sitting at home on their own computers?

I do not agree with that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha.. what an idiot.

The dataset was given. That is why Steve McIntyre was able to find the math error using the raw data. NASA did release the corrected average temperature estimates.

However, it was for US temperatures. Not world temperatures.

Yeah, what an idiot. It was US temperatures (ignore the fact that the quoted article states "US" for the sake of argument), not global temperatures that NASA couldn't get the math right on, had to correct itself in a way that seemed to refute "consensus", then they found a new way to get to the numbers they'd originally hoped to get to begin with! What a moron!

What exactly is it that NASA is refusing to release in regards to the FOIA request they've been stonewalling?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I do not agree with that.

Touché

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Although it sounds good "in theory" I also don't buy the argument that this sort of thing could've been done "via videoconference." That's not much different than negotiating over the internet, really. It's tough enough to get nations to agree to things in person; can you imagine what it'd be like if everyone was sitting at home on their own computers?

Uh..no different. Either you agree or don't.

I agree that it's much different typing, texting or even having a phone conversation than either "being there" or it's virtual proxy "video teleconferencing". The thing that makes it different is being able to pick up on non-verbal cues which help with communication. You don't really get significantly more of that without a piece of glass and some miles between you. Unless you think touching somehow should be involved or there's not going to be an agreement.

Besides, virtually none of these agreements are done between the "leaders" at these functions anyways. Everything is hammered out before hand, or at least the "right hands" are doing the negotiating out of sight. It's all a "dog and pony" show causing the burning of a gazillion gallons of fossil fuels.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yeah, what an idiot. It was US temperatures (ignore the fact that the quoted article states "US" for the sake of argument), not global temperatures that NASA couldn't get the math right on, had to correct itself in a way that seemed to refute "consensus", then they found a new way to get to the numbers they'd originally hoped to get to begin with! What a moron!

What exactly is it that NASA is refusing to release in regards to the FOIA request they've been stonewalling?

John Lott is an idiot. We both agree.

FOXNews.com - What Are Global Warming Supporters Trying to Hide?

He's confused with US and global temperatures.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

John Lott is an idiot. We both agree.

FOXNews.com - What Are Global Warming Supporters Trying to Hide?

He's confused with US and global temperatures.

Why do you say that? He points to entities that study both who are trying to hide data.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why do you say that? He points to entities that study both who are trying to hide data.

Why isn't John Lott an idiot.

His point?

NASA won't give out data. But Steve McIntyre was able to correct the math error from the RAW data from NASA?

Contradictory much?

You want the data from NASA? Here you go:

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


He is confuse with US average temperatures and Global average temperatures.


I'm not going to listen to an idiot talk about global warming when he doesn't even know the difference between US average temperatures and Global average temperatures.

I'm going to email John Lott to correct the mistake before the world finds out what an idiot he is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why isn't John Lott an idiot.

His point?

NASA won't give out data. But Steve McIntyre was able to correct the math error from the RAW data from NASA?

Contradictory much?

So then when he corrected the math, it showed that 1998 wasn't even the hottest on record for the US, 1934 was. Is that right?

I mean, he corrected the math from the raw data. NASA agrees that 70 years ago there were hotter temperatures in the US. Right?

He is confuse with US average temperatures and Global average temperatures.

WHERE does he confuse the two? I've asked twice now.

Also, what is it that NASA is refusing to give out in regards to the FOIA it has thus far not complied with, and has until the end of the year before a lawsuit is filed?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I guess the rest of "your side" won't call you on this, so I have to: what? I've had this conversation with ebuddy before re: measure of uncertainty before action should be taken, in two circumstances: WMDs and the war in Iraq, and climate change. His response showed an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance: he said that he agreed with Bush that as long as there was a "1% chance that WMDs existed, then that possibility was enough to justify going to war with Iraq (the "1% Doctrine"). However, when it came to the situation of climate change, he demanded that climate scientists show with "unequivocal proof" (I believe that was his term) that AGW was real, etc. etc. before any action should be taken.

Your side seems to have a really difficult time with honesty on this issue. Couple of things here;

• Please show me where I uttered anything remotely close to your "1% doctrine" or where I agreed that if there was a 1% chance WMDs existed, then it was enough to justify going to war with Iraq.
• Please show me where I stated anything about requiring "unequivocal proof" that AGW was real before acting.

You see, I would've had a real problem with the comparison out of the gate.

