• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

Anthropogenic Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

#1 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 11 December 2010 - 01:05 AM


The latest of an epic multi-year run...

Cancun temps plunge to 100-year record low -- during 'global warming' summit!
http://theweek.com/a...-warming-summit


Yet another ironic little story for you global warming kool-aid drinkers:


Snow on Sunday! 'Would be earliest measurable in Chicago'...

Some other classic ones:

"Snow blankets London for global warming debate" from 2008,



And also from January of this year,

"GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE"



I love these. Here's a new one from today:

HOUSTON MAY SEE 'EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER'...


These things have a knack for hitting in ironic places Posted Image

four inches of snow fell on the Danish capital today, the first time in 14 years.
Snow, below average temps will greet Obama in Copehagen
December 17, 1:41 PM Columbia Independent Examiner Darren Pope

President Obama and other world leaders attending the final two days of the climate summit in Copenhagen will experience some unusual winter weather. A blizzard dumped 4 inches of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

"Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days," Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark's Meteorological Institute, told Bloomberg.com's Christian Wienberg in a telephone interview on Thursaday. Gisseloe is forecasting more snow in coming days. "There's a good chance of a white Christmas."
According to Weinberg's report on the Bloomberg.com website, Denmark hasn't had a white Christmas for 14 years, and there have only been seven in the last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit). The Denmark MeteoroIogical Institute defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24.


Yet another one:

Copenhagen (CNN) – In a strange twist, a Washington snowstorm is forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to make an early departure from a global warming summit here in Denmark.

Pelosi told CNN that military officials leading her Congressional delegation have urged the 21 lawmakers to leave Copenhagen several hours earlier than scheduled on Saturday.

The Speaker said she has agreed to the new travel plan so that lawmakers can get back to Washington before much of the expected storm wallops the nation's capital.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

ImmInst has disabled more than three videos for some stupid reason... here is the final in the sequence, just remove the space:
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno


... And what if we do start finding evidence of AGW? Isn't it such a convenient coincidence that the only solutions that ever seem to be put forward always line up with a political agenda -- specifically the agenda to redistribute wealth? Doesn't it occur to you that maybe these people are just in it for the political ends and this has nothing to do with science or saving the world?

"Fear of AGW provides a way to engage everyone in the movement. Socialists of all stripes no longer have to spew Marxist notions that turn most people off; now, they can talk the science of global warming and hurricanes and massive floods and such, and, using fear, trample the average guy into their socialist goals of stifling capitalism, growth, and having the government take over the economy through this environmental back-door." - A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits ... Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister

January 2010
Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...




http://boortz.com/nu...2/02022007.html
Friday - Februgly 2, 2007
WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."



Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

Edited by Mind, 30 July 2012 - 02:12 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#2 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:25 AM

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives
http://www.independe...ast-724017.html


----------

Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain.

...

The latest snowfall carpeted large swathes of Britain today - with up to 5in falling in places - paralysing roads and rail, and forcing airports and schools to close.

Forecasters warned the worst was still to come over the next 24 hours as the heaviest December snowfall for 30 years tightened its grip on the nation once more.

http://www.dailymail...os-Britain.html

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 December 2010 - 01:25 AM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 04:26 AM

So the real reason all these thousands of scientists are warning about AGW is that they are all part of a fabulous conspiracy to redistribute wealth! To stifle the evil Capitalism! Let's not forget the biggest reason of all; to keep the grant money flowing so they can continue to live the opulent life of a college professor! m'kay...
  • like x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 December 2010 - 05:49 AM

So the real reason all these thousands of scientists are warning about AGW is that they are all part of a fabulous conspiracy to redistribute wealth! To stifle the evil Capitalism! Let's not forget the biggest reason of all; to keep the grant money flowing so they can continue to live the opulent life of a college professor! m'kay...


It's a confluence of interests.
Some part of the governments and the environmental movement wants to redistribute wealth and kneecap the developed world.
Some of them just want to gather power, by creating and controlling a new bureaucracy.
Some of them want to keep their research grants, and their prestige.

Of course, sometimes these overlap.

