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 > Another Global Warming Thread

Another Global Warming Thread (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You make an interesting point; you have to relinquish freedom and control for safety and progress. There are any number of things we could do to facilitate the Nerf™ world, but is that necessarily a better world in your view?
No I think the real point is that relinquishing freedom and control is the path to lots of places, some good and some bad. For example, we relinquish control to our power windows, power steering, climate control, and (most of us) automatic transmission, not as a sacrifice but as an unqualified benefit (this is also the inspiration of the Macintosh computer). The key is to try to guide progress to one of those good places not the bad ones. If you start off by expecting to create suffering, you will find it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or even if you ask the question as you have (is relinquishing control necessarily good or bad), you'll end up with something bad, because it's not necessarily anything. It can be a benefit, but you have to make it that way, it's not inevitable. The way to bring about change is to develop the advantages of it and reduce the costs. Not to try to convince people the costs are irrelevant. I think that the safety advantages to self-driving cars will be orders of magnitude more beneficial to society as a whole, but that won't change hearts or minds. It's the convenience and money savings that will move product.

Don't get me wrong, the prospect of traveling 120 mph from point A to point B along an interstate full of traffic controlled electronically is quite pleasing in terms of efficiency... until the system fails or is compromised.
We've been so acclimated to the status quo that we don't realize it's already horrifically compromised. We should all be terrified to go whizzing around at 60 mph surrounded by death traps controlled by members of the general public. And if we had anything to compare it with, I have no doubt that we would (will) be.

As it stands today, AGW zealotry is an expensive solution looking for a problem.
On this I agree. They should concentrate all their efforts on finding a cheaper solution, and one that solves more problems at the same time.


I suspect this sort of wizardry would be a most unfortunate development in the wrong hands.
Where do you think I got the idea for it?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I remember many similar arguments being made about WMD Iraq.
I've always said that climate change is the left's war on terror. Both sides have their nebulous faceless perpetual threat to our entire way of life, and both sides scoff at the validity of the other's threat.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No I think the real point is that relinquishing freedom and control is the path to lots of places, some good and some bad. For example, we relinquish control to our power windows, power steering, climate control, and (most of us) automatic transmission, not as a sacrifice but as an unqualified benefit (this is also the inspiration of the Macintosh computer). The key is to try to guide progress to one of those good places not the bad ones.
Or ensure you're automating something people don't already enjoy doing. For example, few if anyone at all appreciate the act of manually winding a window up or down. They're not relinquishing control to the power windows or the power steering for that matter, they're facilitating greater control at the touch of a button or an easier turn of the wheel. I would not go out to my vehicle to simply operate the windows or turn the wheel, but I have been known to just hop in the car and go driving. Why? Because I enjoy driving.

If you start off by expecting to create suffering, you will find it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or even if you ask the question as you have (is relinquishing control necessarily good or bad), you'll end up with something bad, because it's not necessarily anything. It can be a benefit, but you have to make it that way, it's not inevitable. The way to bring about change is to develop the advantages of it and reduce the costs. Not to try to convince people the costs are irrelevant. I think that the safety advantages to self-driving cars will be orders of magnitude more beneficial to society as a whole, but that won't change hearts or minds. It's the convenience and money savings that will move product.
Take the automatic vs manual transmission example you offered; if you effectively sell the benefits of safety and convenience, people will pay a premium for it. Automatics are pricier than sticks, cars with power windows, locks, seats, and steering are also pricier than their earlier, manual counterparts. However, it's the year 2012 and sticks are still out there new. Why? People enjoy managing their own RPMs, their own acceleration, and the vehicle's response. You don't have to make them cheaper, you just have to make them exponentially more beneficial in replacing tasks people don't want to do. I'd argue that driving in and of itself, is not a task most are excited to relinquish. Is the good of the auto-car enough to outweigh the bad and good of manual driving? This is a costly endeavor and its early-adopters will have to pay a hefty premium for it.

We've been so acclimated to the status quo that we don't realize it's already horrifically compromised. We should all be terrified to go whizzing around at 60 mph surrounded by death traps controlled by members of the general public. And if we had anything to compare it with, I have no doubt that we would (will) be.
I don't think it's because we're so acclimated to the status quo, I think many of us simply appreciate the status quo. There won't be a rush to relinquish control of something people appreciate controlling. The problem with the auto-car is that it's an all-in proposition. I mean, I suppose you could have freeform traffic flow in and amongst the auto-cars, but I don't see it not causing even more trouble. You can say this is awfully cynical, but there's a reason we're still driving around in manual-transmissioned vehicles we drive ourselves. What you propose is a massive undertaking and an equally tough sell. This will not be a cheaper proposition. You will have to pay a premium for it and much like your aforementioned examples, it should be so beneficial that people want to pay a premium for it. I'm not sure driving itself is something people dislike so much that they want someone else to do it for them and are willing to pay more for the opportunity.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Or ensure you're automating something people don't already enjoy doing.
True. But people don't always realize how much they do or don't enjoy doing it until they have the option to not have to do it. People probably enjoyed typing commands into their PC (and feeling like experts for knowing how) before the Mac came along and showed them it was unnecessary. Where I'm going with this in a minute is that "computing" doesn't have to include DOS and "driving" doesn't have to include the 90% of our driving that's made up by stop/go, looking for parking, pretending not to text, eating, trying to stay awake (or sober), or trying to scratch our backsides. You can still do the 10% of it that's fun, and we'll still enjoy more than 90% of the safety benefits, as the distracted driving problem won't overlap much with that 10%.


However, it's the year 2012 and sticks are still out there new. Why? People enjoy managing their own RPMs, their own acceleration, and the vehicle's response.
True, but they're more and more a niche product. Targeting just the auto crowd would be more than enough to get over the hump of early adopter-hood.

You don't have to make them cheaper, you just have to make them exponentially more beneficial in replacing tasks people don't want to do. I'd argue that driving in and of itself, is not a task most are excited to relinquish.
See, I think that is exactly what it will be. And I can understand why this isn't obvious to most people, but I still think that once they see it in action, it will be the next must-have product that you didn't even know you wanted until you _needed_ it. Imagine never looking for parking again, because you get dropped off and picked up in front of the door. Imagine never going to the mechanic because the car takes itself. Imagine never going to a gas station. Imagine sleeping in, eating and checking macnn during your commute. No more road rage, no more traffic tickets, no more getting to your destination irritable. Everyone will have a chauffeur.

Is the good of the auto-car enough to outweigh the bad and good of manual driving? This is a costly endeavor and its early-adopters will have to pay a hefty premium for it.
It doesn't have to outweigh the good, because you can still take over control on the weekends when you actually want to drive. The good will remain right where it is.

Indeed it will be a costly endeavor, but the advantages will drive early adoption. This is how advancements thrive, by appealing, not by guilting. It's only after the early adopter phase has matured that we'll have buttloads of data showing how much safer it has been than manual driving, and that's when it will start getting subsidies and support from the public at large. Because at that point, the subsidies will clearly pay for themselves, due to all the damage and lost productivity they will obviate (and like any technology, costs will fall as the technology sees significant use). In truth, we've been subsidizing the aftermath of manual driving for 100 years. Insurance rates will plummet when this technology takes off.


I don't think it's because we're so acclimated to the status quo, I think many of us simply appreciate the status quo. There won't be a rush to relinquish control of something people appreciate controlling. The problem with the auto-car is that it's an all-in proposition.
Why does it have to be all-in? There are numerous advantages even without cooperation, and even with a manual override mode. You can take control all you want, and then put it in "auto" mode to go find its parking space, go pick up your wife at the airport, or to be your designated driver. But I would be very surprised if many people choose to take control during a hectic commute, once they are exposed to the joys of doing *anything* else with that time. There are definitely parts of driving that are enjoyable, but I think you'll find that it's the vast minority of the actual time spent doing it. Why can't the rest of that time be automated? The scourge of texting shows us that people are chomping at the bit to be able to stop paying attention to the road. The demand is there, it's just that most people don't realize that's what it is. They think the answer is to control texting with voice commands, not to actually stop controlling the car with a fallible, morally questionable, intellectually un-challenged human in the first place.