A. It's not about "acting to mitigate global warming", it's acting to mitigate free market, hamstring progress, and grow government both domestically and abroad. It's about measures that could prove far more destructive in the short-term than climate could ever hope to be. i.e. I'm nowhere near as concerned of climate as I am politicians attempting to meddle with it and with me. I believe global tensions warming is much more dire a concern than global warming. I generally say; "bigger fish and all that."

B. Saddam was a well-documented tyrant who was tried and hung for crimes against humanity up to and including the use of WMDs. Can we put CO2 up on trial to find out what it has done to us or would you have to conclude that CO2 has been essential for existence? I'll give you credit in one aspect of this comparison; fear mongering is an integral part of manipulating the masses, but the reasons did not begin and end with simply WMDs. Are you saying the fear mongering of the IPCC et al is not really about climate change? Hmm. You might be on to something.

C. There were a wealth of reasons for invading Iraq including 12 years of failed UN Resolutions and economic sanctions serving only to starve the Iraqi people to death, their threat to move away from the US dollar, potential arms race with Iran who shared only their desire to attack an ally in the region, and their geopolitical influence on the entire Middle East.

Your statement reminded me that it's not enough to manipulate data, you have to manipulate conversations, then people. Try again starting with a copy-paste of the "1% doctrine". Then we can resume with the exposé on AGW BS as perpetrated by the same intergovernmental body that botched Iraq for 12 years.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Try the search? This would have been many years ago now, perhaps in one of abe's threads although I'm not sure. Something about WMDs in Iraq, anyway. Not sure how far back the search goes.

Anyways, I ran into it while doing a search a couple years ago so that's why I remember it.

greg

[mattyb]

Wonder how much CO2 a person breathes out during their lifetime.

Sneezing wil be banned, CO2 + Swine Flu = Naughty.

Great big steaming pile of lies.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Try the search? This would have been many years ago now, perhaps in one of abe's threads although I'm not sure. Something about WMDs in Iraq, anyway. Not sure how far back the search goes.

Anyways, I ran into it while doing a search a couple years ago so that's why I remember it.

greg

The P/W seems to only go back a month.
For what it's worth, I remember the exact same comment from Abe. I don't recall him naming it the "1% Doctrine", but I certainly remember him saying that Iraq must be invaded if there was even the remotest chance of WMD in Iraq.

Maybe scientists need to figure out a way to fight climate change with bombs and missiles ... that might make it more appealing to some people.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can we put CO2 up on trial to find out what it has done to us or would you have to conclude that CO2 has been essential for existence?

You're absolutely right. The problem with climate change is there's nobody to shoot.

[BadKosh]

How about just shooting the politicians?

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document also sets unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam international, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying

is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No I'm not kidding you Warren Pease. The little blue triangles on the graph that have a value of either 1 or -1 are labeled Corr. Ann. Amp. SI/ΔT; meaning those triangles represent the correlation coefficients between the amplitudes of the Intensity of Solar Irradiance and the fluctuations of temperature from the standard temperature (273.15 K). The amplitude intensity of SI (W/m^2) has actually fluctuated from between -1.25 to 2.2. (not illustrated in the charts concerning '85 to present in which the amplitudes of SI have all been positive) Now, before you marginalize the significance of SI amplitude fluctuation, remember we're often talking about temperature changes in the hundredths of a degree Celsius. You know, fair perspective and all that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He cites first that the amplitudes of SI have been positive throughout the 10 years preceding the "warmest year on record" (mine) and the chart clearly shows exceedingly high amplitudes of SI throughout most of that 10 year period.

What is so special about the anamoly being positive? Nothing. Same thing could be said for the argument that 'global warming is true because all temps in the last 30 years are above normal.'

As Nahle points out him/herself, average solar irradiance depends on which number you use as the average. If you use 1364 W/m^2, the last 10 years have a positive anomaly (with nothing said about the trend). If you use 1370 W/m^2, then those anomalies are negative (again with nothing said about the trend), a point that was no doubt not lost on the author.

Global warming does not exist because temperatures are 'positive' on some arbitrary scale. Global warming exists because the change in temperatures is increasing over the years.

My point is that if you want to make any kind of statement about the effect that any forcing has on the environment, you have to look at it from the perspective that a change in that variable will effect a change in another. In other words, a change in solar irradiance effects a change in the temperature.

As I pointed out earlier, if you look at a given change in solar irradiance over a year compared with change in temperature over that same period, 50% of the time there is a positive correlation (both going the same direction) and 50% of the time there is a negative correlation. If you wanted to make the case that you can predict the sun's effect on climate for any given year by flipping a coin, too bad, Nahle's already done it for you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not sure this is fair. What you've linked here is the citation of the paper we've been using for our discussion and not the paper itself found here. The paper is using data compiled from the NOAA database on temperature anomalies from '79 to present, monthly reports of temperature recorded via NSSTC, and references seven additional, peer-reviewed studies including those on the relationship between TSI and climate.