As of the climate scientists:

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced" -H.L.Mencken
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 05:58 AM

So the real reason all these thousands of scientists are warning about AGW is that they are all part of a fabulous conspiracy to redistribute wealth! To stifle the evil Capitalism! Let's not forget the biggest reason of all; to keep the grant money flowing so they can continue to live the opulent life of a college professor! m'kay...

It's a confluence of interests.
Some part of the governments and the environmental movement wants to redistribute wealth and kneecap the developed world.
Some of them just want to gather power, by creating and controlling a new bureaucracy.
Some of them want to keep their research grants, and their prestige.

Except for the part about wanting to kneecap the developed world, these are probably existing interests of some people, but remember that the fundamental claim is that thousands of people are lying to the world, in a massive, coordinated conspiracy, for these reasons. I don't think that these reasons exert a sufficiently powerful grip on all those thousands of people to keep the conspiracy from unraveling.

#6 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 December 2010 - 07:07 AM

Except for the part about wanting to kneecap the developed world, these are probably existing interests of some people, but remember that the fundamental claim is that thousands of people are lying to the world, in a massive, coordinated conspiracy, for these reasons. I don't think that these reasons exert a sufficiently powerful grip on all those thousands of people to keep the conspiracy from unraveling.


I didn't say that. Most of these thousands of people do believe that AGW is real.
It's just hard to convince them otherwise, as hard as it would be to convince a wheat farmer that gluten is bad for almost everyone.

Quite likely they even see the "little" flaws, but dismiss them as inconsequential, after all the preponderance of evidence is on their side...

Thus the relevance of the following quote:

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced" -H.L.Mencken


  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#7 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:31 AM

So the real reason all these thousands of scientists are warning about AGW is that they are all part of a fabulous conspiracy to redistribute wealth! To stifle the evil Capitalism! Let's not forget the biggest reason of all; to keep the grant money flowing so they can continue to live the opulent life of a college professor! m'kay...

It's a confluence of interests.
Some part of the governments and the environmental movement wants to redistribute wealth and kneecap the developed world.
Some of them just want to gather power, by creating and controlling a new bureaucracy.
Some of them want to keep their research grants, and their prestige.

Except for the part about wanting to kneecap the developed world, these are probably existing interests of some people, but remember that the fundamental claim is that thousands of people are lying to the world, in a massive, coordinated conspiracy, for these reasons. I don't think that these reasons exert a sufficiently powerful grip on all those thousands of people to keep the conspiracy from unraveling.


There does not need to be any conspiracy, because each party has its own reason for thinking AGW is real. All they need to cooperate is to believe in the same thing, for whatever reason.

Someone working as a climate scientist may be motivated to search for positive indications of AGW to keep the research grants coming.

Someone like Al Gore makes a living talking about the problems of AGW, so his motivations are clear.

Those who are in the game of carbon credits have billions to make in the name of AGW.

Bureaucrats and politicians are in it for the power.

Environmentalists are in it because they want to "save the earth".

#8 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 December 2010 - 12:58 PM

So the real reason all these thousands of scientists are warning about AGW is that they are all part of a fabulous conspiracy to redistribute wealth! To stifle the evil Capitalism! Let's not forget the biggest reason of all; to keep the grant money flowing so they can continue to live the opulent life of a college professor! m'kay...

It's a confluence of interests.
Some part of the governments and the environmental movement wants to redistribute wealth and kneecap the developed world.
Some of them just want to gather power, by creating and controlling a new bureaucracy.
Some of them want to keep their research grants, and their prestige.

Except for the part about wanting to kneecap the developed world, these are probably existing interests of some people, but remember that the fundamental claim is that thousands of people are lying to the world, in a massive, coordinated conspiracy, for these reasons. I don't think that these reasons exert a sufficiently powerful grip on all those thousands of people to keep the conspiracy from unraveling.


There does not need to be any conspiracy, because each party has its own reason for thinking AGW is real. All they need to cooperate is to believe in the same thing, for whatever reason.

Someone working as a climate scientist may be motivated to search for positive indications of AGW to keep the research grants coming.

Not convincing. Scientists have as strong a motivation to prove colleagues wrong as to push an agenda.

Someone like Al Gore makes a living talking about the problems of AGW, so his motivations are clear.

Al Gore is independently wealthy and has no need to make money this way.

Those who are in the game of carbon credits have billions to make in the name of AGW.