This will not be a cheaper proposition. You will have to pay a premium for it and much like your aforementioned examples, it should be so beneficial that people want to pay a premium for it. I'm not sure driving itself is something people dislike so much that they want someone else to do it for them and are willing to pay more for the opportunity.
It will earn its premium, I have no doubt.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I've always said that climate change is the left's war on terror. Both sides have their nebulous faceless perpetual threat to our entire way of life, and both sides scoff at the validity of the other's threat.
Yup. The bad guy is different, but the tactics are similar.
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There are no published, peer-reviewed studies that disagree with the premise that God created the earth and everything in it.
Of course there isn't. This is a discussion of science, not mythology. You can't create an experiment to test the existence of leprechauns or invisible magic teapots, ergo there are no peer-reviewed studies that cover the subject one way or the other. It doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Sure, there are published, peer-reviewed studies that suggest other means of biological development, but they don't disagree with the premise that God created the earth. Why? Because they don't have to.
100 years ago there were alternate theories, but not any more. Right now evolution is the only currently accepted theory. That is because years of observation, testing, and prediction have demonstrated the efficacy of evolution. God is imaterial and doesn't even enter the equation for the same reason magical pink unicorns don't, so your argument is completely invalid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It may be hard to separate an argumentative attitude from science, but you see there are a wealth of published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate other, more profound forces of natural variability.
Such as?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You might be expecting to see; "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX", but you see that's not how science works.
You're right, it doesn't work that way. Science works by forming and testing a hypothesis, then making predictions with the theory.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, it doesn't have to. You have to, but that's not science.
I'm asking people like stupendousman to back up their argument. I have provides sources to evidence and testing for my argument on countless occasions as this subject comes up over and over again, and I have made one simple request of him and others: if you disagree with the premise, then support your argument with evidence and testing.
"…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
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
100 years ago there were alternate theories, but not any more. Right now evolution is the only currently accepted theory.
His quote was that "God created the earth" - evolution doesn't contradict that statement.

As I noted, his comments on evolution/creationism are simply a red herring in that respect. Whether anyone can disprove that God created the earth (which by definition is likely impossible to "prove" beecause there is no data and it is unquantifiable) is a completely different logical argument than asking whether anyone can disprove that human activity is the primary driver for climate change/global warming (a theory that is emminently quantifiable, albeit with data so complex that our accuracy suffers).

It was an argument that looked good, as long as you didn't think about what was actually being said.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 14, 2012 at 06:06 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:59 PM
 
You can't prove or disprove that god did or didn't do anything, that is the nature of modern gods and they are set up that way by their supporters on purpose.

Creationism is nonsense.
ID would be infinitely harder to argue with if it incorporated evolution, but it won't so it too is balls.
If people just admitted that the universe is a bit more complicated than the bible lets on and accepted that as god moving in mysterious ways, we'd all be better off.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
ID would be infinitely harder to argue with if it incorporated evolution, but it won't so it too is balls.
Actually I heard that just last weekend at a clergy conference. It's beginning to get some traction.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You can't prove or disprove that god did or didn't do anything
Actually there are lots of things you could prove that god did, if they happened. The problem is, if he did do any of those he's keeping it a secret.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 04:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Actually there are lots of things you could prove that god did, if they happened. The problem is, if he did do any of those he's keeping it a secret.
Maybe but good luck proving which god it was
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Of course there isn't. This is a discussion of science, not mythology. You can't create an experiment to test the existence of leprechauns or invisible magic teapots, ergo there are no peer-reviewed studies that cover the subject one way or the other. It doesn't apply.

100 years ago there were alternate theories, but not any more. Right now evolution is the only currently accepted theory. That is because years of observation, testing, and prediction have demonstrated the efficacy of evolution. God is imaterial and doesn't even enter the equation for the same reason magical pink unicorns don't, so your argument is completely invalid.
My point was very valid and that is that you and other enthusiasts of SCIENCE!™ are so in need of facebook-style drama that you can't accept any dry evidence, testing, predictions, and conclusions that fly in the face of your dogma.

Such as?
This is where we pretend we haven't been over this exhaustively. Here's two for fun;

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years... As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records.
  • Step 1: identify the authors for potential slander on wehateoil.com
  • Step 2: cite that it doesn't explicitly claim Al Gore is a poopy-butt stinky face.
  • Step 3: claim that you're not able to find a rebuttal because the studies are relatively recent, someone will challenge them and you'll wait on that for now.

You're right, it doesn't work that way. Science works by forming and testing a hypothesis, then making predictions with the theory.
Thank you. And if the predictions don't hold up? Say... anything about stuck in ENSO and tipping points?

I'm asking people like stupendousman to back up their argument. I have provides sources to evidence and testing for my argument on countless occasions as this subject comes up over and over again, and I have made one simple request of him and others: if you disagree with the premise, then support your argument with evidence and testing.
And yet, I can predict and test exactly how you'll respond to the wealth of contrarian evidence provided by others. We've been through this olePigeon. I've posted information and studies compiled of evidence and testing and predictions and the one thing that remains static in this is your reaction to them. It's one thing to follow science, it's entirely another thing to be a follower.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years... As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records.
  • Step 1: Point out that this study doesn't throw any doubt whatsoever on CO2 forcing.
  • Step 2: point out that this study is actually apropros to mattyb's link to dinosaurs - because the conclusion reached by the authors says that something else was acting in addition to CO2 forcing. Something like...FARTING DINOSAURS?!?
  • Step 3: ask ebuddy how this study in any way is evidence of our current GW not being anthropogenic? Because it, you know...specifically confirms the accuracy of CO2 forcing models.
....
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 15, 2012 at 01:21 PM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years... As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records.
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Global Warming *is* happening, but that it's not assisted by human activities?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Global Warming *is* happening, but that it's not assisted by human activities?
Exactly.

That study lead the authors to conclude that there was something else contributing to climate forcing which they couldn't account for in the data. Given the number of different variables that may have been present millions of years ago but which are not present now, that made sense.

That study in no way called our understanding of climate forcing in current times into question.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
Decided to look the first one up as I wasn't immediately familiar with it.....hahahaha. What a shitstorm of controversy! In fact, apparently it warranted a rebuttal submission to the Journal from 9 climate scientists which absolutely tore apart the conclusions of MacLean's paper:
Originally Posted by Rebuttal publication
The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations.


One online commentator that I've linked to above summed it up by saying:
Fact is that the article's only connection with climate change arises from the phrase "… and perhaps recent trends in global temperature…" in the final sentence.

Those facts are jarringly at odds with the authors' grandiose claims in press releases that humans do not cause climate change.

To conclude: olePigeon asked you for links to your claims that there is scientific research which throws doubt on AGW. You provided him with:

a) the above paper, written by three prominent members of almost every anti-AGW lobby group, that climate scientists have called "atrocious" and "wishful thinking at best, and mendacious propaganda at worst"; and

b) a paper which does not in any way throw doubt on the anthropogenic nature of climate science, which may be referenced not only by the contents of the paper itself, but by the author's following quote in his University's press release:
Originally Posted by Zeebe, author of the study you've used as evidence against AGW
"By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we‘re gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain," Zeebe says.

Unfortunately, your post is precisely the reason why I stopped debating climate science on MacNN, and then left the Pol Lounge altogether for some time: weeding through the misinformation and nonsense is an almost impossible task.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Global Warming *is* happening, but that it's not assisted by human activities?
I'm saying first and foremost; the climate changes. There are many factors involved with those changes. The degree of focus on mankind's contribution misses easily, the lion's share of peer-reviewed, published evidence for the natural factors that drive climate change. I do not believe AGW is consensus view, I believe it is establishment view. I believe there's a difference and frankly, it shows. Keep reading...
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm saying first and foremost; the climate changes. There are many factors involved with those changes. The degree of focus on mankind's contribution misses easily, the lion's share of peer-reviewed, published evidence for the natural factors that drive climate change. I do not believe AGW is consensus view, I believe it is establishment view. I believe there's a difference and frankly, it shows. Keep reading...
Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you. It's just that some people are SO against the concept of global warming or climate change, that they will deny that ANY climate change is possible ... until they find an article that says climate change is natural (even if that article also adds that natural climate change could be exacerbated by human activities).