I'm not sure pseudoscience can be defined by whether or not Warren Pease supports the conclusion.

I have no problem with the data that is being used or necessarily with the references he uses. I have a problem with Nahle's analysis on this website and conclusions drawn from it.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're absolutely right. The problem with climate change is there's nobody to shoot.

I've got a list.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You know the "jig is up" when the mainstream media refuses to even report that there's any controversy.

I know!

I haven't heard anything for years about 9/11 being an inside job. Also, who knows how long since it's broached the subject of a manned "moon landing"!

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why would you want to reduce billions of tons of CO2? Do you want the trees to die of suffocation or something? I mean, you know we pump commercial food greenhouses full of CO2 so the plants grow larger and yield more food, no?

If all those trees happily breathed in all that CO2, you'd think that the concentration of CO2 would be reduced in the atmosphere, no?

[BadKosh]

So the south Americans who burned away those rain forests are to blame.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I know!

I haven't heard anything for years about 9/11 being an inside job. Also, who knows how long since it's broached the subject of a manned "moon landing"!

The difference of course is that the former IS being covered by reputable print news organizations as a valid controversy and has caused at least one person to step down from their post.

The latter no one really takes seriously.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The difference of course is that the former IS being covered by reputable print news organizations as a valid controversy and has caused at least one person to step down from their post.

Who's covering claims that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Orion27]

The BBC: The BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files: Points Which Were Ignored - includes video

The same news organization that held back the story of East Anglia for 30days

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Try the search?

You said "AGW is a farce", but it was several years ago. Don't believe me? Try the search.

This would have been many years ago now, perhaps in one of abe's threads although I'm not sure. Something about WMDs in Iraq, anyway. Not sure how far back the search goes.
Anyways, I ran into it while doing a search a couple years ago so that's why I remember it.
greg

I believe the thread you're talking about was originally posted in December of 2006 by marden who was alleged to be curiously related to Aberdeenwriter and Abe. The thread, To Those Who Still Believe Bush Lied About WMDs has BRussell talking about a "1% doctrine".

Originally Posted by BRussell

The 1% doctrine. (linked)

Bush believed that even if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had WMD, the Iraq war was a good idea. I don't see how anyone can consider that to be a rational position. Is that an appropriate criterion marden? One percent?

I did not respond to this line of reasoning at all. A common accusation of the time was that Bush was guilty of "fear mongering" and I often used that against those citing the horrors of AGW. AFAIK, this was as close to comparing the two issues as I had ever gotten. I still like using it today.

It was a nice trip through memory lane though. I saw people citing unusually hot regional summers as evidence of global warming, unusually cold regional winters as evidence of non-warming, and Iraq coming up in threads on global warming... funny how these threads never change.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about being misquoted like I was commonly back in the day.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by me to you

Well that's weird: when it comes to an trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq you would rather not focus on the evidence that casts doubt, but on the evidence that affirms guilt; but when it comes to doing anything at all on climate change, you would rather focus exclusively on the evidence that casts doubt – even though this evidence is an order of magnitude less conclusive than what you dismiss in the case of Iraq!

That's what I quoted myself as having previously said to you while posting to you in a thread several years ago.... and made references to it elsewhere as well

Not sure where this quote came from though.... I wonder if it's a lost thread maybe....

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The BBC: The BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files: Points Which Were Ignored - includes video

The same news organization that held back the story of East Anglia for 30days

That doesn't seem to be an investigation of 9/11 being an inside job. Rather, it seems to be a documentary of people who believe 9/11 to have been an inside job in which BBC apparently concluded that the evidence doesn't support the conspiracy theories.

[Orion27]

Well then just give Obama's former "Green Jobs Czar" ( how fitting ) a call.
White House 'green jobs czar' Van Jones resigns - Washington Times

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Well then just give Obama's former "Green Jobs Czar" ( how fitting ) a call.
White House 'green jobs czar' Van Jones resigns - Washington Times

Again, it's not saying that he was involved in a 9/11 inside job. It says he resigned because "he signed a petition supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories and called Republicans a series of vulgar epithets". There doesn't appear to be any investigation of a 9/11 inside job or anybody resigning because they were involved in a 9/11 inside job.

It sounds to me as though you are doing exactly what the East Anglia scientists are being accused of: twisting the data to support an agenda.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Who's covering claims that 9/11 was an inside job?