Sounds like you are against a free market?

Bureaucrats and politicians are in it for the power.

Environmentalists are in it because they want to "save the earth".


This is far too complex and unlikely to be believable when the far simpler explanation so credibly explains the denialist agenda: a strong economic interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuel. Occam's razor tells us we should accept the simpler explanation. Super-rich individuals, corporations and foreign governments stand to benefit from the status quo. Casting doubt on global warming, or once it is obvious on the fact that it is man-made is a well-funded industry.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#9 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 December 2010 - 04:25 PM

Someone working as a climate scientist may be motivated to search for positive indications of AGW to keep the research grants coming.

Not convincing. Scientists have as strong a motivation to prove colleagues wrong as to push an agenda.
Except that research that is too far from the status quo, does not get published. This happens in many areas of science.
The old powerful researchers block new research that would cast doubt upon their ideas.

Someone like Al Gore makes a living talking about the problems of AGW, so his motivations are clear.

Al Gore is independently wealthy and has no need to make money this way.
Money is always a motive.

Those who are in the game of carbon credits have billions to make in the name of AGW.

Sounds like you are against a free market?
A free market generally does not depend on government regulation

Bureaucrats and politicians are in it for the power.

Environmentalists are in it because they want to "save the earth".


This is far too complex and unlikely to be believable when the far simpler explanation so credibly explains the denialist agenda: a strong economic interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuel. Occam's razor tells us we should accept the simpler explanation. Super-rich individuals, corporations and foreign governments stand to benefit from the status quo. Casting doubt on global warming, or once it is obvious on the fact that it is man-made is a well-funded industry.

Except that there are individuals who are funded neither by corporations or foreign governments who are opposing AGW.
Prominent skeptics are doing this on a voluntary basis and not funded at all.
Think Steve Mcintyre and Anthony Watts.

Anyway, most of humanity would benefit from the status quo, if it turns out that AGW is not the threat it was made out to be.



#10 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 December 2010 - 07:41 PM

[b]Except that there are individuals who are funded neither by corporations or foreign governments who are opposing AGW.
Prominent skeptics are doing this on a voluntary basis and not funded at all.
Think Steve Mcintyre and Anthony Watts.

Anyway, most of humanity would benefit from the status quo, if it turns out that AGW is not the threat it was made out to be.


Watts is a "weather forecast reader" for a TV station in Chico, California. Though he's called a meteorologist, there are no qualifications to be a weather report news reader. He appears to have attended Purdue without graduating. He holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university) with a status of "retired". I believe he does benefit from the notoriety that arguing this position gives him.

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has been exposed as having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. Not an unbiased or disinterested party.

Aside from global warming, it is a fact that the CO2 content of the oceans has increased 30% since the early 18th century. The amount corresponds to the estimated CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial age, less the amount of increase in the atmosphere. This is troubling because the increased acidity dissolves the calciferous shells and skeletons of marine life. This includes not only clams, oysters, shrimp krill and lobsters, but the plankton that are the primary producers in the aquatic food web. Without the plankton, there would be a huge collapse in the amount of ocean life. The concentration that would kill plankton in the lab is within the estimate of what the oceans will reach as current trends continue. Just one more thing to worry about.

Edited by maxwatt, 20 December 2010 - 07:44 PM.

  • like x 3

#11 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:34 PM

Watts is a "weather forecast reader" for a TV station in Chico, California. Though he's called a meteorologist, there are no qualifications to be a weather report news reader. He appears to have attended Purdue without graduating. He holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university) with a status of "retired". I believe he does benefit from the notoriety that arguing this position gives him.

You don't need an advanced degree to catalog weather stations and find their CRN rating. I doubt he benefits directly though.

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has been exposed as having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. Not an unbiased or disinterested party.


I would point out that the Climate scientists don't have degrees in the field of statistics which is where most of McIntyre's criticism is directed.
He has not had ties to CGX since 2003. He is not employed or funded by energy companies.

Some salient points of the Wegman Report:

In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and
their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and
offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that
their observations were correct.
...
Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often
grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann's insistence that the code he
developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally
without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not
fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent
verification is impossible.
...
Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as
the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to
be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications
of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical
expertise was sought or used.