I'm personally undecided as to what I think to be the reality, and as a result don't feel the issue is worth investing massive amounts of money until the evidence is more convincing. That said, just as some people didn't think it was worth the risk to not invade and take the chance that Saddam *might* not have had the means to destroy us all, I also don't think it's worth the risk to continue on as we are and take the chance that we *might* not be destroying *ourselves*.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2012, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you. It's just that some people are SO against the concept of global warming or climate change, that they will deny that ANY climate change is possible ...
That's not even remotely true.

Every time this lame ass debate rages (every other minute?) it's pointed out by the more reasonable side that the climate changes constantly, and has many times, drastically, throughout the ages. No help from not-yet existing man in the vast majority of the earth's history. Therefore to only cite mankind's contribution without taking that into consideration is silly.

Then, like clockwork you turn around with the standard "...they deny that ANY climate change is possible..." Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Ad infinitum.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Every time this lame ass debate rages (every other minute?) it's pointed out by the more reasonable side that the climate changes constantly, and has many times, drastically, throughout the ages. No help from not-yet existing man in the vast majority of the earth's history. Therefore to only cite mankind's contribution without taking that into consideration is silly.
A central tenet of climate science is that the earth's climate is naturally changing.

How you fail to grasp that point is beyond me. The argument isn't whether climate "naturally changes" (everywhone with a modicum of knowledge accepts that it must); the argument is whether mankind is doing the sort of activities that would normally cause the climate to change.

Your reducing the argument to "durrrr does climate change? durrrr" is so ridiculously simplistic it's laughable. Yet another attempt to obfuscate the real question with misinformation and ignorance.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Decided to look the first one up as I wasn't immediately familiar with it.....hahahaha. What a shitstorm of controversy! In fact, apparently it warranted a rebuttal submission to the Journal from 9 climate scientists which absolutely tore apart the conclusions of MacLean's paper:
"shitstorm", "warranted a rebuttal to the journal", "tore apart", "hahahaha"... such flowery rhetoric. So the first thing you do when someone cites a study is google (enter name of paper here) + rebuttal. That's novel. Step #3. The fact that a contrarian conclusion was published at all warrants rebuttals to journals. Of course, when rebuttals don't work they resort to strong-arming the journal for not exclusively publishing papers that support the preferred, consensus view.

Originally Posted by Rebuttal publication
The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations.
Could it be? A rebuttal to the rebuttal?
Originally Posted by rebuttal to rebuttal
The paper by McLean et al does not analyse trends in MGT; rather, it examines the extent to which ENSO accounts for variation in MGT. The research concludes that MGT has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5-7 months earlier and shows the potential of natural mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
It is evident in this paper that ENSO is the primary driver of MGT. All other mechanisms are small in comparison. The reason may be due to Hadley circulation which is itself linked to changes in sea surface temperature and the Walker Circulation, that is, ENSO. Hadley circulation is the main mechanism for moving the surplus of energy at near the equator to high latitudes and plays a key role in the general circulation of the atmosphere. Changes in Hadley circulation affects convection and thus atmospheric moisture content and cloud cover which may in turn affect net solar heating as well as the transfer of heat from Earth to space.
Those who claim correlation using derivatives removes a linear trend miss the point. McLean et al use this method to construct Figures 5 and 6. It should be noted that detrended data was used purely to establish the time lag between the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and MGT in Figures 5 and 6. This time lag was then used in Figure 7 to show that close correlation between trends in temperature and changes in the Southern Oscillation Index seven months previously.
Figure 7 presents the data in its original form; namely, data that is not detrended, but with the time shift in SOI obtained from the detrended data. If an underlying trend existed, it would have shown up in Figure 7. One would see the temperature line rising away from the SOI line if, for example, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had a significant influence. There is little or no sign of this.
I was asked for published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate the other, more profound forces of natural variability. Done.

One online commentator that I've linked to above summed it up by saying:
My Scientists!™ can beat up your scientists.

To conclude: olePigeon asked you for links to your claims that there is scientific research which throws doubt on AGW. published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate other, more profound forces of natural variability. You provided him with:
Exactly what he friggin' requested.

a) the above paper, written by three prominent members of almost every anti-AGW lobby group, that climate scientists have called "atrocious" and "wishful thinking at best, and mendacious propaganda at worst"; and
Step #3. Okay, so I rail on the establishment of climate science and you slander anyone not toeing the preferred presupposition. Anything else? I mean we can do this all day long. My scientists can beat up your scientists. My scientists have integrity and yours are all shills for enter enviral-whacko tribe here. It's apparent you've run out of material shortcut.

b) a paper which does not in any way throw doubt on the anthropogenic nature of climate science, which may be referenced not only by the contents of the paper itself, but by the author's following quote in his University's press release:
Of course it does. The study is predicated on evidence from the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum that present a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks. You're either not reading the material or pretending you can't read at all. I've already indicated how important it is to not unnecessarily rattle the cages of the establishment. At worst, they'll try to have you excommunicated and at best will make funding your future endeavors much more difficult. It's not his fault or anyone else's that the evidence is stronger for natural variability.

As for the bone he threw the establishment community that you've quoted above as if some real zinger? Read it again to acknowledge how absolutely meaningless it is. It is essentially, drugs r badmmkay.

Unfortunately, your post is precisely the reason why I stopped debating climate science on MacNN, and then left the Pol Lounge altogether for some time: weeding through the misinformation and nonsense is an almost impossible task.
You ran out of material shortcut, that's why you stopped arguing AGW here. Your goofy zealotry got more indefensible by the year.

Next?
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 09:38 AM
 


The usual ebuddy tactic I see: receive a resounding and thorough intellectual beatdown, and turn it into a victory by simply claiming it was a victory. North Korea much?

Originally Posted by ebuddy
So the first thing you do when someone cites a study is google (enter name of paper here) + rebuttal. That's novel.
The sad thing about this statement is that I simply Googled the title only, which is something you clearly didn't do. If you had done so much as as lifted a finger to research this "peer-reviewed" study you deemed fit to provide, you would've known that the second Google hit is a link to the rebuttal, and the very first Google page contains multiple scientific analyses of how flawed this study actually was.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Apparently not.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I was asked for published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate the other, more profound forces of natural variability. Done.
"More profound" than what?

*waits for it*

Ohhhhhh...."other sources" that are "more profound" than anthropogenic sources! Yes! That's what we were talking about!

Phew! Glad we cleared that one up! Otherwise, you might have just been providing peer-review studies to say there are "profound, natural sources of climate variability".......something which everyone in highschool ought to know by now, after all!

But wait...:
Originally Posted by me
b) a paper which does not in any way throw doubt on the anthropogenic nature of climate science, which may be referenced not only by the contents of the paper itself...
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Of course it does. The study is predicated on evidence from the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum that present a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks.
Wow...I always find it hilarious that you constantly rail against the wishy-washy nature of politicians, but when called out for being completely and utterly wrong, you always give the standard wishy-washy political response:

Step 1: Repeat that you're right (your first sentence)
Step 2: Follow that up not by proving that you're right, but instead talking about something that's entirely irrelevent to whether you were right or wrong (your second sentence)
Step 3: Run for office...?

The real answer is: no, it doesn't. The study specifically does not throw doubt, or even attempt to throw doubt, on the anthropogenic nature of our current climate change. The summary mumbo-jumbo in your second sentence (plagiarized from the first sentence of the study summary...apparently you didn't make it any further along) has nothing at all to do with "throwing doubt on the anthropogenic nature of our current climate change."