No publication that is taken very seriously.

On the other hand there are quite a few print publications of repute who have reported on the fact that the scientists in question have been engaging in unethical behavior.

So, we have two issues, one which isn't taken seriously by anyone, and the other which is - unless you are one of the major television broadcast news sources whose credibility would be hurt if they started to explain that a lot of the stuff they've been pushing on their viewers probably isn't true.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Again, it's not saying that he was involved in a 9/11 inside job. It says he resigned because "he signed a petition supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories and called Republicans a series of vulgar epithets". There doesn't appear to be any investigation of a 9/11 inside job or anybody resigning because they were involved in a 9/11 inside job.

It sounds to me as though you are doing exactly what the East Anglia scientists are being accused of: twisting the data to support an agenda.

Your kidding right?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The MMGW position in a nutshell:

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Originally Posted by me to you
Well that's weird: when it comes to an trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq you would rather not focus on the evidence that casts doubt, but on the evidence that affirms guilt; but when it comes to doing anything at all on climate change, you would rather focus exclusively on the evidence that casts doubt – even though this evidence is an order of magnitude less conclusive than what you dismiss in the case of Iraq!
That's what I quoted myself as having previously said to you while posting to you in a thread several years ago.... and made references to it elsewhere as well

Not sure why you posted something you said. This was supposed to be about how I claimed that "I agreed with Bush that as long as there was a 1% chance that WMDs existed, then that possibility was enough to justify going to war with Iraq (the "1% Doctrine")" and how I "demanded that climate scientists show with "unequivocal proof" that AGW was real, etc. etc. before any action should be taken." as an illustration of my cognitive dissonance.

What you posted above was your statement, putting words in my mouth in 2006. Like I said, I never responded to that post or this line of reasoning. That thread had become very immature (To be clear, I contributed) and at that point I left it. So... the fact that you said this means you're comfortable attributing it to me?

RE: Irag- I don't entertain the "1%" line of reasoning because the only comparison between the two hot-button issues I can find is one you'd likely not appreciate; fear mongering and using one aspect of an issue to accomplish something else entirely. I never claimed Iraq was solely about WMDs so my support of action there is attributed to a host of facts surrounding the geopolitical importance of the region and US interests. I've been making this abundantly clear for years.

I also never claimed we should do nothing as the only stewards of our environment.

Not sure where this quote came from though.... I wonder if it's a lost thread maybe.... greg

It's not a lost thread. Posts dating back to at least 2003 can be found in the advanced search. The post you cited above is from a thread in 2006; global warming : MOVED from no WMDs thread

In case you haven't noticed, I don't appreciate being misquoted. You did it then and you're doing it again now 3 years later. I can only ask in the interest of civility, that you not do this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Your kidding right?

No, he's not. If you challenge him on it however, he'll simply respond to you in a diplomatic, but entirely meaningless manner to ensure that you have no reason to be combative or to even respond at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

What is so special about the anamoly being positive? Nothing. Same thing could be said for the argument that 'global warming is true because all temps in the last 30 years are above normal.'

Positive amplitudes of SI? Because that is a factor he claims correlates with temperature fluctuation. Not unlike CO2, they are, but correlative factors waiting on evidence affirming causation.

As Nahle points out him/herself, average solar irradiance depends on which number you use as the average. If you use 1364 W/m^2, the last 10 years have a positive anomaly (with nothing said about the trend). If you use 1370 W/m^2, then those anomalies are negative (again with nothing said about the trend), a point that was no doubt not lost on the author.

This is very true. There are few disciplines more complex than global climate science and the metrics of contribution. Nahle split the difference between the extremes and claims as much. Is this really more specious than Mann's ("trick") hockey stick for example, that makes a hockey stick of any combination of inputs?

Global warming does not exist because temperatures are 'positive' on some arbitrary scale. Global warming exists because the change in temperatures is increasing over the years.

Yup. Right along with UHIs that have begun to envelope temperature sensor stations as I've illustrated before with them next to burn barrels, parking lots, street intersections, air conditioner exhaust, tennis courts, etc...

You realize any heading that is off by a very slight degree could be disastrously errant 100 miles out?

My point is that if you want to make any kind of statement about the effect that any forcing has on the environment, you have to look at it from the perspective that a change in that variable will effect a change in another. In other words, a change in solar irradiance effects a change in the temperature.

As I pointed out earlier, if you look at a given change in solar irradiance over a year compared with change in temperature over that same period, 50% of the time there is a positive correlation (both going the same direction) and 50% of the time there is a negative correlation. If you wanted to make the case that you can predict the sun's effect on climate for any given year by flipping a coin, too bad, Nahle's already done it for you.