Aside from global warming, it is a fact that the CO2 content of the oceans has increased 30% since the early 18th century. The amount corresponds to the estimated CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial age, less the amount of increase in the atmosphere. This is troubling because the increased acidity dissolves the calciferous shells and skeletons of marine life. This includes not only clams, oysters, shrimp krill and lobsters, but the plankton that are the primary producers in the aquatic food web. Without the plankton, there would be a huge collapse in the amount of ocean life. The concentration that would kill plankton in the lab is within the estimate of what the oceans will reach as current trends continue. Just one more thing to worry about.


The shell issue is more complicated that you mention. At least some species actually grow stronger shells under higher CO2 levels. http://www.whoi.edu/...cle.do?id=52990

Plus, any change in CO2 concentration measured in the lab will be far more drastic than will actually occur in nature, leaving little time for evolution. The lab experiments are likely overestimating the effect of CO2 levels.

Hmmm. You do realize that CO2 levels have been *much* higher in the past and that plankton survived that just fine ?

There has been less research on this issue than AGW, and people are already jumping to conclusions that aquatic life is threatened. Sounds like people are jumping on to this bandwagon because it so conveniently fits into the Carbon trade agenda.

Edited by rwac, 20 December 2010 - 09:44 PM.

  • like x 1

#12 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:43 PM

I'm not going to address the minutiae of you post above, but I will note that in past epochs when CO2 levels were over twice as high as currently, the predominant shelly micro-organisms shown in the fossil record were silicacious rather than calciferous. The lower depths of the ocean below a few hundred feet were by and large hypoxic. It was a different ecology and biota than what our ecosystem has evolved with.
  • like x 2

#13 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:36 PM

I'm not going to address the minutiae of you post above.


Indeed, you may be right about the siliceous organisms, but that doesn't change the broader argument.
The climate scientists were doing some fairly complicated statistical analysis, without adequate background.

I realize it's next to impossible to change someone's mind on this issue.
You have to do it yourself, it's a matter of recognizing bad science.
  • like x 1

#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:36 PM

Since statistics and statisticians have been brought up, let me offer a few comments. Many, if not most areas of science use statistics as a tool, just as they use other branches of mathematics. Just as one doesn't need to major in "algebra" in order to use it, one doesn't need to major in statistics in order to use it as a tool. I know a number of scientists whose knowledge of the finer points of advanced statistics vastly exceeded that of some statisticians that I've known. A perhaps bigger problem involves the importance of domain knowledge. Without domain knowledge, a statistician is very likely to misuse the data and draw unwarranted conclusions.

As long as I'm here, to return to the initial thrust of this thread, the OP betrays his ignorance of the science of climate with yet another cold weather post. Where was he during this summer's dry and blinding heatwave? Weather isn't climate. However, unsettled weather is a characteristic of climate change, I've heard it said.

Life on Earth lives in ecosystems, and they are complex. A shift in average temperature of a degree, or a change in precipitation can be the difference that allows an insect to overwinter or to move into a new biome. We can see results like entire species of trees being wiped out of a region, with massive effects on all parts of the ecological web that depended on them. That's the sort of difference we can expect to see from relatively small temperature changes. Sure, we will arrive at a 'new normal'; a new ecosystem will emerge. It might take a very long time to arrive at that new balance, and it may or may not be as nice as the present one.
  • like x 1

#15 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 December 2010 - 12:31 AM

I'm not going to address the minutiae of you post above.


Indeed, you may be right about the siliceous organisms, but that doesn't change the broader argument.
The climate scientists were doing some fairly complicated statistical analysis, without adequate background.

I realize it's next to impossible to change someone's mind on this issue.
You have to do it yourself, it's a matter of recognizing bad science.


The statistical methods climate scientists have used have been vindicated, and as niner said, without domain knowledge statisticians are liable to misuse statistical analysis. It's not a matter of recognizing bad science, it is a matter or recognizing the pseudo-science and shibboleths used to deny what should be obvious. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am Oz!) Here's a statistic for you: over 97% of bona fide scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as fact. The only thing in dispute is the exact details.

Many of the same people who were involved int he tobacco funded denial of the health effects of cigarettes are now engaged in the effort to deny global warming. The methods they are using are painfully familiar.