You're either not reading the material or pretending you can't read at all.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm the one not reading the material.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 11:56 AM
 
Whats the point of peer review when the parties involved are corrupt?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 12:55 PM
 
So you're saying that climate scientists who review publications are corrupt?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The usual ebuddy tactic I see: receive a resounding and thorough intellectual beatdown, and turn it into a victory by simply claiming it was a victory. North Korea much?
I see your reasoning aligns well with your hubris. A. I don't feel intellectually beat down and; B. I have no desire to pursue anything as meaningless as victory over you. I'm just exploiting your passion here to illustrate Science!™ to those who have shame.

The sad thing about this statement is that I simply Googled the title only, which is something you clearly didn't do. If you had done so much as as lifted a finger to research this "peer-reviewed" study you deemed fit to provide, you would've known that the second Google hit is a link to the rebuttal, and the very first Google page contains multiple scientific analyses of how flawed this study actually was.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Apparently not.
I'll give you the above if it really makes you feel victorious.

"More profound" than what?
Than anthropogenic factors...

*waits for it*
... which the studies you're critiquing demonstrate well while not resorting to Step 2.

Ohhhhhh...."other sources" that are "more profound" than anthropogenic sources! Yes! That's what we were talking about!

Phew! Glad we cleared that one up! Otherwise, you might have just been providing peer-review studies to say there are "profound, natural sources of climate variability".......something which everyone in highschool ought to know by now, after all!
Right because everyone knows data compiled from modeled projections make much more compelling SCIENCE!™ than historical data compiled from

actual evidence? I know, you couldn't find anything on him from Step 1 so you're onto Step 2. Good show zealot.

But wait...:
What?!?

Wow...I always find it hilarious that you constantly rail against the wishy-washy nature of politicians, but when called out for being completely and utterly wrong, you always give the standard wishy-washy political response:
Wishy-washy political response? You mean, well thought out, relatively unemotional, and very pragmatic? I can see why this tact would drive you batsh!t crazy.

Step 1: Repeat that you're right (your first sentence)
Step 2: Follow that up not by proving that you're right, but instead talking about something that's entirely irrelevent to whether you were right or wrong (your second sentence)
Step 3: Run for office...?
This is the second time you've tried to reinvent my quip and IMO, it's not working for you.

The real answer is: no, it doesn't. The study specifically does not throw doubt, or even attempt to throw doubt, on the anthropogenic nature of our current climate change.
Are you saying the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming is not a possible analog for the future and as such would not provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks or are you saying that fossil fuels have nothing to do with CO2? The answer: of course the study casts doubt on the veracity of the AGW activist proponents' claims. Although, the study doesn't resort to Step 2 so I can see where that might throw ya. Instead of feeling this or assuming that, just read the information.

The summary mumbo-jumbo in your second sentence (plagiarized from the first sentence of the study summary...apparently you didn't make it any further along)
Yeah, in bold as an obvious reference to the study I cited earlier.

IMO, you're way too dug in.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Every time this lame ass debate rages (every other minute?) it's pointed out by the more reasonable side that the climate changes constantly, and has many times, drastically, throughout the ages. No help from not-yet existing man in the vast majority of the earth's history. Therefore to only cite mankind's contribution without taking that into consideration is silly.
That is why the entire history of our planet's climate as far back as can accurately be measured is taken into consideration. Something the "more reasonable" side doesn't seem to understand.
"…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  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 11:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
My point was very valid and that is that you and other enthusiasts of SCIENCE!™ are so in need of facebook-style drama that you can't accept any dry evidence, testing, predictions, and conclusions that fly in the face of your dogma.
You're are so completely wrong. If you could provide evidence, testing, and make predictions, I'd be the first to support it. So far you haven't.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is where we pretend we haven't been over this exhaustively.
The last time we did this I refuted every single one of your posts. And no, I haven't forgotten how often we do this, nor the results every time you do.

It would have taken you 2 seconds to Google up the criticisms on that paper. It's on the cutting block for retraction because the principal author was found to be manipulating their data. This recently published paper completely refuted Bob Carter's claims.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Thank you. And if the predictions don't hold up? Say... anything about stuck in ENSO and tipping points?
It isn't what you think it is. Two things happend; one, that study was released; two, it was bundled with a press release by morons titled, "Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong" and then parroted all over the internet. Even my favorite go-to science website unfortunately parroted the press release.

One has nothing to do with the other. Nothing. This study is, and only is, about the Palaeocene–Eocene period. In fact not only was that press release wrong, it was completely the opposite of the conclusion the authors were making in their study.

Here is the exact same press release put to out by the University of Hawai'i that was supposed to accompany the study. Instead, everyone jumped onto the stupid headlines and didn't bother reading it.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And yet, I can predict and test exactly how you'll respond to the wealth of contrarian evidence provided by others.
You or others on here have provided zero contrarian evidence. You've gone into this haze again that you conveniently forget about the last few times you've attempted to do this. Every single time I addressed your sources one by one, and every single time I have either demonstrated how you've misinterpreted the data or the source was questionable to flat out bogus.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We've been through this olePigeon.
Yes, many times. And the results haven't changed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've posted information and studies compiled of evidence and testing and predictions and the one thing that remains static in this is your reaction to them.
A one by one critique about how you're still wrong and you not being able to refute it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's one thing to follow science, it's entirely another thing to be a follower.
It's also one thing to not read and at least attempt to assimilate the information you're posting.
"…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  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2012, 11:53 PM
 
A quick rundown of our argument:

Me: That's an apple tree, and it only grows red apples.
You: No it doesn't, it grows neon orange apples, too!
Me: No it doesn't. If you think it does, go pick a neon orange apple from that tree and show me, then I'll believe you.
You: I don't have to, this website says so.
Me: You aren't going to convince me it grows neon orange apples because a blog says so. Go pick a neon orange apple from that tree and show me.
You: Fine! Here!
Me: That's a grapefruit.
You: Right! It's a piece of fruit, ergo that tree grows neon orange apples. The Coalition for Grapefuits says that grapefruits are an indicator that that tree grows neon orange apples, so you should buy more grapefruits.
Me: It's a grapefruit, not a neon orange apple you picked from the tree. It has nothing to do with that apple tree.
You: Fine, here!
Me: That's a picture of an apple you colored with a neon orange crayon.
You: Well, my work is done here. I've proven that that tree over there grows neon orange apples. With the wealth of evidence I've provided, I can't believe you still don't believe that it doesn't grow neon orange apples.
Me: I have several bushles of nothing but red apples from that tree. Not one of them is neon orange. You've shown me a grapefruit and a crayon drawing, how is that evidence that the tree grows neon orange apples?
You: Do we have to go over this again? I already showed you countless sources of evidence. I can't believe you have such blind faith in red apples from that tree. Obviously God made them. Since you can't prove that God didn't make them, it only further demonstrates that I'm right.
"…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
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 03:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
durrrr
Are you really so dense that you failed to grasp that I was responding to someone who was falsely accusing others of exactly what you just spit all over your screen about? Why yes, you probably are that dense, whoever the F you are.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 04:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
A quick rundown of our argument:

Me: The sky is falling because you use lightbulbs.
You: No it isn't. You're a nut. And you also use lightbulbs, so shut up.
Me: Nuh uh! The sky is falling! I'm super cereal! Stop using lightbulbs! Do what liberal politicians demand!! Even though they don't, and I don't... but you need to be forced to! Wahh!
Repeat on like like that for 25,000 or so posts in dozens of threads onward to infinity.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
You're are so completely wrong. If you could provide evidence, testing, and make predictions, I'd be the first to support it. So far you haven't.
You're welcome to use all the evidence compiled by the discipline to date sir, doesn't change a thing. The climate changes and little is understood of man's contribution to it, let alone nature's. I've provided as much if not more evidence than you've provided on the matter.

The last time we did this I refuted every single one of your posts. And no, I haven't forgotten how often we do this, nor the results every time you do.
You've not refuted a thing. What I've done is demonstrate, repeatedly, that you cannot meet your own standards of methodology or credibility.