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the IPCC has already done it for me by illustrating how CO2 increases are preceded by warming events. Granted, there are a great many explanations for this phenomena just as Nahle himself provides a wealth of explanations, it doesn't mean the two suppositions do not enjoy the same degree of uncertainty at the end of the day. What you find in a peer-reviewed paper and what you find in a policy summary statement drafted by politicians are often two entirely different degrees of certainty.

I have no problem with the data that is being used or necessarily with the references he uses. I have a problem with Nahle's analysis on this website and conclusions drawn from it.

You and I are not alone in our concerns and we simply represent both sides of the issue.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

If all those trees happily breathed in all that CO2, you'd think that the concentration of CO2 would be reduced in the atmosphere, no?

You're not actually questioning the point that trees breathe in CO2 there, are you?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not sure why you posted something you said. This was supposed to be about how I claimed that "I agreed with Bush that as long as there was a 1% chance that WMDs existed, then that possibility was enough to justify going to war with Iraq (the "1% Doctrine")" and how I "demanded that climate scientists show with "unequivocal proof" that AGW was real, etc. etc. before any action should be taken." as an illustration of my cognitive dissonance.

Well, you did demand "unequivocal proof" for man-made global warming. My "1% doctrine" comment was off-the-cuff and you definitely didn't say it - I think it was marden/abe/whatever I was talking to about that.

I believe that quote of mine sums up what I meant to say

greg

[Doofy]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What's this from Doofy?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Update: The Guardian's front-page editorial, along with other newspapers across the globe (as it says). I'll post it in its entirety and I hope no one minds.

As a comment on it myself, though: very, very overdramatic and annoying. A lot of dubious claims and a lot of dubious statements, I think. Humanity's "collective salvation"? Please. Sigh.

greg

Copenhagen climate change conference: Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

[Doofy]

^ All sh!t.

[Orion27]

The papers that will carry the Copenhagen editorialAsia: 16 papers from 13 countries and regions
Economic Observer, China Chinese
Southern Metropolitan, China Chinese
CommonWealth Magazine, Taiwan English
Joongang Ilbo, South Korea Korean
Tuoitre, Vietnam Vietnamese
Brunei Times, Brunei English
Jakarta Globe, Indonesia English
Cambodia Daily, Cambodia English
The Hindu, India English
The Daily Star, Bangladesh English
The News, Pakistan English
Daily Times, Pakistan English
Gulf News, Dubai English
An Nahar, Lebanon Arabic
Gulf Times, Qatar English
Maariv, Israel Hebrew

Europe – 20 papers from 17 countries

Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany German
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland Polish
Der Standard, Austria German
Delo, Slovenia Slovene
Vecer, Slovenia Slovene
Dagbladet Information, Denmark Danish
Politiken, Denmark Danish
Dagbladet, Norway Norwegian
The Guardian, UK English
Le Monde, France French
Libération, France French
La Reppublica, Italy Italian
El Pais, Spain Spanish
De Volkskrant, Netherlands Dutch
Kathimerini, Greece Greek
Publico, Portugal Portuguese
Hurriyet, Turkey Turkish
Novaya Gazeta, Russia Russian
Irish Times, Ireland English
Le Temps, Switzerland French

Africa – 11 papers from eight countries
The Star, Kenya English
Daily Monitor, Uganda English
The New Vision, Uganda English
Zimbabwe Independent, Zimbabwe English
The New Times, Rwanda English
The Citizen, Tanzania English
Al Shorouk, Egypt Arabic
Botswana Guardian, Botswana English
Mail & Guardian, South Africa English
Business Day, South Africa English
Cape Argus, South Africa English
North and Central America – six papers from five countries
Toronto Star, Canada English
Miami Herald, USA English
El Nuevo Herald, USA Spanish
Jamaica Observer, Jamaica English
La Brujula Semanal, Nicaragua Spanish
El Universal, Mexico Spanish
South America – three papers from two countries
Zero Hora, Brazil Portuguese
Diario Catarinense, Brazil Portuguese
Diaro Clarin, Argentina Spanish

[Doofy]

Anyone want to hazard a guess at the common thread running through all those newspapers?

[ebuddy]

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of...

... going exclusively online where proselytizing is apparently more acceptable. Besides, it's greener.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days.

This crowd gets more pretentious, desperate, goofy and unintentionally hilarious with each passing day.

[Wiskedjak]

The reality appears to be that the only people concerned about "Climategate" are those who are already convinced that there's a conspiracy.