#16 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 01:32 AM

Since statistics and statisticians have been brought up, let me offer a few comments. Many, if not most areas of science use statistics as a tool, just as they use other branches of mathematics. Just as one doesn't need to major in "algebra" in order to use it, one doesn't need to major in statistics in order to use it as a tool. I know a number of scientists whose knowledge of the finer points of advanced statistics vastly exceeded that of some statisticians that I've known. A perhaps bigger problem involves the importance of domain knowledge. Without domain knowledge, a statistician is very likely to misuse the data and draw unwarranted conclusions.

They are not experts in the field. So you might want to listen to some criticisms of people who do know statistics.
Like McIntyre and the Wegman report above.

Life on Earth lives in ecosystems, and they are complex. A shift in average temperature of a degree, or a change in precipitation can be the difference that allows an insect to overwinter or to move into a new biome. We can see results like entire species of trees being wiped out of a region, with massive effects on all parts of the ecological web that depended on them. That's the sort of difference we can expect to see from relatively small temperature changes. Sure, we will arrive at a 'new normal'; a new ecosystem will emerge. It might take a very long time to arrive at that new balance, and it may or may not be as nice as the present one.


This sort of thing is directly a result of everyone and their dog tying their research to AGW to get funding.
Just plain old scaremongering. Not even the climate scientists agree on how much warming will take place.
The simulations just aren't good enough.

#17 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:01 AM

The statistical methods climate scientists have used have been vindicated,

This is just plain wrong. A lot of the data processing techniques have been invalidated, but nobody will admit that.
The handling of data from the surface stations is one example.

and as niner said, without domain knowledge statisticians are liable to misuse statistical analysis. It's not a matter of recognizing bad science, it is a matter or recognizing the pseudo-science and shibboleths used to deny what should be obvious. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am Oz!) Here's a statistic for you: over 97% of bona fide scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as fact. The only thing in dispute is the exact details.


Ah, but on which side is the pseudo-science ?
Science is not a popularity contest. The majority has been wrong a few times in history.

#18 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:56 AM

Life on Earth lives in ecosystems, and they are complex. A shift in average temperature of a degree, or a change in precipitation can be the difference that allows an insect to overwinter or to move into a new biome. We can see results like entire species of trees being wiped out of a region, with massive effects on all parts of the ecological web that depended on them. That's the sort of difference we can expect to see from relatively small temperature changes. Sure, we will arrive at a 'new normal'; a new ecosystem will emerge. It might take a very long time to arrive at that new balance, and it may or may not be as nice as the present one.

This sort of thing is directly a result of everyone and their dog tying their research to AGW to get funding.
Just plain old scaremongering. Not even the climate scientists agree on how much warming will take place.
The simulations just aren't good enough.

I was actually thinking about the warming that's already happened. Spring has been coming earlier in the mid latitudes, and ecosystems are changing before our eyes. California used to have a lot of Coast Live Oaks; now it has a lot of dead oaks. (drought, mainly) There have been a lot of other tree die-offs in various parts of the country, mostly insect-caused. The usual culprits are non-native, but there have been some range expansions as well. We don't know how much warming will ultimately take place; my only point is that it doesn't take much warming to make a mess of things. Ecosystems will eventually rebalance, but if it takes a couple centuries, that might be a large price to pay.

I'm kind of taken aback by the degree to which people think academic scientists are "in it for the money". You're making them sound like a bunch of low-life hoodlums who will lie, cheat, or do whatever it takes to accumulate money and power. Having been a part of that world, I can tell you that they aren't like that. Most of them are financially secure and comfortable, though few would be considered "wealthy". They are more motivated by recognition from their peers than by money; that recognition would become toxic if they were found to be wrong about something very important. This drives them to try to get things right.

On the other hand... The people who desperately want to maintain the status quo in fossil fuel usage have a very clear financial stake, and generally speaking, the energy industry is very motivated by money, particularly the loss thereof.

I'll look into McIntyre & Wegman.
  • like x 1

#19 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:32 AM

I was actually thinking about the warming that's already happened. Spring has been coming earlier in the mid latitudes, and ecosystems are changing before our eyes. California used to have a lot of Coast Live Oaks; now it has a lot of dead oaks. (drought, mainly) There have been a lot of other tree die-offs in various parts of the country, mostly insect-caused. The usual culprits are non-native, but there have been some range expansions as well. We don't know how much warming will ultimately take place; my only point is that it doesn't take much warming to make a mess of things. Ecosystems will eventually rebalance, but if it takes a couple centuries, that might be a large price to pay.