It would have taken you 2 seconds to Google up the criticisms on that paper. It's on the cutting block for retraction because the principal author was found to be manipulating their data. This recently published paper completely refuted Bob Carter's claims.
I'm well aware of the criticisms and have posted Carter and McClean's response. If you read their complaint, it is essentially that McClean used de-trended data in the study, but what your preferred scientists failed to acknowledge is that the trend would exist in the data nonetheless. Of course, McClean et al. did this to exaggerate the appearance of the non-correlation. Everyone knows only climate scientists from the circle jerk at CRU are allowed to do this. Regardless, that isn't the case here anyway and they've missed the entire point of the study.

"It's on the cutting block"? Please, it's no more on the cutting block than your fallacious hockey stick graph and the more recent, spaghetti graph that includes it. Your problem is that the paper on SOI was submitted in 2009 and remains available for review. It will remain for review 3 years from now and 3 years after that. Trust me. I'll look forward to your updates should the paper meet its demise on the "cutting block".

It isn't what you think it is. Two things happend; one, that study was released; two, it was bundled with a press release by morons titled, "Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong" and then parroted all over the internet. Even my favorite go-to science website unfortunately parroted the press release.

One has nothing to do with the other. Nothing. This study is, and only is, about the Palaeocene–Eocene period. In fact not only was that press release wrong, it was completely the opposite of the conclusion the authors were making in their study.

Here is the exact same press release put to out by the University of Hawai'i that was supposed to accompany the study. Instead, everyone jumped onto the stupid headlines and didn't bother reading it.
You're right, one has nothing to do with the other olePigeon. From your press-release;
Originally Posted by Zeebe
What the team found was quite unexpected. Based on current knowledge about Earth‘s climate system, they expected a three- to eightfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to explain the 5—9°C warming. Yet, they found only a less-than-twofold increase.

Zeebe, an oceanographer at UH Mānoa, says: "We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon."

The consequence is that other mechanisms must have considerably contributed to the warming 55 million years ago. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are unknown at present.
So... yeah, they made predictions. SCIENCE! Except, their predictions were off by a great deal. And based on your defensive reaction here, I'd be willing to bet you were also surprised to find out how insufficient CO2 was in accounting for global warming throughout a period that provides a great deal of insight as a possible analogue for today. The article begins by saying; "Based on current knowledge about Earth‘s climate system..." and essentially ends with; "The consequence is that other mechanisms must have considerably contributed to the warming 55 million years ago. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are unknown at present."

To sum up; "Our current knowledge about Earth's climate system is insufficient to explain climate change, BUT WE ALL AGREE MANKIND IS THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN GLOBAL WARMING TODAY. WHY? WELL... HE WASN'T AROUND 55 MILLION YEARS AGO--DUH!!!" Because of course everyone knows the human-induced CO2 is much worse than the old CO2. Good enough for you perhaps, but not me. I maintain it's because you've relegated this field to dogma.

You or others on here have provided zero contrarian evidence. You've gone into this haze again that you conveniently forget about the last few times you've attempted to do this. Every single time I addressed your sources one by one, and every single time I have either demonstrated how you've misinterpreted the data or the source was questionable to flat out bogus.
I have to wonder why you're spending so much time trying to convince me of your folly. You're certainly not able to meet any of the standards you're trying to pin on me.

Yes, many times. And the results haven't changed.
Agreed.

A one by one critique about how you're still wrong and you not being able to refute it.
Your problem is that I've actually refuted your nonsense very well.
( Last edited by ebuddy; May 17, 2012 at 07:53 AM. )
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
It's also one thing to not read and at least attempt to assimilate the information you're posting.
Bingo. It's clear that someone has hastily compiled some sort of anti-AGW database out there somewhere, because the exact same studies keep popping up every time this subject arises. Clearly nobody checks them off the list if they're proven outdated, incorrect, wrong, or just don't say what the anti-AGW crowd thinks they say. Again...when you only take the time to read the summaries only, well, that's a recipe for egg on the face.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're welcome to use all the evidence compiled by the discipline to date sir, doesn't change a thing.
"All the evidence compiled by the discipline to date" absolutely and clearly shows that GHG emissions caused by human activity are warming the planet. That's why, you know, you're in the minority and struggling to find a recent paper that actually supports your position, out of the hundreds or thousands published yearly for the past decade.

Perhaps you didn't realize that, somehow?
The climate changes and much is understood of man's contribution to it, as well as nature's, although we certainly don't know everything and never will know everything, just like every single other scientific discipline that currently exists. I've provided as much if not more evidence than you've provided on the matter, although I admit that about 90% of it has been completely erroneous, out-of-date, thoroughly overturned, or simply doesn't in the least support anti-AGW like I first thought it did.
...fixed?


To sum up; "Our current knowledge about Earth's climate system is insufficient to explain climate change, BUT WE ALL AGREE MANKIND IS THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN GLOBAL WARMING TODAY. WHY? WELL... HE WASN'T AROUND 55 MILLION YEARS AGO--DUH!!!"

Uhhhh....orrrrrrrrr......because the earth was a completely different earth 55 million years ago? The continents were in a different place, the oceans were shaped differently and had different currents and different contents, the earth's albedo had a different reflectivity, earth's flora and fauna had a different effect and affect on GHG emissions, and there were likely completely different GHG-producing processes?

That's, you know...the type of answer that was supported by the authors and those climate scientists who subsequently commented on this paper. But that's not good enough for your expert mind, no sir! Nope! You can't be bothered to read the damn thing, but you can certainly be bothered to opine on why the author's conclusions were wrong and how the study can be used as "proof" of something which the authors completely disagree with.


I have to wonder why you're spending so much time trying to convince me of your folly. You're certainly not able to meet any of the standards you're trying to pin on me.
I assume those standards are "provide a legitimate scientific paper which casts down on humankind's contribution to climate change?"

Soooo....you're demanding a legitimate scientific paper which shows humankind's contribution to climate change? Is that it? Ho ho ho.

Your problem is that I've actually refuted your nonsense very well.
Your problem is that you actually believe that you have. Anyone with a shred of knowledge about this subject finds this laughable.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Are you really so dense that you failed to grasp that I was responding to someone who was falsely accusing others of exactly what you just spit all over your screen about? Why yes, you probably are that dense, whoever the F you are.
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
A central tenet of climate science is that the earth's climate is naturally changing.
...
Yet another attempt to obfuscate the real question with misinformation and ignorance.
At the very least, I'm someone who knows a bit of what they're talking about. You, on the other hand...should probably stick to what you know.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Great, another nattering cymbal-monkey with a cut and paste screenname to go with his/her cut and paste bloviating about the sky falling.

Gee, just what the already redundant polilounge needs more of!
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Repeat on like like that for 25,000 or so posts in dozens of threads onward to infinity.
Really? I challenge you to go back and find any post where I make a claim that disaster is imminent.
"…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  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've provided as much if not more evidence than you've provided on the matter.
I have linked to literally thousands of published papers. Thousands. They have been referenced and included in several reports that I linked to. The entire point was that of these thousands of published papers, there are zero papers the disagree with the original premise.

At least, until recently. You've apparently provided one that's under scrutiny and hotly debated which doesn't bode well for something that's supposed be unbiased. So even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you're attempting to form an argument by basing it on sources that are countered by 99.997% of published papers.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You've not refuted a thing. What I've done is demonstrate, repeatedly, that you cannot meet your own standards of methodology or credibility.
How is posting questionable content and misinterpreting information demonstrated that I don't live up to my own standards of methodology?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're right, one has nothing to do with the other olePigeon. From your press-release;
Even when you quote it, you're interpreting it backwards. Absolutely fascinating.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your problem is that I've actually refuted your nonsense very well.
My nonsense. Right. The majority of experts the world over are in a giant conspiracy, but your one or two debatable sources are some sort of imaginary heros trying to expose it.
"…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
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Great, another nattering cymbal-monkey with a cut and paste screenname to go with his/her cut and paste bloviating about the sky falling.
1) Because you aren't informed enough about this subject to make it worthwhile opening your mouth (although that doesn't necessarily stop you, of course), there's no need to falsely accuse those who can talk about this subject of cut-and-pasting their posts. You sound like the typical annoying highschool dumbass who makes fun of the "smart people" for being smart.

2) Who said anything about the "sky falling?" Whether we agree on the nature of climate change or not, ebuddy and I have in the past found that we are in agreement that (beyond sustainable practices being a "good thing" in general) there is very little reward and a lot of risk involved with making dramatic moves to try and somehow prevent climate change at this point.

The only "sky falling" hysteria here is the one you brought in by claiming it was present. That's called a red herring. Look it up, bucko.

Gee, just what the already redundant polilounge needs more of!
1) Read what you've contributed to this thread.
2) The Pol Lounge certainly doesn't need any more of that, if that's what you mean.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
*clang* *clang* *clang*
I notice how you're one of those people that constantly back-pats and congratulates yourself. You even thumbsup your own posts. My guess is you probably don't even realize you do it. It shows that you're unused to anyone but yourself ever giving you a compliment. Maybe one day you'll stop and wonder why that is?

That you bring up high school shows your mentality is still stuck there. If you're older than say, 18, it's time to grow up already. You weren't beaten up in high school because you were one of the 'smart kids' (Again, you'll remember that YOU were the only one that ever thought so.) You were likely beaten up a lot because... well, you're a d-bag. One of those people who thought he could mouth off to everyone and self-backpat yourself after you did, and then wonder why you kept getting punched. That's your d-bag syndrome flaring up.

I'd say go learn some reading comprehension and next time don't butt into something in a mouth-breathing hissy when you clearly didn't even know what you were responding to, but then due to your d-bag condition I know that advice won't do you much good.
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2012, 11:49 PM
 
I've issued a couple Rule 9 infractions. Let's see about making good counterarguments without dragging any members through the mud.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2012, 07:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Sigh.

Please, for the love of God, do yourself a favour and at least read the Wikipedia page on Paul Ehrlich. The Population Bomb was not necessarily based on "global cooling" in the first place - overpopulation was its driving theme - but he's made any number of doomsday-like predictions over the years, none of which have come true to my knowledge. Yes, the Population Bomb *was* outrageous.
...after the fact. At the time it was published, it was taken quite seriously, and Ehrlich is STILL considered a respected scientist. You don't get all those positions, awards and accolades without having had a certain large segment of the higher education elite invest in your way of thinking. And if you get to be considered a respectable scientists after insisting that a steaming turd you leave on the table is a gourmet meal, but you go on to make pretty good peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in the future, then we've got a problem with how we bestow respectability on people.

I also know that his predictions were "not necessarily based on 'global cooling'." The point is that time and time again we have "scientists" using models, making predictions of "outrageous" certain catastrophe which are taken seriously and parroted by other scientists, until it's clear that the predictions of certain doom will not come true, and that taking the drastic measures that we are assured are required to stop the impending disaster would have been counterproductive for everyone. It's a pattern.

It's exactly the same thing we are seeing with the shrill cries from scientists regarding the soon to happen man-made global warming catastrophe. Though, of course not so much more. Since it's clear that the predictions of the early 90's of disaster aren't going to come to fruition in regards to warming, we've switched to "climate change" which could mean warming...cooling...something in-between. Same sh*t, different year. Twenty years from now, we'll all be talking about how the alarmist scientists crying "global warming disaster" where "outrageous", when we get back to being sure that human action will be responsible for another ice age like we were back in the 70's when climate changes AGAIN.

Fool me once...
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 18, 2012 at 07:35 AM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2012, 07:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I have linked to literally thousands of published papers. Thousands. They have been referenced and included in several reports that I linked to. The entire point was that of these thousands of published papers, there are zero papers the disagree with the original premise.
Of course, linking to a study that references multiple, other studies is in fact linking to thousands of studies in which case you're not alone as I've done the exact same thing.

At least, until recently. You've apparently provided one that's under scrutiny and hotly debated which doesn't bode well for something that's supposed be unbiased. So even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you're attempting to form an argument by basing it on sources that are countered by 99.997% of published papers.
I maintain it's not as hotly debated as you claim and will remain for review many years from now. Like I said, you're welcome to update me when the paper has met its demise on the chopping block. As evidenced by your response to data that doesn't resort to Step 2, you simply do not accept any evidence that conflicts with your preferred presupposition. This doesn't mean it conflicts with the consensus view, it means it conflicts with the view of a relatively small community or establishment of scientists mired in activists, policy wonks, economists, politicians, and authors. The studies themselves are actually much more telling. Not near as fun as a call to action mind you, but telling.

How is posting questionable content and misinterpreting information demonstrated that I don't live up to my own standards of methodology?
That's not what I've done. I neither posted questionable content (the fact that people disagree with a study makes it questionable... of course never mind how many ARs have met their demise on the chopping block already having been challenged by its own fellowship repeatedly) nor misinterpreted information. In any case, you've certainly demonstrated no such thing.

Even when you quote it, you're interpreting it backwards. Absolutely fascinating.
It is fascinating. I've cited a study that directly calls into question the contribution of CO2 on climate change and you're compelled to defend it in the most awkward way because again, Steps 1-3 were unavailable to you in this instance and now you're resorting to straight, willful ignorance. Like your zealous friend, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum must in reality be an impossible analogue for the future as there were so many variables 55 MYA that hinder any insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks. They just didn't know this going in eh? Except, that's not what the study you're defending concludes. The fact that I found an example to force you out of the obligatory 3 Steps of AGW zealotry doesn't mean there's a problem with me misinterpreting the evidence sir.

My nonsense. Right. The majority of experts the world over are in a giant conspiracy, but your one or two debatable sources are some sort of imaginary heros trying to expose it.
I've not once claimed it's a giant conspiracy as in fact, in terms of the sheer number of actual scientists and experts involved in the AGW hype, it's a very small, but well endowed and vocal bunch of tribesmen and activists. For the record, the ones that engineer the equipment being used for measurements, the ones who place them, former IPCC scientists who were silenced or ignored, and countless experts worldwide who believe too much is being made of a science in its infancy are also not involved in some giant conspiracy. Please quit projecting.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2012, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I maintain it's not as hotly debated as you claim and will remain for review many years from now. Like I said, you're welcome to update me when the paper has met its demise on the chopping block.
These two sentences are amazing to me. They conclusively prove that you don't understand or appreciate the process of publishing scientific papers. At all.

You don't seem to appreciate what it means when nine well-respected scientists publish a "rebuttal piece" that politely yet thoroughly eviscerates a publication. You don't seem to appreciate that however ill-recieved the paper may have been, it will not somehow "meet its demise" or be put on what you puzzlingly term to be a "chopping block."

You do understand this, right? That paper will be available, period. It's not going to somehow disappear like you seem to think it will. It's almost like you think that if no one's drawn a big red "X" on it, then it's still a completely valid publication.

That's not how it works. And that is something you should absolutely already be aware of, and the fact that you are not aware of it says a great deal about why you make the arguments that you make.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2012, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
These two sentences are amazing to me. They conclusively prove that you don't understand or appreciate the process of publishing scientific papers. At all.

You don't seem to appreciate what it means when nine well-respected scientists publish a "rebuttal piece" that politely yet thoroughly eviscerates a publication. You don't seem to appreciate that however ill-recieved the paper may have been, it will not somehow "meet its demise" or be put on what you puzzlingly term to be a "chopping block."

You do understand this, right? That paper will be available, period. It's not going to somehow disappear like you seem to think it will. It's almost like you think that if no one's drawn a big red "X" on it, then it's still a completely valid publication.

That's not how it works. And that is something you should absolutely already be aware of, and the fact that you are not aware of it says a great deal about why you make the arguments that you make.
Straight lying now eh shortcut?
Originally Posted by olePigeon
It would have taken you 2 seconds to Google up the criticisms on that paper. It's on the cutting block for retraction...
Hey olePigeon, shortcut claims you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I wouldn't put up with that, particularly from him.

While you're putting yourself out there criticising the verbiage of other members shortcut, you may want to tell Zeebe he's a moron too for attempting to use the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming as a possible analog for understanding climate system sensitivity and feedbacks today. I mean, everyone knows so many things were different back then and the new CO2 is much more harmful than that ancient stuff.