Well, how would you conclusively connect that warming with increased CO2 without bringing in simulations of questionable accuracy ?
Note that the simulations are not based on a physical model of climate, they're based more on curve fitting with a lot of parameters.
The urban heat island issue has not been compensated for correctly either.

I'm kind of taken aback by the degree to which people think academic scientists are "in it for the money". You're making them sound like a bunch of low-life hoodlums who will lie, cheat, or do whatever it takes to accumulate money and power. Having been a part of that world, I can tell you that they aren't like that. Most of them are financially secure and comfortable, though few would be considered "wealthy". They are more motivated by recognition from their peers than by money; that recognition would become toxic if they were found to be wrong about something very important. This drives them to try to get things right.

I was also in grad school. Once in a while it happens that papers get rejected simply because an eminent reviewer disagrees with the conclusions.
Note that this was in engineering, where things should be fairly clear.

I imagine it's worse in other fields, and if you disagree with the leading researchers in your field, it ends up being hard to get anything published. This has been going on since Semmelweis.

This is a very human response. Most people are not open to accepting that their pet theory is broken, especially if it has brought them to the forefront. Someone who attacks their theory must have an agenda of some sort. From there, it's a short hop to rejecting all their research, especially in a tight knit community like climate research.

On the other hand... The people who desperately want to maintain the status quo in fossil fuel usage have a very clear financial stake, and generally speaking, the energy industry is very motivated by money, particularly the loss thereof.

I'll look into McIntyre & Wegman.


As I said before, most of the world has a clear financial stake in maintaining the status quo, since there is no good replacement technology, and a reduction in carbon emissions will almost certainly involve a reduction in standard of living.

Companies like GE and many more have a clear stake in getting subsidies for and promoting certain "green" technologies, and yes they are also motivated by money. Does that count too ?

#20 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:36 AM

I'll look into McIntyre & Wegman.

OK, I did. Wow. They seem a little obsessive. The extensive social network analysis was creepy. They really sound like they have an axe to grind. As to their point about Mann's supposedly flawed Eigenanalysis, let's say for the moment that they are correct and that the "hockey stick paper" is fatally flawed. Does the entire edifice of AGW come crashing down? My sense is that it doesn't. I was really unimpressed by their claims that the independent validations are ALL invalid because they "aren't really independent". The analysis of different climate proxies that were used in different validations if anything painted the opposite picture. I imagine this diatribe has been refuted extensively.

#21 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:50 AM

As I said before, most of the world has a clear financial stake in maintaining the status quo, since there is no good replacement technology, and a reduction in carbon emissions will almost certainly involve a reduction in standard of living.

I'm not sure that we all have that much of a stake in the status quo. The status quo can be pretty brutal for those of us that don't own oil wells or shares therein, or for those of us that have to breath without benefit of filtration. You have a very good point, though, that we shouldn't tumble headlong into a ruinously expensive scheme the benefit of which is not yet known to high accuracy. I would argue for a middle road, in which we do what is affordable today, and accelerate research into better alternatives. I would propose paying for such research with the money saved by removing subsidies from century-old hydrocarbon businesses and other abominations like corn ethanol. (Another $8B recently. Sigh...) I think that we should separate the policy prescriptions from the science. We shouldn't deny the science because the worst-case policy is horrible; we should instead steer the policy in a more sensible direction.

#22 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 04:31 AM

OK, I did. Wow. They seem a little obsessive. The extensive social network analysis was creepy. They really sound like they have an axe to grind. As to their point about Mann's supposedly flawed Eigenanalysis, let's say for the moment that they are correct and that the "hockey stick paper" is fatally flawed. Does the entire edifice of AGW come crashing down? My sense is that it doesn't. I was really unimpressed by their claims that the independent validations are ALL invalid because they "aren't really independent". The analysis of different climate proxies that were used in different validations if anything painted the opposite picture. I imagine this diatribe has been refuted extensively.