You're responding to studies you haven't a clue about, sicking rebuttals on me and then responding to a fellow zealot with accolades to his face while insulting him behind his back... you've represented well here. Anything else?
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2012, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Hey olePigeon, shortcut claims you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I wouldn't put up with that, particularly from him.
You're right. I should have clarified my comment: it was based on an assumption that the paper would not be retracted by the journal or by the authors. It is, after all, 3 years since the paper was published and a couple years since the rebuttal was published. I had not read olePigeon's comment that it was "up for retraction" and my previous Google searches didn't result in any information of that kind. (I just did another search and still don't see anything about a retraction...?)

Nonetheless, the point that I made still stands. There are many scientific publications which were ill-received by scientific peers at the time, and which are no longer considered to be "good science" or which are no longer considered relevant. Those papers still exist. They can still be erroneously used as evidence; one simply needs to understand how and why the paper has subsequently been treated.

When doing research, you always have to "search forward" papers to find whether and how subsequent publications have treated a paper. Oftentimes you'll find how the research has been expanded upon and gaps filled in; sometimes you'll find how conclusions have been modified; other times you'll find that subsequent papers have simply disagreed with its conclusions, and left it at that.

You don't do this. You cherry-pick papers without any context as to how they were treated, viewed, or subsequently used. And that's why you're generally wrong.
While you're putting yourself out there criticising the verbiage of other members shortcut, you may want to tell Zeebe he's a moron too for attempting to use the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming as a possible analog for understanding climate system sensitivity and feedbacks today.
Why would I ever want to do that? Anything that results in a better understanding of climate feedbacks would be an invaluable tool for modern climate scientists. That study estimated background CO2 levels of 1000ppm versus PETM levels of 1700ppm - that isn't relevant to today's world but might still be a valuable indication of an increasing CO2 temperature feedback. I'm not saying this is so - it seems more likely that other GHG events better explain the difference - but it still provides clues for better understanding climate system sensitivity and feedbacks.

By the by...still refusing to acknowledge that the author of this paper (Zeebe) completely disagrees with your stance on non-AGW climate change, huh? It's a fantastic stance you continue to take...
I mean, everyone knows so many things were different back then and the new CO2 is much more harmful than that ancient stuff.
Why do you keep going back to this statement? It's completely confusing to me. The paper's conclusions have nothing to do with CO2 forcing - it has everything to do with what other forcing events were present. The paper in no way implies that the CO2 forcing calculations are incorrect. Where are you even getting this stuff from??

You're responding to studies you haven't a clue about,

You continue to demonstrate that you haven't even yet read the text of this study. I read it years ago.

sicking rebuttals on me and then responding to a fellow zealot with accolades to his face while insulting him behind his back... you've represented well here. Anything else?
Sooooo...no substantive response at all to the criticisms of your supposed "proof", eh? No further papers which substantiate MacLean's conclusions, or which build upon Zeebe's paper to throw doubt on current CO2 forcing numbers? No?

Instead, more of the classic political dodge: throw some red herrings out there, make some vague assertions about incorrectness of your opponent, not address any of the criticisms directly, and then ask "what else?" as though you've already dealt with the questions.

Fascinating.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 18, 2012 at 02:37 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2012, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
When doing research, you always have to "search forward" papers to find whether and how subsequent publications have treated a paper. Oftentimes you'll find how the research has been expanded upon and gaps filled in; sometimes you'll find how conclusions have been modified; other times you'll find that subsequent papers have simply disagreed with its conclusions, and left it at that.

You don't do this. You cherry-pick papers without any context as to how they were treated, viewed, or subsequently used. And that's why you're generally wrong.
And I maintain the most vocal AGW proponents here are guilty of the same exact problems they accuse those who are skeptical and that they cannot meet the lop-sided standards they insist on applying to skeptics including the practice of cherry-picking papers that best express the dominance of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. After all, there are literally hundreds of thousands of papers on global climate and climate change and there are only a handful that would clearly express man's dominant role in climate change. In most cases I'm seeing the same charts, same graphs, and same papers we've been bickering about for a decade with no regard for how they've been treated.

Why would I ever want to do that? Anything that results in a better understanding of climate feedbacks would be an invaluable tool for modern climate scientists. That study estimated background CO2 levels of 1000ppm versus PETM levels of 1700ppm - that isn't relevant to today's world but might still be a valuable indication of an increasing CO2 temperature feedback. I'm not saying this is so - it seems more likely that other GHG events better explain the difference - but it still provides clues for better understanding climate system sensitivity and feedbacks.
There were a couple of points missed here.

First of which was the author's own surprise at how insufficient the rise in CO2 was in accounting for a 5–9 °C rise in global surface temperature. This speaks directly to the concerns expressed by skeptics and in fact, what they'd expect to find. And without Steps 1-3 for the other AGW proponent to rely on; he was placed in the awkward position of defending the study while insisting on the importance of evidence, testing, and predictions of course, failing to acknowledge that the predictions made regarding expected CO2 levels in a study he's compelled to defend were orders of magnitude off the mark. It should also be noted that the author does not conclude that PETM is a poor analogue, only that there must've been other mechanisms to account for the global surface warming. What if those other mechanisms (in this study; major contributors) include cloud cover, TSI, and/or periodic climate patterns as Svensmark and others have suggested in studies I've cited here prior, indicating these have not been adequately addressed in other studies supporting the AGW supposition.

Lastly, it is so important for you two to apply some sort of political litmus to the scientists in question that the stance becomes more important than the actual data. That's why I've been calling it SCIENCE!™ You seem to suggest that one's stance is more critical to the discipline than the product of their own studies. I disagree and believe this is yet another mistake of zealots.

By the by...still refusing to acknowledge that the author of this paper (Zeebe) completely disagrees with your stance on non-AGW climate change, huh? It's a fantastic stance you continue to take...
Again, I'm not near as interested in stances as you.

Why do you keep going back to this statement? It's completely confusing to me. The paper's conclusions have nothing to do with CO2 forcing - it has everything to do with what other forcing events were present. The paper in no way implies that the CO2 forcing calculations are incorrect. Where are you even getting this stuff from??
The author? olePigeon was kind enough to provide me the preferred version of the news release.

You continue to demonstrate that you haven't even yet read the text of this study. I read it years ago.
In light of your propensity for straight dishonesty when it suits you; I don't buy it. I just don't believe you have a clue what you're talking about. If it makes you feel better, I'll let you have the last word to ensure my points are all hammered home.

Sooooo...no substantive response at all to the criticisms of your supposed "proof", eh? No further papers which substantiate MacLean's conclusions, or which build upon Zeebe's paper to throw doubt on current CO2 forcing numbers? No?
Now you want more papers? I'm afraid I'll have to take the tough-love approach here and insist, for the betterment of your own knowledge; that you seek this information yourself, provide evidence and testing to the contrary, vet the scientists' stances because I know how important that is to you, challenge their acknowledgement on the variables of the Paleogene period, and sick rebuttals on them. I make no guarantees of course, but it's possible if you show me that you can effectively address the two I've offered, we'll graduate to a few more. Otherwise, I'm quite comfortable that I've sufficiently illustrated the folly of our most vocal AGW proponents here.

Instead, more of the classic political dodge: throw some red herrings out there, make some vague assertions about incorrectness of your opponent, not address any of the criticisms directly, and then ask "what else?" as though you've already dealt with the questions.
I have about as much faith in your reading comp regarding my posts as I do in your comprehension of data. I've not only addressed the criticisms directly, I've got you and olePigeon defending the study that demonstrates my argument best. I couldn't have asked for a better outcome quite frankly. Your problem is that I've dealt quite well with the dog-pile here.

Fascinating.
Indeed, it has been and watching you two try to stumble around without Steps 1-3 at your disposal has been most entertaining.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2012, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
That's not even remotely true.

Every time this lame ass debate rages (every other minute?) it's pointed out by the more reasonable side that the climate changes constantly, and has many times, drastically, throughout the ages. No help from not-yet existing man in the vast majority of the earth's history. Therefore to only cite mankind's contribution without taking that into consideration is silly.