The problem is that a lot of a so called temperature proxies aren't really very good.
Remember "Hide The Decline" ? Some trees were chosen that match the temp record, except after 1980. From that point, the real measured temperature was used as a continuation of the proxy data. So the question becomes how can we rely on the proxy to measure temperature before 1850, when it's not valid at certain times.

From this point on, my view of the whole thing gets fuzzy, because a lot of it is technical.
On the surface, it looks like there's a lot of independent validation, but it's all flawed in one way or another.

I do believe that McIntyre has pointed out a lot of flaws in various papers, Atleast that's the impression I get.
And the behavior of the CRU deliberately blocking the release of data, does not help them.

After being accused of impropriety, the CRU circling the wagons against the skeptics seem to give the appearance of guilt.
  • like x 1

#23 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 December 2010 - 05:03 AM

I'll look into McIntyre & Wegman.

OK, I did. Wow. They seem a little obsessive. The extensive social network analysis was creepy. They really sound like they have an axe to grind. As to their point about Mann's supposedly flawed Eigenanalysis, let's say for the moment that they are correct and that the "hockey stick paper" is fatally flawed. Does the entire edifice of AGW come crashing down? My sense is that it doesn't. I was really unimpressed by their claims that the independent validations are ALL invalid because they "aren't really independent". The analysis of different climate proxies that were used in different validations if anything painted the opposite picture. I imagine this diatribe has been refuted extensively.

There was a thorough review of it and other such topics in Nature.

http://www.nature.co...gate/index.html

#24 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 05:16 AM

I'm not sure that we all have that much of a stake in the status quo. The status quo can be pretty brutal for those of us that don't own oil wells or shares therein, or for those of us that have to breath without benefit of filtration.

Actually, the status quo is supported by cheap gas. What do you think would happen if the price of gas doubled overnight.
You'd probably be fine, but a lot of poor people would be paying more for food due to higher transportation charges, for instance.

Currently, green technologies cost more than hydrocarbon driven technologies, as well as being more restrictive (See the limited range and higher cost of electric vehicles). This would reduce the utility of the vehicles themselves. Indeed *someone* will have to pay for the increased cost, be it the end user, the taxpayer, or the saver (via inflation).

As for the pollution, people all over the world are migrating into the cities, be it LA, Beijing or Bangalore. They clearly consider the downsides (pollution, traffic) to be worth the upside (increased access to jobs, medical care, etc). In any case, our best bet to reduce pollution is increased economic development. It's not a coincidence that the west has become cleaner as it has become wealthier. We can afford to care more ...

You have a very good point, though, that we shouldn't tumble headlong into a ruinously expensive scheme the benefit of which is not yet known to high accuracy. I would argue for a middle road, in which we do what is affordable today, and accelerate research into better alternatives. I would propose paying for such research with the money saved by removing subsidies from century-old hydrocarbon businesses and other abominations like corn ethanol. (Another $8B recently. Sigh...) I think that we should separate the policy prescriptions from the science. We shouldn't deny the science because the worst-case policy is horrible; we should instead steer the policy in a more sensible direction.


There's a fundamental difference between hc subsidies (which are tax breaks, liability limits) and ethanol subsidies (which are corn price supports and others).
I believe price supports are far more damaging overall. But yes, both are bad.

We should look at the science and policy in terms of decision theory.

The policy needed to handle the worst-case scenario will be harsh, and we must demand the appropriate level of evidence from the science.
On the other hand, a weaker policy may be of dubious benefit, since it won't be sufficient to handle the worst-case scenario, as well as leaving us poorer and thus less able to handle the worst-case in the future.

Also, you're dismissing the possibility of other ways to cool the earth created by ingenious people.
  • like x 1

#25 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:28 AM


Let me clarify my previous answer. I'm not entirely against research subsidies for green technologies.
The problem however is that it's looking more like those subsidies will continue indefinitely.

#26 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 12:28 PM

Regarding domain knowledge, data and statistics.
  • Statistics can only be used to derive correlation and is unable to provide insight into any causative aspects of these relationships.
  • For determination of causative relationships domain knowledge is required, which we still have in insufficient quality and quantity.
  • We only have detailed data from the recent past and the data that is needed to derive any long term fluctuations are like our domain knowledge of insufficient quantity and quality.
We are on to something, but we simply do not know what it is we are on to. It might be effects of human activity or just normal fluctuation in natural processes that we become aware of. Egocentric behaviour and thinking have always been humanities favourable game; we do come aware of something so that means it must just have been started. Duh...

What would be a reasonable way to handle the debate around AGW?
  • There is sufficient data of a relative short period to suggest that there are changes in our climate that could be called drastic. But we do not know if it is induced by humanity or not. Maybe we missed a sunspot or two?
  • We are using up our mineral reserves very quickly, so we need to find alternative energy resources to develop ourselves and to enable the so called third world to develop as well.
  • Our economy needs a quality boost. Investing in empty space that exists between bricks has been proven to be very sub-optimal. Our economy should be based on sound science and technology in stead of empty bubbles. I'm almost inclined to shout "power to the nerds" at this point. :laugh:
Apart from the climate change issue we need to develop new and green technologies to keep up our standard of living for so may additional reasons.

What some politicians and scientists sell to the "general public" as "global warming" is in fact so much more than that. After the decline of the cold war we need something to fight for without fighting against.

So yes, it is a subject that has been highly politicized, but are you really supprised about that? ;o)

#27 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:25 PM

over 97% of bona fide scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as fact. The only thing in dispute is the exact details.


I bet 97% of doctors recognize the lipid hypothesis as being correct.
  • like x 1

#28 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:52 PM

over 97% of bona fide scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as fact. The only thing in dispute is the exact details.


I bet 97% of doctors recognize the lipid hypothesis as being correct.

Global warming = heart failure = effect.
In dispute are the causing factors = the lipid profile causing heart-failure hypothesis = CO2 causing climate instability hypothesis.

And then there's the chain of causes / effects. Is eating saturated fats the cause of unhealthy lipid profile effect?

The details are complicated. We do not understand them and while we are figuring them out impatience becomes the ruling factor.

#29 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:46 PM

over 97% of bona fide scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as fact. The only thing in dispute is the exact details.


I bet 97% of doctors recognize the lipid hypothesis as being correct.

Global warming = heart failure = effect.
In dispute are the causing factors = the lipid profile causing heart-failure hypothesis = CO2 causing climate instability hypothesis.

And then there's the chain of causes / effects. Is eating saturated fats the cause of unhealthy lipid profile effect?

The details are complicated. We do not understand them and while we are figuring them out impatience becomes the ruling factor.


In the case of global warming, even the warming itself is in question. To use your analogy, we're not even sure people are having heart attacks more often than before.

Of course AGW advocates will say that this question has already been solved, but that's because they're fools and cowards, not because the data says so. It would be idiotic to say that we can be 100% sure the climate is changing in an unprecedented way -- just look at the graphs showing millions of years of climate change.
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:55 PM

  • There is sufficient data of a relative short period to suggest that there are changes in our climate that could be called drastic. But we do not know if it is induced by humanity or not. Maybe we missed a sunspot or two?
  • We are using up our mineral reserves very quickly, so we need to find alternative energy resources to develop ourselves and to enable the so called third world to develop as well.
  • Our economy needs a quality boost. Investing in empty space that exists between bricks has been proven to be very sub-optimal. Our economy should be based on sound science and technology in stead of empty bubbles. I'm almost inclined to shout "power to the nerds" at this point. :laugh:
Apart from the climate change issue we need to develop new and green technologies to keep up our standard of living for so may additional reasons.

What some politicians and scientists sell to the "general public" as "global warming" is in fact so much more than that. After the decline of the cold war we need something to fight for without fighting against.


That's another problem. Due to data quality issues there's some doubt about whether those changes are drastic, or even real.
For instance the temperature sensors in the US have issues with the Urban Heat Island effect. For instance:
Attached File  Marysville_issues1.JPG   94.65KB   4 downloads

We're not as close to running out of resources as you seem to think.

Not sure what you mean by a quality boost. You do realize that the surest way to create a bubble is to attempt to subsidize certain areas of the economy ?

We need new technologies, yes. Will they be green, nobody knows. Will green technology actually be as flexible as HC tech, maybe but it's not there yet.

Well, then those politicians need to sell it on it's merits.
We all need to fight for more freedom, not more global regulations.
  • like x 1




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users