Then, like clockwork you turn around with the standard "...they deny that ANY climate change is possible..." Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Ad infinitum.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2012, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Science!
I'm stealing that!
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2012, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There were a couple of points missed here.

First of which was the author's own surprise at how insufficient the rise in CO2 was in accounting for a 5–9 °C rise in global surface temperature. This speaks directly to the concerns expressed by skeptics and in fact, what they'd expect to find. And without Steps 1-3 for the other AGW proponent to rely on; he was placed in the awkward position of defending the study while insisting on the importance of evidence, testing, and predictions of course, failing to acknowledge that the predictions made regarding expected CO2 levels in a study he's compelled to defend were orders of magnitude off the mark. It should also be noted that the author does not conclude that PETM is a poor analogue, only that there must've been other mechanisms to account for the global surface warming. What if those other mechanisms (in this study; major contributors) include cloud cover, TSI, and/or periodic climate patterns as Svensmark and others have suggested in studies I've cited here prior, indicating these have not been adequately addressed in other studies supporting the AGW supposition.
This paragraph indicates that you did not read or understand the study.

You seem to suggest that one's stance is more critical to the discipline than the product of their own studies. I disagree and believe this is yet another mistake of zealots.

Completely incorrect and not at all what I "suggested." What I "said" is that you're completely failing to understand what the study actually says - and I pointed not only to the author's statements on its impact, but also to other climate scientists' comments.

You, of course, now claim that what I'm "suggesting" is that what they say is more important than what the study says. That is absolutely not the case. I'm telling you that you completely misunderstand this study, and I'm pointing to what knowledgeable people are actually saying about it as proof.

Again, I'm not near as interested in stances as you.
Says the person who is possibly the most vocal and visible Republican/conservative poster on MacNN forums, who only posts in the Pol Lounge, and who is famous for making the same anti-AGW comments for the past half-decade or more?

Oh righteous hyprocrisy.

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
Why do you keep going back to this statement? It's completely confusing to me. The paper's conclusions have nothing to do with CO2 forcing - it has everything to do with what other forcing events were present. The paper in no way implies that the CO2 forcing calculations are incorrect. Where are you even getting this stuff from??
The author? olePigeon was kind enough to provide me the preferred version of the news release.
I provided you with that news release. And it says absolutely nothing of the kind about incorrect CO2 forcing calculations. Another clear sign that you haven't even bothered to read this study.

Please try again: where are you getting your claims about incorrect CO2 forcing numbers?

In light of your propensity for straight dishonesty when it suits you; I don't buy it. I just don't believe you have a clue what you're talking about. If it makes you feel better, I'll let you have the last word to ensure my points are all hammered home.
Ahhhhh yes, more of your classic answers. I'm the guy with the science degree who previously studied climate science under professors who have published important studies on the subject; you're the guy who pulls some studies off the internet, doesn't have any subscription to any scientific journals, and keep making erroneous missteps that anyone with a shred of basic knowledge on the subject would not make.

But back to the classic political answer: claim the other guy's wrong, but just don't say why or how. Beautiful.

I have about as much faith in your reading comp regarding my posts as I do in your comprehension of data. I've not only addressed the criticisms directly, I've got you and olePigeon defending the study that demonstrates my argument best. I couldn't have asked for a better outcome quite frankly. Your problem is that I've dealt quite well with the dog-pile here.


My problem is that you keep saying that you've "demonstrated your argument", but you still actually haven't demonstrated your argument. It's almost astonishing how you simply claim to have said something, when you just...haven't. You do know that saying it is so, does not make it so, right?

If the "best outcome" you could have asked for is that it's shown that you believe a paper says something that no one else thinks it says - not its author, not other climate scientists who've reviewed the paper, not anyone who's actually read the paper.....well then your standards for "success" are very low indeed.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2012, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
This paragraph indicates that you did not read or understand the study.
Of course I do, I've quoted the author to illustrate how mistaken you are. The fact that I need to keep saying it reiterates your inability to address it. Try again.



Completely incorrect and not at all what I "suggested." What I "said" is that you're completely failing to understand what the study actually says - and I pointed not only to the author's statements on its impact, but also to other climate scientists' comments.
Right, and I've used these statements to illustrate why you're mistaken. You have yet to address any of this.

You, of course, now claim that what I'm "suggesting" is that what they say is more important than what the study says. That is absolutely not the case. I'm telling you that you completely misunderstand this study, and I'm pointing to what knowledgeable people are actually saying about it as proof.
You've done no such thing. In fact, I've used their statements to illustrate the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Says the person who is possibly the most vocal and visible Republican/conservative poster on MacNN forums, who only posts in the Pol Lounge, and who is famous for making the same anti-AGW comments for the past half-decade or more? Oh righteous hyprocrisy.
You're lying again. I post regularly in the lounge and have contributed to audio discussions and have asked and followed up on technical problems. Oh unrighteous dishonesty.


[
i]I[/i] provided you with that news release. And it says absolutely nothing of the kind about incorrect CO2 forcing calculations. Another clear sign that you haven't even bothered to read this study.
"Incorrect CO2 forcing calculations"? You seem to be building another lie here. What I said was "So... yeah, they made predictions. SCIENCE! Except, their predictions were off by a great deal." and I've maintained that by "expectations", they're talking about prediction on what they expected to find in CO2 rise to explain the increased global surface temperature. I used the following excerpts from the news release you provided to affirm my point;

Originally Posted by News Release
What the team found was quite unexpected. Based on current knowledge about Earth‘s climate system, they expected a three- to eightfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to explain the 5—9°C warming. Yet, they found only a less-than-twofold increase.
Originally Posted by News Release
Zeebe, an oceanographer at UH Mānoa, says: "We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon."
Originally Posted by News Release
The consequence is that other mechanisms must have considerably contributed to the warming 55 million years ago.
Originally Posted by shortcut
Please try again: where are you getting your claims about incorrect CO2 forcing numbers?
Pure dishonesty, plain and simple.


Ahhhhh yes, more of your classic answers. I'm the guy with the science degree who previously studied climate science under professors who have published important studies on the subject; you're the guy who pulls some studies off the internet, doesn't have any subscription to any scientific journals, and keep making erroneous missteps that anyone with a shred of basic knowledge on the subject would not make.
Bumpkus appeal to authority. At this point I wouldn't believe you if you said you read National Geographic in the bathroom once in Jr. High school.

But back to the classic political answer: claim the other guy's wrong, but just don't say why or how. Beautiful.
I've said why and how repeatedly. Address the points for a change or I'll keep repeating them.

Originally Posted by shortcut
Low on material.

My problem is that you keep saying that you've "demonstrated your argument", but you still actually haven't demonstrated your argument. It's almost astonishing how you simply claim to have said something, when you just...haven't. You do know that saying it is so, does not make it so, right?
You realize your ongoing failure to address the points I've made repeatedly makes you look foolish right?

If the "best outcome" you could have asked for is that it's shown that you believe a paper says something that no one else thinks it says - not its author, not other climate scientists who've reviewed the paper, not anyone who's actually read the paper.....well then your standards for "success" are very low indeed.
No one else thinks it says they were surprised at how insufficient the CO2 increase was to explain PETM warming? Hmm... did you tell the author this?
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2012, 02:55 PM
 


Oh, I see the problem: you're reading the study backwards?

You're choosing to say that if a given temperature increase doesn't result in a certain corresponding increase in atmospheric carbon, then our carbon forcing sensitivity calculations are wrong.

The authors, on the other hand, made no such leap in logic - because it is a basic erroneous logic error. They specifically did not disagree with the accepted forcing calculations. Instead, they devoted an entire paragraph which explains their results in the opposite manner: that the noted atmospheric carbon increase would only have contributed to our current accepted value of warming, but the rest of the warming may be explained in various other as-yet-unknown ways, examples for some of which they provide.

Basically, you're trying to use this study to say something that it doesn't say. Oh, wait.......we've known that for the past two pages.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 21, 2012 at 03:21 PM. )
     
 
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 05:14 PM.
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.,